The opinion
J-S30026-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT DANIEL CLAUDIO :
:
Appellant : No. 2003 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 1, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-48-CR-0003071-2023
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 11, 2025
Robert Daniel Claudio (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered following his conviction by a jury of obstructing justice and
resisting arrest; and by the trial court of criminal mischief, restriction on
alcoholic beverages, and dogs running at large. 1 We affirm.
Relevant to this appeal, on September 16, 2023, at 10:50 p.m., Palmer
Township Police Patrol Officer Michelle Pagan (Officer Pagan) observed a
“brown-in-color pit bull running by itself[,]” in a local Midas parking lot. N.T.,
4/30/24, at 30-31. Officer Pagan also observed a brown van parked in the
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5101, 5204, 3304(a)(5); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3809(a); Palmer
Township Local Ordinance 67.
J-S30026-25
parking lot, with its rear passenger door open. Id. at 31. Officer Pagan
radioed for assistance.
Palmer Township Police Officer Todd Lohman (Officer Lohman) and his
partner arrived at the scene. Id. at 88. According to Officer Lohman, he was
informed that Officer Pagan could not awaken Appellant, who was asleep
inside the brown van. Id. When Officer Lohman approached the vehicle, he
observed Appellant awake and speaking with another officer. Id. at 89.
According to Officer Lohman, Appellant was “very defiant, very reluctant.” Id.
at 90. Officer Lohman testified that after seeing an empty alcoholic beverage
container inside of the van, the officers requested that Appellant exit the
vehicle. Id. at 90, 96. Appellant refused. See id. at 101. According to
Officer Lohman, it took approximately six officers to forcibly remove Appellant
from the vehicle. Id. Officer Lohman indicated that one officer suffered a
head wound during the scuffle. Id. at 102. The Commonwealth subsequently
charged Appellant with, inter alia, the above-listed offenses.
Appellant, appearing pro se, proceeded to a jury trial. The jury
ultimately convicted Appellant of the above-described criminal charges; the
trial court convicted Appellant of the above-described summary offenses. On
May 7, 2024, Appellant filed a pro se pre-sentence motion to set aside the
verdict, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions. Motion to Set Aside Verdict, 5/7/24. The trial court conducted a
hearing on Appellant’s motion on July 1, 2024, immediately preceding
-2-
J-S30026-25
Appellant’s sentencing hearing, after which the court denied Appellant’s
motion. N.T., 7/1/24, at 8-12.
The trial court proceeded with the sentencing hearing. With the benefit
of a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI), the trial court sentenced
Appellant to a jail term of time served (9½ months) to 23 months minus two
days for his conviction of obstruction. The trial court imposed a consecutive
12-month term of probation for Appellant’s conviction of resisting arrest. The
trial court imposed no further penalties for Appellant’s remaining convictions.
Appellant filed no post-sentence motions.
Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal. The trial court
subsequently appointed counsel for Appellant, who filed a court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement on Appellant’s behalf and represents
Appellant in this appeal.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erroneously denied Appellant’s motion
to dismiss for lack of sufficiency of the evidence?
2. Whether the [trial] court erred in denying Appellant’s pro se
petition to set aside the verdict? 2
3. Whether the trial court erred in imposing sentence?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (footnote added; capitalization modified).
____________________________________________
2 Our review discloses Appellant filed only one post-verdict motion. That
motion challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying Appellant’s
convictions. Motion to Set Aside Verdict, 5/7/24.
-3-
J-S30026-25
Appellant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the
verdicts. Id. at 6. Appellant claims that the officer’s body-camera video of
his arrest, shown to the jury at trial, shows “he was sleeping in his vehicle.
There was no evidence that [] Appellant was a danger or a threat to the
public.” Id. In support, Appellant presents the following argument, in total:
The police acted in such a way as to exacerbate the circumstances
related to the arrest by showing unnecessary force.
In the arrest[,] this force initiated your Appellant to react to
protect himself. Therefore, the relevant evidence was not
adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion that Appellant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Stahl, 175 A.3d 301, 304-05 (Pa. Super.
2017) ….
Appellant’s Brief at 6-7 (citation in original). Appellant provides no citations
to the record or discussion of applicable legal authorities to support his claim.
Upon review, we conclude that Appellant failed to preserve this issue in
his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. In his concise statement, Appellant
presented the following allegations of error:
1. Whether the court erroneously denied [Appellant’s] motion to
dismiss for lack of sufficiency of the evidence?
2. Whether the court erred in denying [Appellant’s] pro se motion
to set aside the verdict?
3. Whether the court erred in imposing sentence?
Concise Statement, 10/12/24 (capitalization modified).
This Court has explained that, “[i]n order to preserve a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement
-4-
J-S30026-25
must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant
alleges that the evidence was insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Garland, 63
A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Instantly, Appellant’s concise statement is woefully deficient. Appellant
failed to identify the convictions he challenges or the elements purportedly
not established by the Commonwealth. See id. For this reason, we conclude
Appellant waived his first issue. See id.
Even if Appellant had preserved his sufficiency challenge in his concise
statement, we would conclude our review is precluded due to his deficient
appellate brief.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
an appellate court should determine whether the evidence
admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom,
when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
the verdict winner, was sufficient to allow the fact finder to
conclude that the Commonwealth established the challenged
criminal element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 283 A.3d 196, 205 n.3 (Pa. 2023). “[T]he
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proof by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence[.]” Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503,
514 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted). Further, “[t]his Court may not substitute
its judgment for that of the factfinder. If the record contains support for the
verdict, it may not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. McFarland, 278 A.3d
369, 381 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quotation omitted).
-5-
J-S30026-25
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 governs the content of
the argument section of an appellate brief, and provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many
parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the
head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively
displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed
pertinent.
….
(c) Reference to record. If reference is made to the pleadings,
evidence, charge, opinion or order, or any other matter appearing
in the record, the argument must set forth, in immediate
connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a reference to the
place in the record where the matter referred to appears (see
Pa.R.A.P. 2132).
(d) Synopsis of evidence. When the finding of, or the
refusal to find, a fact is argued, the argument must contain
a synopsis of all the evidence on the point, with a reference
to the place in the record where the evidence may be found.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (c)-(d) (emphasis added).
The argument section of Appellant’s brief fails to identify the
crime/statutory section(s) at issue, and the elements of the crimes
purportedly unproven by the Commonwealth. See Appellant’s Brief at 6-7.
Appellant fails to include any citations to the record to support his argument. 3
We decline to create an argument for Appellant, or scour the record for
____________________________________________
3 As stated above, Appellant’s deficient Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement
provides no assistance in ascertaining Appellant’s argument.
-6-
J-S30026-25
support for Appellant’s argument. For this reason as well, we conclude
Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is waived.
In his second issue, Appellant challenges the verdicts as against the
weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 7. Appellant’s argument, in total,
is comprised of the following paragraphs:
It is appropriate for the trial court to determine if the evidence
presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict.
Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2019).
Here, the record is not clear with regard to what facts support the
jury verdict. Therefore the verdict should be set aside. See also
Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015).
And [the verdict] was so contrary to the evidence as to shock
one’s sense of justice. Commonwealth v. Morales, 91 A.2d Pa.
2014).
Here, the verdict should be set aside and a new trial ordered.
Appellant’s Brief at 7 (capitalization and citation format modified).
Initially, we observe that
[a] weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a
post-sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or
orally prior to sentencing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v.
Priest, 18 A.3d 1235, 1239 (Pa. Super. 2011). Failure to properly
preserve the claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court
addresses the issue in its opinion. Commonwealth v.
Sherwood[], … 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009).
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2012)).
It is established that
[i]ssue preservation is foundational to proper appellate review. By
requiring that an issue be considered waived if raised for the first
-7-
J-S30026-25
time on appeal, our courts ensure that the trial court that initially
hears a dispute has had an opportunity to consider the issue. This
jurisprudential mandate is also grounded upon the principle that
a trial court must be given the opportunity to correct its errors as
early as possible. Related thereto, we have explained in detail the
importance of this preservation requirement[,] as it advances the
orderly and efficient use of our judicial resources. Finally,
concepts of fairness and expense to the parties are implicated as
well.
Commonwealth v. Miller, 80 A.3d 806, 811 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and
ellipses omitted).
Our review of the record discloses that Appellant filed a pre-sentence
motion challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence. Motion to Set Aside
Verdict, 5/7/24. On July 1, 2024, after oral argument, the trial court denied
the motion. N.T., 7/1/24, at 7-11; Appellant filed no post-sentence motion
challenging the verdicts as against the weight of the evidence. Under these
circumstances, we conclude Appellant waived this issue. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)
(stating an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); Pa.R.Crim.P.
607 (stating “[a] claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial[.]”).
Even if Appellant had preserved his weight claim in a post-sentence
motion, we would conclude that his claim is waived based upon the deficient
argument in his brief. See Appellant’s Brief at 7. In his brief, Appellant
presents only a boilerplate challenge to all verdicts, without citations to the
record or any discussion of relevant authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (d).
-8-
J-S30026-25
For this reason as well, we conclude Appellant waived his challenge to the
verdicts as against the weight of the evidence.
Finally, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence,
from which there is no automatic right to appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9781(b).4 Rather, an appellant challenging the sentencing court’s discretion
must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by
(1) filing a timely notice of appeal; (2) properly preserving the
issue at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (3) complying
with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a separate section of the
brief setting forth a concise statement of the reasons relied upon
for allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of a sentence;
and (4) presenting a substantial question that the sentence
appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
Pa.C.S. § 9781(b), or sentencing norms.
Commonwealth v. Schroat, 272 A.3d 523, 526-27 (Pa. Super. 2022).
Instantly, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. However, Appellant
did not file a post-sentence motion preserving a discretionary sentencing
claim. For this reason, we conclude Appellant failed to preserve this issue for
____________________________________________
4 Section 9781(b) provides that
[t]he defendant or the Commonwealth may file a petition for
allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of a sentence for
a felony or a misdemeanor to the appellate court that has initial
jurisdiction for such appeals. Allowance of appeal may be granted
at the discretion of the appellate court where it appears that there
is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not
appropriate under this chapter.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
-9-
J-S30026-25
appellate review.5 See id.; see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that an issue
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). We therefore affirm Appellant’s
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 9/11/2025
____________________________________________
5 We note that even if Appellant had preserved this issue, and presented a
substantial question, he would not be entitled to relief. Where a sentencing
court has the benefit of a PSI report, this Court presumes that “the sentencing
judge was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character
and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.”
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 593 (Pa. Super. 2022).
Additionally, “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines,
Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing
Code.” Commonwealth v. Verma, 334 A.3d 941, 947 (Pa. Super. 2025).
Here, the sentencing court had the benefit of a PSI and imposed a
sentence within the standard guideline ranges. Accordingly, we presume that
the court considered all relevant mitigating factors and imposed a reasonable
sentence. For this reason, Appellant’s claim, if preserved, would lack merit.
- 10 -