Opinion

Com. v. Woodall, J.

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed: Jan 22, 2026
Status: Unpublished
Author: Nichols
On the bench: Nichols
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 38.3%

explaining that appellate courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte

How later courts described this case

explaining that appellate courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

J-S29013-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

JASON MICHAEL WOODALL :

Appellant : No. 876 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-63-CR-0000746-2023

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: January 22, 2026

Appellant Jason Michael Woodall appeals pro se from the judgment of

sentence imposed following his convictions for delivery a controlled substance

(cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 Appellant

raises numerous claims on appeal, including violations of the compulsory

joinder rule, improper venue, violation of his speedy trial rights, the instant

charges were barred by the statute of limitations, Brady2 violations, and

prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.

The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known

to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 1-4; Trial Ct. Op. & Order,

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (16), respectively.

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

J-S29013-25

1/26/24, at 4-8, 10, 12.3 Briefly, on March 2, 2021, a criminal complaint was

filed charging Appellant with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance

(cocaine) and six counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), in

connection with six narcotics transactions with one or more confidential

informants (CI). Appellant was arrested on April 14, 2023. Appellant filed a

counseled omnibus pretrial motion seeking to dismiss this matter based on

violations of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, as well as raising claims

that the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County was the improper

venue and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied this

motion. Subsequently, after a hearing, the trial court granted Appellant’s

counsel leave to withdraw and allowed Appellant to proceed pro se. Appellant

filed several pro se pre-trial motions, which the trial court denied. Following

a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of all charges on April 11, 2024.

On July 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration. On July 22, 2024, Appellant

simultaneously filed a post-sentence motion (captioned as “sentence

manipulation/entrapment modification motion”), a notice of appeal, and a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence

____________________________________________

3 The Honorable Jesse Pettit, who presided over Appellant’s trial and

sentencing hearing, wrote the September 18, 2024 Rule 1925(a) opinion, as

well as the March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum

and order. The Honorable Valerie Costanzo, who presided over the hearings

on Appellant’s counseled motion for bail and counseled omnibus pretrial

motion, wrote the January 26, 2024 opinion and order.

-2-

J-S29013-25

motion on September 17, 2024.4

The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s issues

and adopting the analysis set forth in the trial court’s January 26, 2024 opinion

and order, March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum

and order.5

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we restate

verbatim:

1. Warrantless GPS usage.

2. Fabricated fraudulent evidence control logs.

3. Unconstitutional venue change lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

4. Double jeopardy clause pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 110.

5. Rule 600 lack of due diligence.

6. Rule 600, 180 days of pretrial confinement.

7. Hearsay testimony during preliminary hearing.

8. Invalid affidavit & arrest warrant.

9. Invalid arrest warrant.

10. Stale charges.

____________________________________________

4 Appellant’s notice of appeal was premature because he filed it simultaneously

with his post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 219

A.3d 1207, 1210 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2);

Pa.R.A.P. 108(d)(1), 903(c)(3). However, because the trial court

subsequently denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, we will treat

Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely. See Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1210

n.5.

5 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.

-3-

J-S29013-25

11. Prosecutorial misconduct.

12. Unconstitutionally denied bail.

13. Compel confidential informant.

14. Suggestive single photo identification procedure.

15. Ineffective assistant of pretrial counsel.

Appellant’s Brief at 2, 18, 35, 43, 47, 59, 68, 71, 75, 77, 81, 89, 97, 100, 105

(unpaginated) (some formatting altered).6,7

Rule 1925(b) Waiver

Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must address

whether Appellant has preserved them for our review. See Commonwealth

v. Edmondson, 718 A.2d 751, 752 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate

courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte).

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded that Appellant

waived his claims for review because Appellant “has failed to follow the

requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, as set forth in Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(iv)[.]” Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5. Further, the trial court

____________________________________________

6 We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions

presented as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P.

2111(a)(4), 2116. We derive these issues from the headings in Appellant’s

brief. Further, Appellant’s brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement

of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the

case, a summary of argument, and a statement of compliance with the word

count limit of Pa.R.A.P. 2135. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (3), (5), (6), (12);

2135(a), (d).

7 Additionally, Appellant’s brief contains a section captioned “Addendum”

which contains additional allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. See

Appellant’s Brief at 108-19.

-4-

J-S29013-25

explained that several of Appellant’s issues were too vague for the trial court

to address. See id. at 40 (explaining that Appellant’s claim that “he has a

‘standing objection’ to each side-bar ruling that was against his well-

established constitutional rights[]” was “waived for vagueness and lack of

development”); id. at 44 (stating that Appellant asserted in his Rule 1925(b)

statement that “the prosecutor at trial, engaged in ‘blatant and cumulative

prosecutorial misconducts’ throughout the case[,]” and that Appellant “fails to

cite to specific incidents to support his claim”).

“[T]he applicability of waiver principles . . . is a question of law, over

which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”

Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018) (citations

omitted).

Initially, we must determine whether Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)

statement complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is

well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be

deemed waived for appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii);

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).

This Court has held that when an appellant files a Rule 1925(b)

statement before the trial court orders one, “there is no need for the trial

court” to request one. Commonwealth v. Nobles, 941 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa.

Super. 2008). However, if the appellant fails to include a claim in a voluntarily

filed Rule 1925(b) statement, that claim is waived on appeal. See id. As the

Nobles Court reasoned, this Court will not encourage “‘sandbagging’ by

-5-

J-S29013-25

[appellants] if they are allowed to quickly file a Rule 1925(b) statement and

then claim that nothing is waived because the Rule 1925(b) statement was

not in response to a formal request.” Id.

Rule 1925(b) also provides that an appellant’s concise statement must

“concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with

sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(ii). As this Court has explained, Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial

component of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify

and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(citation omitted).

Further, a Rule 1925(b) statement should only identify the errors made

by the trial court; it should not be a lengthy narrative of facts, procedural

history, explanations, or arguments. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). “Our law

makes it clear that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied by filing any statement.

Rather, the statement must be ‘concise’ and coherent as to permit the trial

court to understand the specific issues being raised on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(citation omitted and some formatting altered). “The court’s review and legal

analysis can be fatally impaired when the court has to guess at the issues

raised.” Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011)

(citation omitted).

-6-

J-S29013-25

“If a [Rule] 1925(b) statement is too outrageous, we have dismissed

the appeal without addressing any of the issues raised.” Vurimindi, 200 A.3d

at 1038 (citation omitted). However, this Court has recognized that “not all

lengthy [Rule] 1925(b) statements require dismissal of the appeal.” Id. at

1039. In Vurimindi, this Court held that the pro se defendant waived all of

the issues he attempted to raise by filing a fifty-three-page Rule 1925(b)

statement. See id. at 1040, 1043; see also Commonwealth v. Reynolds,

339 MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3 (Pa. Super. filed Dec. 8, 2025)

(unpublished mem.) (concluding that the defendant waived all of his issues

on appeal where the defendant’s thirty-page Rule 1925(b) statement was

“neither concise nor compliant with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)”).8

It is well-established that

pro se status does not relieve [a litigant] of his duty to follow the

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this Court is willing to

liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status

confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary,

any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding

must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise

and legal training will be his undoing. Accordingly, pro se litigants

must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the

Pennsylvania Rules of Court; if there are considerable defects, we

will be unable to perform appellate review.

Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1037-38 (citations omitted and some formatting

altered).

____________________________________________

8 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating this Court may rely on unpublished decisions

of this Court filed after May 1, 2019, for their persuasive value).

-7-

J-S29013-25

Here, Appellant did not include his challenges to the validity of the arrest

warrant in his Rule 1925(b) statement; therefore, those issues are waived on

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Lord, 719 A.2d at 309; Nobles, 941

A.2d at 52.

Next, following our review, we agree with the trial court that Appellant’s

Rule 1925(b) statement does not comply with our Rules of Appellate

Procedure because Appellant failed to succinctly identify the issues he

intended to raise on appeal and several issues are too vague to identify . See

Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5, 40, 44; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). Specifically,

Appellant filed a twenty-six-page Rule 1925(b) statement which included

twenty-four issues with a lengthy recitation of purportedly inconsistent

testimony and often vague allegations of misconduct by the police and the

Washington County District Attorney’s Office. See Rule 1925(b) Statement,

7/22/24, at 1-26 (unpaginated). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that

Appellant has waived his claims on appeal.9 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv);

____________________________________________

9 In any event, even if Appellant properly preserved his issues for review, we

would affirm based on the trial court’s analysis of these claims with the

exception of the trial court’s references to non-precedential decisions of this

Court filed prior to May 1, 2019. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5-52; Trial Ct.

Mem. & Order, 4/1/24, at 1-6 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 3/14/24,

at 1-4 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2-19. Further, we

note that the trial court’s opinions contain some typographical errors. On

page 8 of the September 18, 2024 opinion, a citation should read “T.T., vol.

I, 137, line 9-20, 4/9/24.” See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 8. Further, on page

2 of the January 26, 2024 opinion and order; the citation should read

“Commonwealth v Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018).” See Trial Ct.

Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-8-

J-S29013-25

Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1038-40; Hansley, 24 A.3d at 415; Reynolds, 339

MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Application for post-submission

communication denied.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

DATE: 1/22/2026

____________________________________________

The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinions in the

event of further proceedings.

-9-

Circulated 12/23/2025 10:41 AM

Copies to:

to: District Attorney;

Attorney; Public

Public Defender;

Defender; Defendant;

Defendant; Superior

Superior t>ourt

uourt of PA

IN THE

IN THE COURT

COURT OF

OF COMMON

COMMON PLEAS

PLEAS OF

OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

PENNSYLVANIA, ))

)

Appellee,

Appellee, ))

)

vs.

vs. )) No.

No. 876

876 WDA

WDA 2024

2024

)

JASON

JASON MICHAEL

MICHAEL WOODALL,

WOODALL, ))

)

Appellant.

Appellant. ))

Appeal from the

Appeal from the Opinion

Opinion and Orders entered

and Orders entered on April 14,

on April 2023; June

14, 2023; June 22,

22, 2023; December 15,

2023; December 15,

2023; January

2023; 26, 2024;

January 26, 2024; March

March 14,

14, 2024;

2024; March

March 25,

25, 2024; April 1,

2024; April 2024; April

1, 2024; April 5,

5, 2024;

2024; May

May 16,

16,

2024; June

2024; June 21,

21, 2024;

2024; and

and July

July 8, 2024

8, 2024

In the

In the Court

Court of

of Common

Common Pleas

Pleas of

of Washington

Washington County

County

Criminal Division

Criminal Division at

at No:

No: CP-63-CR-000746-2023

CP-63-CR-000746-2023

RULE 1925(a)

RULE 1925{a) OPINION

OPINION

Before

Before the

the Court

Court is

is the

the Notice

Notice of

of Appeal

Appeal filed on behalf

filed on behalf of

of Defendant/Appellant

Defendant/Appellant Jason

Jason

Michael Woodall

Michael Woodall (hereinafter

(hereinafter “Defendant”)

"Defendant") in

in the

the above-captioned

above-captioned case

case at

at Criminal Division

Criminal Division

Docket No.

Docket 746-2023. This

No. 746-2023. opinion is

This opinion is written

written in

in support

support of

of the

the following

following Opinions

Opinions and

and Orders:

Orders:

April 14, 2023;

April 14, 2023; June

June 22,

22, 2023;

2023; December 15, 2023;

December 15, 2023; January 26, 2024;

January 26, 2024; March

March 14,

14, 2024;

2024; March

March

25, 2024; April

25, 2024; April 1, 2024; April

1, 2024; April 5,

5, 2024;

2024; May

May 16, 2024; June

16, 2024; June 21, 2024; July

21, 2024; 8, 2024

July 8, 1; and

2024'; and July 15,

July 15,

2024.

By way

By way of

of an

an amended

amended Bill

Bill of

of Information

Information filed

filed on

on December

December 20,

20, 2023,

2023, the

the

Commonwealth

Commonwealth charged

charged Defendant

Defendant with

with six

six counts

counts of

of Delivery

Delivery of

of aa Controlled

Controlled Substance,

Substance,

cocaine,

cocaine, 35

35 P.S.

P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30),

780-113(a)(30), an

an ungraded

ungraded Felony;

Felony; and

and six

six counts

counts of

of Possession

Possession of

of aa

Controlled

Controlled Substance,

Substance, cocaine,

cocaine, 35

35 P.S.

P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(l 6), ,an ungraded

780-113(a)16), ungraded Misdemeanor.

Misdemeanor.

M 7+557

1See

See Sentencing

Sentencing Hr’g

Hr'g Tr,

Tr, 7/5/2024.

7/5/2024.

Defendant

Defendant was

was initially

initially represented

represented by

by Attorney

Attorney Adam

Adam Yarussi

Yarussi (hereinafter

(hereinafter “Attorney

"Attorney

Yarussi”). Attorney Yarussi

Yarussi"). Attorney Yarussi filed

filed aa Motion to Set

Motion to Set Bail on May

Bail on 16, 2023

May 16, and aa hearing

2023 and hearing was

was set

set for

for

June 20, 2023.

June 20, 2023. An order

order denying

denying bail

bail was filed June

was filed June 22, 2023. Attorney

22, 2023. Attorney Yarussi

Yarussi then

then filed

filed an

Omnibus Pretrial

Omnibus Pretrial Motion on July

Motion on July 27,

27, 2023,

2023, which

which included

included aa Motion

Motion to

to Dismiss

Dismiss Pursuant

Pursuant to

to Rule

Rule

600; Motion

600; to Dismiss

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant

Pursuant to

to 18

18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 110; Motion to

110; Motion Pursuant to

Dismiss Pursuant

to Dismiss to 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S.

§§ 5552(a);

5552(a); Motion

Motion to

to Dismiss:

Dismiss: Improper

Improper Venue

Venue and

and Lack

Lack of

of Subject

Subject Matter

Matter Jurisdiction;

Jurisdiction; Motion

Motion

to Reveal

to Reveal Confidential

Confidential Informant

Informant Identity;

Identity; Motion

Motion to

to Set

Set Bail;

Bail; and

and Motion

Motion to

to Compel Discovery.

Compel Discovery.

See Defendant’s

See Defendant's Omnibus

Omnibus Pre-Trial

Pre-Trial Motion, 7/27/2023. An Omnibus

Motion, 7/27/2023. Omnibus Pretrial

Pretrial Hearing

Hearing was

was held

held

on October 13, 2023

October 13, 2023 and

and the

the Honorable

Honorable Valarie Costanzo filed

Valarie Costanzo filed an

an Opinion

Opinion and Order on

and Order on January

January

26, 2024?2 Defendant

26, 2024. Defendant filed

filed multiple

multiple pro se pleadings

prose pleadings during period of

this period

during this of time while still

time while being

still being

represented?3

represented.

The Commonwealth filed

The Commonwealth filed aa Motion

Motion to Amend Criminal

to Amend Criminal Information on December

Information on 20,

December 20,

2023. Attorney

2023. Attorney Yarussi

Yarussi consented

consented to

to the

the amendment of the

amendment of the criminal

criminal information,

information, and

and Judge

Judge

Valarie Costanzo signed

Valarie Costanzo signed the

the consent

consent order on December

order on December 15,

15, 2023.

2023. An

An Amended

Amended Information

Information was

was

filed

filed on

on December 20, 2023.

December 20, 2023. On

On February

February 14,

14, 2024,

2024, Attorney

Attorney Yarussi

Yarussi filed

filed aa Motion

Motion to

Withdraw as

Withdraw Counsel. 4 An

as Counsel. An Order granting Attorney Yarussi ’s request

Order grantingAttorneyYarussi's request to

to withdraw

withdraw was

was filed

filed on

February 22,

February 2024. Defendant

22, 2024. Defendant filed

filed aa pro

pro se

se “Motion to Request

"Motion to Request to

to Proceed

Proceed Pro

Pro se”

se" on

on February

February

23, 2024.

23, 2024. On

On March

March 5,

5, 2024,

2024, the

the Court

Court accepted

accepted Defendant’s

Defendant's waiver of counsel

waiver of counsel and

and appointed

appointed

stand-by

stand-by counsel

counsel in

in the

the event

event that termination of

that termination of his

his self-representation was necessary.

self-representation was necessary.

2On

On January 1, 2024,

2024, by

by way

way of

of Administrative

Administrative Order

Order byby Washington

Washington County

County President

President Judge

Judge John

John DiSalle

DiSalle dated

January 1, dated

November 29, 2023,

November 29, 2023, the undersigned was

the undersigned was assigned

assigned toto the Washington County

the Washington County Criminal Docket, which

Criminal Docket, which included

included the

the

above-captioned

above-captioned case.

case. Judge

Judge Valarie

Valarie Costanzo

Costanzo was

was reassigned

reassigned to to the

the Family

Family Court

Court and

and Juvenile

Juvenile Dependency

Dependency

Dockets.

3Defendant’s

Defendant's pro

pro se

se pleadings

pleadings were

were addressed

addressed by

by way

way ofof letter

letter addressed to Attorney

Attorney Yarussi

Yarussi explaining

explaining that

addressed to that

Defendant is not

Defendant is not entitled

entitled to

to hybrid

hybrid representation.

representation. See Commonwealth v.

See Commonwealth v. Ellis,

Ellis, 626

626 A.2d

A.2d 1137, 1139 (Pa.

1137, 1139 (Pa. 1993).

1993).

Another Motion

4Another Motion toto Withdraw

Withdraw asas Counsel

Counsel was

was filed February 15,

15, 2024.

2024. ItIt appears the only

only change

change was

was aa change

change in

filed February appears the in

the presentation

the presentation date.

date.

Defendant

Defendant requested

requested his pro se pleadings,

pleadings, which were

were filed

filed while he was

was represented

represented by counsel,

counsel,

to be reinstated.

reinstated. Defendant’s

Defendant's request

request was

was denied;

denied; however

however he was

was permitted to refile the

pleadings.

pleadings. See

See Court

Court Order,

Order, 3/5/2024.

3/5/2024.

Defendant

Defendant filed

filed several

several motions

motions prior to the commencement

commencement of the jury trial.

trial. Defendant

Defendant

filed a prose

se “Motion

"Motion Pursuant

Pursuant to Rule 600(B),

600(B), (D)(2)

(0)(2) and (E)”

(E)" on February 23,

23, 2024.

2024. A

hearing was

was scheduled for March 12,

12, 2024 for the limited purpose of

of determining whether

whether

Defendant

Defendant was

was entitled to immediate

immediate release on

on nominal

nominal bail

bail since Judge

Judge Costanzo’s

Costanzo 's January 26,

26,

2024 Opinion and

and Order

Order previously addressed

addressed the due

due diligence issue raised by Defendant

Defendant

regarding

regarding Rule

Rule 600.

600. Defendant’s

Defendant's motion

motion was

was denied

denied by

by way

way of

of Opinion

Opinion and

and Order

Order dated

dated March

March

14,

14, 2024.

2024.

Defendant

Defendant filed

filed an

an “Omnibus

"Omnibus Pretrial

Pretrial Motion

Motion Briefing”

Briefing" on

on March

March 7,

7, 2024.

2024. On

On March

March 25,

25,

2024,

2024, aa Memorandum

Memorandum and

and Order

Order was

was filed

filed denying

denying Defendant’s

Defendant's motion

motion in

in its

its entirety.

entirety.

Defendant

Defendant also

also filed

filed aa pro se “Motion(s)-In-Limine”

prose "Motion(s)-In-Limine" on

on March

March 7,

7, 2024.

2024. A

A separate

separate

Memorandum

Memorandum and

and Order

Order was

was filed

filed April

April 1,1, 2024,

2024, which

which denied

denied Defendant’s

Defendant's motion

motion in

in its

its

entirety.

entirety. Defendant

Defendant filed

filed another

another “Motion(s)

"Motion(s) In

In Limine”

Limine" on

on March

March 19,

19, 2024,

2024, which

which was

was denied

denied

by way

way of

ofCourt

Court Order

Order dated

datedApril

April 5,5, 2024.

2024.

After

After the

the completion

completion of

ofaa pretrial

pretrial conference

conference on

on March

March 27,

27, 2024,

2024, this

this case

case was

was scheduled

scheduled

for

for aajury

jury trial

trial during

during the

the April

April 2024

2024 trial

trial term.

term. Another

Another pretrial

pretrial proceeding

proceeding was

was held

held on

onApril

April 4,

2024

2024 to

to address

address last-minute

last-minute trial

trial issues.

issues. After

After pre-trial

pre-trial proceedings

proceedings and

andjury

jury selection

selection on

onApril

April 8,8,

2024,

2024, Defendant’s

Defendant'sjury

jury trial

trial took

took place

placeApril

April 9,9, 2024

2024 through

throughApril

April 11,

11, 2024.

2024. A

Ahearing

hearing was

was held

held

onApril

April 10,

10, 2024,

2024, outside

outside of

ofthe

the presence

presence of

ofthe

thejury,

jury, to

to address

address Defendant’s

Defendant's oral

oral motion

motion seeking

seeking

dismissal

dismissal of

ofcharges

charges relating

relating to

to the

the issue

issue of

ofaa GPS

GPS tracking

tracking device.

device. Defendant’s

Defendant's oral

oral motion

motion was

was

denied

denied atat the

the conclusion

conclusion of

ofthe

the hearing.

hearing. Pretrial

Pretrial Motion

Motion Hr’g

Hr'g Tr.,

Tr., 28,

28, 4/10/24.

4/10/24. Defendant

Defendantwas

was

found guilty

guilty on April

April 11, 2024 of six

six counts of delivery of a controlled substance,

substance, cocaine,

cocaine, and

six

six counts of possession

possession of a controlled substance,

substance, cocaine.

cocaine. See Verdict

Verdict Order,

Order, 4/12/24.

4/12/24.

Before Defendant’s

Defendant's sentencing,

sentencing, Defendant

Defendant filed

filed three motions

motions on April

April 25,

25, 2024:

2024:

“Deceleration

"Deceleration in

in Support

Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma

Forma Pauperis”,

Pauperis", “Motion

"Motion to Suppress

Suppress Nunc

Nunc

Pro Tunc”;

Tunc"; and “Motion

"Motion Requesting Transcripts

Transcripts and Exhibits

Exhibits Pursuant

Pursuant to Pa.

Pa. R.

R. J.

J. A.

A. 4007(E).”

4007(E)."

Defendant’s

Defendant's request

request to proceed

proceed in

in forma pauperis

pauperis was

was granted via

via a Court

Court Order

Order April

April 29,

29, 2024.

2024.

Defendant’s

Defendant's request

request for transcripts and

and exhibits

exhibits was

was granted on May

May 10,

10, 2024.

2024. Defendant

Defendant filed a

“Brief in Support

"Brief in Support of

of Motion

Motion to Suppress

Suppress Nunc

Nunc Pro Time”

Tune" on May

May 7,

7, 2024.

2024. Defendant’s

Defendant's motion

motion

was

was denied

denied as

as the

the issue

issue was

was previously

previously addressed

addressed and

and ruled on

on after

after an

an evidentiary

evidentiary hearing

hearing held

held

on April

April 10,

10, 2024.

2024. See

See Court

Court Order,

Order, 5/16/2024.

5/16/2024.

On June

June 14,

14, 2024,

2024, Defendant

Defendant filed

filed aa “Brady

"Brady Violations

Violations Motions

Motions to

to Dismiss.”

Dismiss." This

This

motion

motion was

was denied

denied by

by way

way of

of Order

Order entered

entered on

on June

June 21,

21, 2024.

2024. Defendant’s

Defendant's sentencing

sentencing hearing

hearing

was

was originally

originally scheduled

scheduled for

for July

July 8,

8, 2024;

2024; however,

however, the

the hearing

hearing was

was continued

continued for

for one

one (1)

(1) week

week

at the

the request

request of

ofthe

the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth. Defendant

Defendant was

was ultimately

ultimately sentenced,

sentenced, after

after aa hearing,

hearing, on

July

July 15,

15, 2024.

2024.

On July

July 22,

22, 2024,

2024, Defendant

Defendant filed

filed aa pro se Notice

prose Notice of

ofAppeal,

Appeal, “1925(b)

"1925(b) Concise

Concise Statements”,

Statements",

and

and aa “Direct

"Direct Appeal”

Appeal" pleading,

pleading, which

which appears

appears to

to be

be aa written

written brief

briefin

in support

support of

ofthe

the issues

issues set

set

forth in Defendant’s

forth in Defendant's Concise

Concise Statement.

Statement.5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a “Sentence

5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a "Sentence

Manipulation/Entrapment

Manipulation/Entrapment Modification

Modification Motion”

Motion" on

on July

July 22,

22, 2024.

2024.

• Defendant

5 Defendant argues

argues inin his

his “Direct

"Direct Appeal”

Appeal" brief

brief that

that transcripts

transcripts were

were withheld

withheld from

from him.

him. This

This Court

Court granted

granted

Defendant’s request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant’s filing of this appeal, the

Defendant's request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant's filing of this appeal, the

transcripts

transcriptsrelating

relatingtotothe

thejury

jurytrial

trialhad

hadnot

notbeen

beencompleted

completedby bythe

thecourt

courtreporter.

reporter. This

ThisCourt

Courtfiled

filedthe

theRequest

Requestfor forTrial

Trial

Transcript

Transcripton onMay

May 1,1,2024.

2024. Defendant

Defendantchose

chosetoto file

filehis

hisNotice

Notice of

ofAppeal,

Appeal, Concise

Concise Statement

Statementand

andDirect

DirectAppeal

Appealbrief

brief

on July

July 22,

22, 2024,

2024, which

which waswas seven

seven days

days after

after he

he was

was sentenced.

sentenced. This

This Court

Court reviewed,

reviewed, signed

signed and

and filed

filed the

the trial

trial

transcripts

transcripts immediately

immediatelyupon uponreceiving

receivingthe

thecompleted

completedtranscripts

transcripts from

fromthe

thecourt

courtreporter.

reporter.

Defendant

Defendant has

has failed

failed follow

follow the requirements,

requirements, relating to his Concise Statement,

Statement, as set

set forth

in Pa.R.A.P.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv),

1925(b)4)(iv), (“The

("The Statement

Statement should not

not be redundant

redundant or

or provide

provide lengthy

explanations

explanations as to any error.”)

error.") This

This Court

Court attempts

attempts to address

address each

each issue raised in Defendant’s

Defendant's

1925(b)

1925(b) Concise Statement,

Statement, in order,

order, which he

he is

is pursuing

pursuing on

on appeal,

appeal, below.

below.6

DISCUSSION

A. Untimely

Untimely Filing

Filing of

of the

the Instant

Instant Charges

Charges

1.1. Standard

Standard of

of Review

Review

A question

question regarding

regarding the

the application

application of

ofthe

the statute

statute of

oflimitations

limitations isis aa question

question of

oflaw.

law. See

See

Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Russell,

Russell, 938

938 A.2d

A.2d 1082,

1082, 1087

1087 (Pa.Super.2007).

(Pa.Super.2007). “Where

"Where the

the petitioner

petitioner raises

raises

questions

questions of law, our

oflaw, our standard

standard of review isis de

ofreview de novo

novo and

and our

our scope

scope of

ofreview

review plenary.”

plenary."

Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Riding,

Riding, 2013

2013 PA

PA Super

Super 141,

141, 68

68 A.3d

A.3d 990,

990, 993

993 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. Ct.

Ct. 2013).

2013).

2.2. Court’s

Court's Analysis

Analysis

Defendant

Defendant argues

argues that

that counts

counts seven

seven through

throughtwelve

twelve of

ofthe

the Bill

Bill of

ofInformation

Information should

should have

have

been

been dismissed

dismissed because

becausethe

the charges

charges were

were filed

filedbeyond

beyondthe

the statute

statute of

oflimitations.

limitations. Defendant,

Defendant,

through

through counsel,

counsel, filed

filed an

anOmnibus

Omnibus Pre-Trial

Pre-Trial Motion

Motionon

onJuly

July27,

27, 2023.

2023. Defendant

Defendantdid

didnot

notinclude

include

aaMotion

Motionto

to Dismiss

Dismiss Pursuant

Pursuanttoto 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §5552(a)

§5552(a) in

inhis

his Omnibus

Omnibus Pre-Trial

Pre-Trial Motion.

Motion.

Defendant,

Defendant, however,

however, attempted

attemptedtotoraise

raiseaamotion

motionseeking

seekingtoto dismiss

dismiss counts

counts seven

seventhrough

throughtwelve

twelve

ofthe

theBill

Bill of

ofInformation,

Information,pursuant

pursuanttoto42

42Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §5552(a),

§5552(a),ininhis

hisbrief,

brief,which

whichwas

wasfiled

filedon

December

December 1,1,2023.

2023. Judge

JudgeCostanzo

Costanzodenied

deniedthe

themotion

motiontotodismiss

dismissby

byway

wayof

ofOpinion

Opinionand

andOrder

Order

dated

datedJanuary

January26,

26,2024.

2024. The

Thereasons

reasonsfor

forthe

theCourt’s

Court'sJanuary

January26,

26,2024

2024Order

Orderalready

alreadyappear

appearof

record

recordininsaid

saidOpinion

Opinionand

andOrder.

Order.Therefore,

Therefore,this

this Court

Courthereby

herebyincorporates

incorporatesthe

thesame

sameasasits

its

6Defendant

Defendantreferences

references“Direct

"DirectAppeal”

Appeal"exhibits;

exhibits;however,

however,no

noexhibits

exhibitswere

werefiled

filedwith

withthe

theWashington

WashingtonCounty

CountyClerk

Clerk

ofCourts

CourtsOffice

Officeregarding

regardingthe

the“Direct

"DirectAppeal”

Appeal"pleading.

pleading.

Pa.R.A.P.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

1925(a) Opinion and attaches it hereto.

hereto. For

For the reasons set

set forth in

in the January 26,

26,

2024 Opinion

Opinion and Order,

Order, this Court

Court respectfully submits

submits that

that its order

order be affirmed on the merits

and Defendant’s

Defendant's appeal

appeal be dismissed.

dismissed.

B. Improper

Improper Venue

Venue and

and Lack

Lack of

of Subject

Subject Matter

Matter Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

1. Standard of Review

Review

“As

"As this question [regarding subject

subject matter

matter jurisdiction]

jurisdiction] is purely one

one of law,

law, our

our standard

of review

review is

is de

de novo,

novo, and our

our scope ofreview

review is plenary.”

plenary." Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Jones,

Jones, 929 A.2d

205,

205, 211 (Pa.

(Pa. 2007)

2007) (internal

(internal citations omitted).

omitted).

“The

"The standard

standard of

of review

review for

for aa denial

denial of aa motion

motion for

for change

change of

of venue

venue is

is whether

whether there

there has

has

been

been an

an abuse

abuse of

of discretion

discretion on the

the part

part of the

the trial

trial judge.”

judge." Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Devries,

Devries, 112

112 A.3d

A.3d

663, 666 (Pa.

663,666 (Pa. Super.

Super. 2015)

2015) (internal

(internal citations

citations omitted).

omitted).

2. Court’s

Court's Analysis

Analysis

Defendant

Defendant next

next argues

argues that

that this

this Court

Court lacked

lacked subject

subject matter

matterjurisdiction

jurisdiction over

over the

the

prosecution

prosecution of

ofthe

the charges

charges stemming

stemming from

from conduct

conduct occurring

occurring in

in Allegheny

Allegheny County

County and,

and,

furthermore,

furthermore, venue

venue was

was improper

improper in

in Washington

Washington County.

County.

Defendant

Defendant filed

filed an

an Omnibus

Omnibus Pretrial

Pretrial Motion

Motion on

on July

July 27,

27, 2023,

2023, which

which included

included aa Motion

Motion

to Dismiss

Dismiss Improper

Improper Venue

Venue and

and Lack

Lack of

of Subject

Subject Matter

Matter Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction (Allegheny

(Allegheny County

County

Charges).

Charges). Judge

Judge Costanzo,

Costanzo, following

following the

the October

October 13,

13, 2023

2023 hearing,

hearing, denied

denied the

the motion

motion to

to dismiss

dismiss

by way

way of

ofOpinion

Opinion and

and Order

Order dated

dated January

January 26,

26, 2024.

2024. The

The reasons

reasons for

for the

the Court’s

Court's January

January 26,

26,

2024

2024 Order

Order already

already appear

appear of

ofrecord

record in

in said

said Opinion

Opinion and

and Order.

Order. Therefore,

Therefore, this

this Court

Court hereby

hereby

incorporates

incorporates the

the same

same as

as its

its Pa.R.A.P.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

1925(a) Opinion

Opinion and

and attaches

attaches itit hereto.

hereto. For

For the

the reasons

reasons

set

set forth

forth in

in the

the January

January 26,

26, 2024

2024 Opinion

Opinion and

and Order,

Order, this

this Court

Court respectfully

respectfully submits

submits that

that its

its order

order

be affirmed

affirmed on

on the

the merits

merits and

and Defendant’s

Defendant's appeal

appeal be

be dismissed.

dismissed.

C. Warrantless

Warrantless Use

Use of

of Mobile

Mobile Tracking

Tracking Device

Device

Defendant

Defendant next

next appears

appears to argue in

in Section C of his Concise Statement

Statement that

that law

law

enforcement

enforcement utilized

utilized a mobile tracking device during its investigation

investigation without

without a warrant

warrant or court

court

order.

order. Defendant

Defendant initially

initially raised this argument

argument at

at trial.

trial.

Defendant

Defendant made

made an oral

oral motion prior

prior to the commencement

commencement of the second day of

trial

trial seeking dismissal

dismissal of the charges.

charges. Pretrial

Pretrial Motion Hr’g

Hr'g Tr.,

Tr., 5,

5, 4/10/24.

4/10/24. Defendant

Defendant asserted

that

that the

the evidence

evidence presented by the Commonwealth

Commonwealth to the jury on the first

first day of trial

trial

demonstrated that

that law

law enforcement

enforcement utilized

utilized a GPS

GPS tracking device during

during the course

course of the

investigation,

investigation, without

without first

first obtaining

obtaining aa warrant.

warrant. Defendant

Defendant sought

sought dismissal

dismissal of

of the

the charges

charges based

based

on the

the fruit

fruit of

of the

the poisonous

poisonous tree

tree doctrine.

doctrine. Defendant,

Defendant, in

in support

support of his

his oral

oral motion

motion for

for

immediate

immediate dismissal

dismissal of

of the

the charges,

charges, argued

argued that

that Agent

Agent Barna

Barna testified

testified at

at trial

trial that

that the

the Office

Office of

Attorney

Attorney General

General utilized

utilized aa GPS

GPS tracking

tracking device

device without

without obtaining

obtaining aa court

court order

order or

or warrant.

warrant.

Defendant’s

Defendant's argument

argument isis not

not supported

supported by

by the

the record

record evidence.

evidence.

Agent

Agent Barna,

Barna, during

during cross-examination,

cross-examination, testified

testified as

as follows:

follows:

Q: How

How are

are you

you doing,

doing, Agent

Agent Barna?

Barna?

A: Good,

Good, sir.

sir. How

How are

are you?

you?

Q: All

All right.

right. First,

First, before

before we

we go

go any

any further,

further, you

you stated

stated that

that you

you had

had aa tracker

tracker

on the

the vehicle?

vehicle?

A: Yes.

Yes.

Q: Did

Did you

you have

have aa warrant

warrant for

for the

the tracker?

tracker?

A: Yes.

Yes.

Q: You

You did?

did?

A: Yes.

Yes.

Q: Why

Why wasn’t

wasn't itit in

in the

the discovery?

discovery?

A: We

We didn’t

didn't use

use itit as

as evidence

evidence for

for anything

anything other

otherthan

than furthering

furthering the

the

investigation.

TT,

TT, vol.

vol. I, 136,

136, line 4-15,

4-15, 4/9/24.

4/9/24.

The

The Court,

Court, based on Defendant’s

Defendant's oral

oral motion,

motion, held an evidentiary hearing outside of the

jury during the second day of trial

trial to further develop the record regarding Defendant’s

Defendant's argument.

argument.

Agent

Agent Barna

Barna testified

testified at

at the hearing.

hearing. TT,

TT, vol.

vol. I,1, 37-206,

37-206, 4/9/24.

4/9/24. Agent

Agent Barna

Barna again testified that

that

the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General

General had obtained an appropriate court

court order

order under

under the

Wiretap Act

Act to place a tracking device on Defendant’s

Defendant's vehicle during the course of the

investigation.

investigation. Pretrial

Pretrial Motion Hr’g

Hr'g Tr.,

Tr., 22,

22, 4/10/24.

4/10/24. Agent

Agent Barna

Barna explained

explained that,

that, when

when

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Office

Office of Attorney General

General narcotics

narcotics agents

agents utilize

utilize aa tracking device,

device, the

the agents

agents

“have

"have to

to have

have aa court

court order

order and

and appropriate

appropriate paperwork

paperwork with

with the

the Office of

of Attorney

Attorney General.

General. It’s

It's

aa very

very formal

formal process.

process. So,

So, yes,

yes, we

we had

had aa warrant

warrant signed

signed by

by aa judge.”

judge." Id.

Id. This

This Court

Court found

found

Agent

Agent Barna’s

Barna's testimony

testimony at

at the

the hearing

hearing to

to be

be credible.

credible. “A

"A fact-finder

fact-finder isis free

free to

to believe

believe all,

all, part,

part,

or none

none of

ofthe evidence

evidence presented.”

presented." Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. James,

James, 1223

1223 WDA

WDA 2014,

2014, 2016

2016 WL

418146,

418146, at

at 22 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. Ct.

Ct. Feb.

Feb. 3,

3, 2016)

2016) (internal

(internal citations

citations omitted).

omitted). The

The fact-finder

fact-finder isis

exclusively

exclusively tasked

tasked with

with assessing

assessing the

the credibility

credibility of

ofthe

the witnesses

witnesses or

or evidence

evidence presented

presented at

at trial.

trial.

Id.

Id. (internal

(internal citations

citations omitted).

omitted).

Defendant

Defendant was

was permitted

permitted an

an opportunity

opportunity to

to cross-examine

cross-examine Agent

Agent Barna,

Barna, both

both at

at trial

trial and

and

then

then at

at the

the hearing

hearing regarding

regarding Defendant’s

Defendant's motion,

motion, regarding

regarding details

details surrounding

surrounding the

the warrant

warrant the

the

was

was signed

signed by

by aajudge.

judge. See

See TT.,

TT., vol.

vol. I,I, 4/9/24;

4/9/24; see