J-A29044-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAKWARIS ROBISON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 741 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 23, 2021,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000716-2020.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 15, 2023

Jakwaris Robison appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence imposed 

following his convictions of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and 

flight to avoid apprehension.1

Robison’s convictions arose from his activities on January 19, 2020, 

when he conspired with co-defendant, Marshawn Williams and co-conspirators 

Melissa Seaman and Michael Toles, to arrange and consummate a drug 

transaction with, and robbery of, Devin Way outside Way’s residence in Erie. 

During the robbery, Way was shot and killed.

The trial court detailed the pertinent facts and trial testimony regarding 

the shooting incident as follows:

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 3701(a)(1), 903, and 5126(a), respectively.
J-A29044-22

- 2 -

Earlier on January 19, 2020, Seaman, Toles, and Robison 

were riding as passengers in a grey, four-door Honda operated by 

Williams. While the group was driving around, Seaman messaged 

various third parties on her cell phone in an attempt to “see if 

anyone ha[d] any drugs or money that would be a possible lick.” 

(In their vernacular, a lick is a robbery victim). After a potential 

target, Cohen Heath, failed to respond, Seaman continued to 

reach out to others on her cell phone until she successfully made 

contact with [Devin Way]. Way agreed to sell two (2) ounces of 

marijuana in exchange for $400.00.

The four co-conspirators proceeded to the Dollar Tree store 

located in the Liberty Plaza. [Robison], co-defendant Williams 

Robison, and Toles exited the vehicle and obtained items from the 

store, some or all of which were not paid for. [Robison’s] main 

purpose in going to the store was to obtain gloves to eliminate the 

possibility of fingerprints being left behind “in case things went 

bad.” Before the three-some returned to the car, Toles heard 

[Robison] and Williams discuss harming Seaman “if things went 

bad” to prevent Seaman from saying something.

Meantime, while Seaman waited inside the car, for the three 

of them to return, she obtained from Way his address. When the 

three returned, Seaman announced “she felt like [Way] was going 

to be an easy person to get at.”

At trial, Toles described the foursome’s plan to rob Way:

That I was going to be in the back seat and Robison 

would still be in the back seat and [Seaman] would get 

in the [front] passenger seat. And our plan was to get 

out of the car and let [Way] in the middle and he was 

going to produce a gun and tell Way to get out.

With co-defendant Williams behind the wheel, the four 

proceeded to Way’s residence. Way exited his home and 

approached the Honda. As planned, [Robison] exited the back 

seat and instructed Way to get in the middle, next to Toles. Way 

refused to get in the middle, so [Robison] re-entered the back 

seat, took the middle position, and Way got in the car after him. 

Way closed the door and Williams drove off.

Way directed Williams to turn from Southgate Drive onto 

Usonia Avenue. Way produced and passed around for “inspection” 

the marijuana for sale. However, as testified to by Seaman, no 

one in the vehicle actually had money on them to make the 
J-A29044-22

- 3 -

purchase. The sham inspection continued, with Seaman passing 

the marijuana to Williams who stated he “was good” with the 

marijuana.

Following a brief period of awkward silence, the drug 

transaction morphed into the planned robbery of Way. According 

to the testimony of co-conspirator Toles, Toles pulled out a gun, 

reached around Robison, pointed the gun at Way, and instructed 

Way to get out of the car. Way refused and grabbed the gun. A 

struggle ensued between Toles and Way for the gun. Williams, 

from the driver’s seat, called out for Robison to assist Toles.

In response, [Robison] squeezed out from between Way and 

Toles and exited the car though the driver’s side rear door. 

[Robison] ran to the other side of the car to the rear passenger 

door, opened the door, raised his gun and started shooting at 

Way.

Toles testified [Robison], the sole shooter in this incident, 

fired the gun four (4) to six (6) times in quick succession. 

According to Toles, Way was shot in the back. Seaman testified 

she heard approximately (4) gunshots; she heard Toles yell that 

he was shot, too; and when she turned around, she saw blood on 

Toles’ leg. Seaman testified she did not see or hear from Way 

again.

Toles, from his position behind Williams, observed Way turn 

toward [Robison], and that [Robison] continued to shoot. It is 

apparent from Toles’ testimony that after [Robison] stopped 

firing, either Way fell out of the vehicle through the rear passenger 

door where [Robison] was standing, or [Robison] pulled Way out 

of the car. Regardless, Toles heard Way scream during the 

process. Way landed on the ground, face done in the snow. 

[Robison] jumped back into the car through the door from which 

Way fell.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/13/21, at 2-4 (citations to record omitted).

The trial court also summarized the events that occurred after the 

shooting, as well as the eventual apprehension of Williams and Robison:

With Williams behind the wheel, the four attempted to drive 

away. Co-defendant Williams stopped the vehicle briefly and 

switched seats with Seaman so she could drive. Seaman, in a 
J-A29044-22

- 4 -

panic, drove the Honda into a snowbank where it became 

temporarily stuck. At this juncture, [Robison] and Williams exited 

the car and started to run away.

Toles called out for [Robison] to return and get [Robison’s]

gun, Robison complied and Toles handed him Toles’ gun as well. 

[Robison and Williams] then ran off again in the snow through 

someone’s back yard. 

Seaman managed to get the car unstuck and drove back 

past the shooting scene. Seaman, with Toles bleeding in the back 

seat, drove to a nearby Taco Bell on Peach Street where the Honda 

was pulled over by the police.

[Robison] and co-defendant Williams left the Erie area and 

each was missing for quite some time.

The police identified [Robison] as a suspect from 

surveillance video from the Dollar Tree Store in the Liberty Plaza. 

On January 22, 2021, a warrant was issued for [Robison’s] arrest. 

The police learned [Robison] was on state parole and contacted 

his parole supervisor, Michelle Contis. Contis positively identified 

[Robison] from Dollar Tree surveillance video. Contis provided the 

police with [Robison’s] cell phone number, which through 

investigation revealed he was hiding in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

On January 24, 2021, [Robison] was apprehended in 

Pittsburgh, where he no longer was wearing the beard he had at 

the time of the murder. At trial, as the result of the [trial court’s 

] ruling on a motion in limine by [Robison’s] counsel, no reference 

was made to Contis’ job title, her role as [Robison’s] parole 

supervisor, or to [Robison’s] status as a parolee at the time of the 

murder.

With regard to co-defendant Williams, the evening of the 

shooting a warrant was issued for his arrest. Wanted billboards 

were posted by the U.S. Marshalls Fugitive Task Force in 

Cleveland, Buffalo, and surrounding areas. In July of 2020, 

approximately seven (7) months after Way’s murder, the police 

located co-defendant Williams at a friend’s residence in the 400 

block of East 22nd Street in the City of Erie. Williams attempted 

to remain hidden inside the residence by eventually surrendered 

to the police.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/13/21, at 4-6 (citations to record omitted).
J-A29044-22

- 5 -

Following a five-day jury trial, Robison was convicted of the aboveenumerated offenses.2

 On April 23, 2021, the trial court sentenced Robison 

to life without parole followed by an aggregate term of 12-24 years of 

imprisonment. On April 28, 2021, Williams filed a post-sentence motion, 

which the trial court denied. Robison filed a pro se notice of appeal, followed 

by a notice of appeal filed by trial counsel. Thereafter, trial counsel filed a 

motion to withdraw, which the trial court granted, and appellate counsel was 

appointed. After being granted a time extension, Robison filed a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on appeal on August 30, 

2021.

In response to an application for special relief, filed by appellate counsel, 

this Court, on October 8, 2021, remanded the case to the trial court for a 

Grazier3 hearing. On November 8, 2021, the trial court held the Grazier 

hearing and determined that Robison’s waiver of counsel was knowing, 

voluntary and intelligent. Thus, Robison was permitted to proceed pro se, and 

the trial court directed Robison to file an amended Rule 1925(b) statement. 

Robison complied, and in his statement raised sixteen claims. The trial court 

responded to each claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion filed on February 3, 2022.

____________________________________________

2 The jury convicted Williams of the same charges. His appeal is pending 

before this Court at No. 630 WDA 2021.

3 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
J-A29044-22

- 6 -

Robison raises the same sixteen issues on appeal. In its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion, the trial court summarized, consolidated, and reordered these claims 

as follows:

1. Whether the Commonwealth committed Brady violations in a) 

withholding alleged “cooperation agreements” between the 

Commonwealth and [Toles and Seaman]; and b) withholding 

unspecified “exculpatory/impeachable evidence” regarding 

[Toles’] cooperation in another homicide case/investigation.

2. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in allowing evidence of 

unspecified “texting/telephonic messages between [Robison] 

and an unknown subject pertaining to an unrelated matter the 

prior day.”

3. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in “not provid[ing] the 

jury with a cautionary instruction regarding the (sic) Pa.R.E. 

404(b) after the [trial court] determined that the probative 

value of “the evidence” did not outweigh its potential for unfair 

prejudice.” 

4. Whether counsel was ineffective in failing to move for mistrial 

“after the [trial court] determined . . . the probative value of 

the evidence involving texting/telephonic messages between 

[Robison] and an unknown subject pertaining to an unrelated 

matter the prior day, did not outweigh its potential for unfair 

prejudice[.]”

5. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in “allowing” the 

Commonwealth to refence texting/telephonic messages during 

closing argument “even after . . . the trial court ruled that the 

texting/telephonic messages between [Robison] and an 

unknown subject pertaining to an unrelated matter the prior 

day was prejudicial to [Robison].” 

6. Whether abuse of discretion occurred “by giving improper jury 

instructions”.

7. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict as to each 

conviction.

[8]. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in “allowing’ the 

Commonwealth to: a) “Vouch or Bolster for witnesses”, b) 
J-A29044-22

- 7 -

“Comment on [Robison’s] silence”, and c) “misstate and misuse 

evidence and facts throughout [Robison’s] trial.

[9]. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in denying the postsentence motion claim that the verdict was against the weight of 

the evidence.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/3/22, at 8-9 (citations omitted).

In his Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial judge first noted that Williams’ 

statement of the errors complained of on appeal was too vague and should be 

considered waived. According to Judge Brabender, Williams’ Rule 1925(b) 

statement was “woefully inadequate” in that it failed “to specify which element 

or elements of any of the crimes” that “the Commonwealth failed to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial Court Opinion, 12/13/21, at 7-9. Regarding 

the second claim in his Rule 1925 statement, Judge Brabender concluded that 

Williams “broadly avers evidentiary error occurred in admitting evidence” of 

“unspecified text messages.” Id. at 15.

After careful review, and mindful of our standards of review, we 

conclude that the Honorable Daniel J. Brabender, Jr., has authored a thorough 

and well-reasoned opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) which addressed the 

issues raised by Robison in this appeal and found them to be without merit. 

Judge Brabender has correctly cited the applicable case law and we discern no 

legal errors or abuse of discretion in his analysis.

As such, we adopt Judge Brabender’s Rule 1925(a) opinion as our own 

in affirming Robison’s judgment of sentence. See Trial Court Opinion, 

12/13/2, at 10-11 (concluding that Robison’s Brady claim was not preserved 
J-A29044-22

- 8 -

below and is otherwise without merit; both co-conspirators “credibly testified 

there were no deals, promises, or implication of deals for their testimony” and 

the Commonwealth reiterated that no promises were made during its closing);

at 11-16 (finding claim regarding text messages waived for vagueness or 

otherwise without merit; given the other overwhelming evidence of guilt, the 

prejudice to Robison was de minimus and, if error occurred, it was harmless); 

at 16-17 (concluding claim regarding failure to give cautionary instruction was 

without merit; trial counsel agreed that such an instruction would emphasize 

the evidence); at 17-18 (explaining that a claim of trial counsel’s 

ineffectiveness generally must await post-conviction review; alternatively trial 

counsel had no basis to move for mistrial); at 18-19 (rejecting claim involving 

Commonwealth’s closing argument because the Commonwealth did not 

specifically reference the challenged text message); at 19 (concluding claim 

involving improper jury instructions waived for vagueness; Robison did not 

identify any specific instruction in his Rule 1925(b) statement and trial counsel 

did not object to any part of the trial court’s jury instructions); at 19-28 

(finding ample evidence to reject Robison’s sufficiency challenge as to each 

conviction); at 28-29 (explaining that generic assertions of Commonwealth’s 

misconduct in the presentation of evidence is waived for vagueness or 

otherwise refuted by the record); and at 29-30 (concluding Robison’s 
J-A29044-22

- 9 -

challenge to the weight of the evidence was either waived for vagueness or 

without merit; the jury’s guilty verdicts did not shock one’s sense of justice).4

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/15/2023 

____________________________________________

4 The parties are directed to attach Judge Brabender’s February 3, 2022, 

opinion to this memorandum in any future appeal.