J-A24025-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MICHAEL SHOWERS

Appellant No. 3431 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 2, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012440-2013

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and SOLANO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JANUARY 18, 2017

Michael Showers appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on 

November 2, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. 

On April 16, 2015, a jury convicted Showers of robbery.

1

 The court 

sentenced him to a term of 25 to 50 years’ imprisonment as a third-strike 

offender.

2

 On appeal, Showers raises weight and sufficiency claims, as well 

as the court’s imposition of the recidivist statute. For the reasons below, we 

affirm Showers’s judgment of sentence.

The trial court set forth the facts as follows:

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).

2

 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 (recidivism statute relating to sentences for second 

and subsequent offenses).
J-A24025-16

- 2 -

The Commonwealth called the complainant, Jigna Patel (“Patel”) 

as its first witness. Patel testified that she worked as a manager 

for Subway Restaurant at 330 Oregon Avenue and was working 

there on February 2, 2013. Patel further testified that, at around 

6:00 p.m. on that day, a man wearing a black scarf over his face 

came into the store and asked for cookies. Patel stated that, as 

she went towards the cookie rack next to her cash register, the 

man produced a gun and demanded $10 and $20 bills in her 

register. Patel stated that she gave the man the money and he 

told her to open the back door of the property. Patel testified 

that she told the man that there was not a back door to the 

property so the man ran out the front door.

Patel testified that the man was wearing a white and gray 

hooded sweatshirt, blue jeans, and black sneakers. Patel further 

testified that, as the man was leaving the Subway, he bumped 

into a regular customer who was entering the store at the same 

time. Patel stated that the customer called the police and she 

talked to police roughly 20 minutes after the robbery occurred. 

Patel further stated that she could not see the gun the man was 

carrying nor could she describe what it looked like, but she saw 

the front of the gun. Patel described the robber as a white male, 

approximately 5’9” and 180 pounds. Patel further testified that 

the man was wearing a glove on his right hand only. Patel 

stated that she spoke with two female police officers at the 

scene, then talked to detectives and gave a written statement 

shortly thereafter. Patel further stated that she told detectives 

that she would not be able to recognize the person who robbed 

her because he had a black scarf wrapped around his face. Patel 

testified that the detectives showed her pictures of people, but 

she was unable to identify anyone.

The Commonwealth called Officer Lynne Zirilli (“Zirilli”) as 

its next witness. Zirilli testified she had been a police officer in 

the 3rd District for 18 years and that, on February 2, 2013, she 

responded to a radio call for a robbery in progress at a Subway 

on 330 Oregon Avenue. Zirilli further testified that she and her 

partner received the call at approximately 6:07 p.m. and came 

into contact with Patel when they arrived at the scene. Zirilli 

stated that Patel seemed to be in shock and told them that she 

was robbed. Zirilli further stated Patel described the robber as a 

white male, approximately 5’8” tall with a heavy build and 

wearing a white and gray hooded sweatshirt with a black mask, 

dark colored jeans and latex gloves. Zirilli testified that she 
J-A24025-16

- 3 -

relayed the description over police radio so other officers could 

check the area but nobody was stopped.

The Commonwealth called Detective Neal Aitken (“Aitken”) 

as its next witness. Aitken testified that he was assigned to the 

South Detective Division and had been a detective since 1990. 

Aitken further testified that, on or about February 14 or 15, 

2013, he and Detective Michael McKenna (“McKenna”) went to 

the scene at 330 Oregon Avenue and recovered video from a 

custom car business in the area called Eargasm. Aitken stated 

that Eargasm was located in the building next to where the 

Subway was located. As the Commonwealth played the video 

recovered from Eargasm, Aitken testified that he saw a man run 

across the screen, that the image was significant as it was taken 

at the time immediately following the robbery and the person 

was wearing the same clothing as the robber. Aitken also stated 

that the person on the video ran west on the sidewalk adjacent 

to the Subway and then made a left turn and ran south on the 

2700 block of South Randolph Street.

The Commonwealth called McKenna as its next witness. 

McKenna testified that he worked for the South Detective 

Division and that he investigated the robbery at 330 Oregon 

Avenue. The Commonwealth then played a surveillance video 

obtained from the Subway. McKenna testified that the unique 

two-toned sweatshirt the robber was wearing and the fact that 

the robber was wearing a single black glove on his right hand 

stood out to him as he watched the video. McKenna further 

testified that the sweater was an off-white or gray color with 

black and white stripes on the sleeves and across the chest and 

waist. The Commonwealth then played the surveillance video 

obtained from Eargasm. McKenna testified that he observed a 

person run southwest onto the 2700 block of Randolph Street 

and that the person had a limp or a hitch in his gait as though he 

was favoring his right foot. 

McKenna also testified that, near the beginning of the 

investigation, the police received an anonymous tip which led 

them to focus the investigation on [Showers]. McKenna further 

testified that, based upon the tip and his investigation to that 

point, he obtained a search warrant for [Showers’s] house at 

2732 Randolph Street on February 14, 2013 but did not recover 

any evidence from the house. McKenna stated that, after he 

executed the search warrant, he and Aitken returned to the 
J-A24025-16

- 4 -

Subway to survey the area. McKenna further stated that Patel 

had mentioned that the robber wanted to go out the back door 

of the Subway and he wanted to see why the offender would 

have wanted to leave through the back door. McKenna testified 

that the back door led to a rear alleyway which ran between a 

shopping mall and the east side of Randolph Street. He 

theorized that the robber could use the alley to access the 2700 

block of Randolph Street, at which time there would only be a 

short walk to [Showers’s] residence at 2732 South Randolph 

Street.

McKenna testified that, on April 23, 2013, he was provided 

with a photograph from Whitman Check Cashing, located on the 

southwest corner of Randolph Street and Oregon Avenue, which 

showed [Showers] wearing a sweatshirt that looked identical to 

the one worn by the robber. McKenna further testified that he 

found a public Facebook profile under [Showers’s] name which 

had a photograph of [Showers] wearing a sweatshirt that was 

identical to the one worn by the suspect in the video. McKenna 

stated that, in the photograph taken from Whitman Check 

Cashing, [Showers] appeared to be resting the left side of his 

body on a crutch and that, when he had a chance to talk with 

[Showers], he noticed that [Showers] walked with a noticeable 

limp to his right foot. McKenna further stated that [Showers] 

told him that he had been in an auto accident and had pins in his 

right ankle. McKenna testified that, from other photos of 

[Showers], he observed that [Showers] had a small tattoo on his 

right hand between his thumb and first finger but did not have 

any tattoos on his left hand. McKenna further testified that he 

showed Patel and Joseph Furia (“Furia”) a photo array of eight 

individuals including [Showers] but they were both unable to 

identify [Showers]. McKenna stated that, when he interacted 

with [Showers], he noticed that [Showers] was approximately 

5’9” tall and 225 pounds, which was consistent with the way 

Patel and Furia described the offender in the robbery.

The Commonwealth then read a stipulation, by and 

between counsel, that Commonwealth Exhibit C-13 was a fair 

and accurate photo of a tattoo on [Showers’s] right hand and 

that the photo was taken on November 12, 2012. There was a 

further stipulation, by and between counsel, that Commonwealth 

Exhibit C-11 was provided by Whitman Check Cashing and that if 

Michael Angelo were called to testify, he would testify that he 

was the teller on November 13, 2012 when the photo was taken 
J-A24025-16

- 5 -

by their surveillance, that the person who cashed a check during 

that transaction was [Showers], who cashed a check made out 

to him drawn on a check belonging to Norma Showers with the 

address of 2732 South Randolph Street. He would further testify 

that the photo was a fair and accurate photo of the transaction 

he witnessed on November 13, 2012.

The Commonwealth called Furia as its next witness. Furia 

testified that he and his son went to the Subway at 330 Oregon 

Avenue at around 6:00 p.m. on February 2, 2013. Furia further 

testified that, as he walked through the door, a man wearing a 

scarf bumped into him and said, “I’m sorry” and “it’s cold out 

there.” Furia stated that he then walked up to the counter and 

the girl who was usually there was peeking out from the back of 

the store. Furia further stated that the man started running out 

of the door with a noticeable limp and ran towards Randolph 

Street. Furia testified that the woman told him that the man had 

taken all of her twenty dollar bills and so he went to look for the 

man but he was gone. Furia testified that he went next door and 

called the police for her as she was too scared to call the police 

on her own.

Furia testified that they rode around the neighborhood with 

the police to see if they could find the man, but they were 

unable to do so. Furia further testified that McKenna later 

contacted him and had him look at a group of photographs, but 

he was unable to identify anyone that he had seen that night. 

Furia stated that the robber had the scarf over his face and his 

hat down so he could not see what he looked like. Furia further 

stated that the man had his hands in his pockets as he left. The 

Commonwealth then played the video surveillance obtained from 

the Subway restaurant. Furia testified that he recognized 

himself and the man he bumped into on the video. Furia further 

testified that he went straight to the front counter after he 

bumped into the man and when he turned around the man 

started running with a limp. After Furia testified, the 

Commonwealth rested.

[Showers] stipulated, by and between counsel, that on 

May 21, 2012, [Showers] had surgery on his right ankle in which 

several pins were placed and that surgery occurred at Jefferson 

Hospital. After the stipulation, the defense rested.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/28/2016, at 2-7 (record citations omitted).
J-A24025-16

- 6 -

On May 30, 2013, the police arrested Showers and charged him with 

robbery and possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”). A two-day jury 

trial began on April 15, 2015. The next day, the jury convicted Showers of 

robbery and acquitted him of PIC. On November 2, 2015, the trial court 

sentenced Showers to a term of 25 to 50 years’ imprisonment on the thirdstrike robbery charge. This appeal followed.3

In Showers’s first argument, he claims the verdict was against the 

weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Showers’s Brief at 12. Specifically, 

Showers states, “The evidence, and the reasonable inferences drawn from 

that evidence, do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] is guilty of 

the robbery[.]” Id. at 13. He notes neither Patel nor Furia could positively 

identify him as the robber. Id. Moreover, he asserts:

The Commonwealth based most of its case on mere speculation 

since [Showers] owned a sweatshirt that was similar to the one 

worn by the offender, and detectives “theorized” that [Showers] 

planned the robbery and wished to leave out of the back door of 

the restaurant due to the proximately of the restaurant to his 

home. Sweatshirts are mass produced, so identification by 

detectives based on an article of clothing is insufficient to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that [Showers] committed the crime. 

To say that this particular sweatshirt was considerably unique in 

that it is not often that someone would come across another 

person wearing something similar is farfetched. 

____________________________________________

3

 On December 1, 2015, the trial court ordered Showers to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 

Showers filed a concise statement on December 18, 2015. The trial court 

issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on January 28, 2016.
J-A24025-16

- 7 -

Id. Additionally, Showers states it was not reasonable for the 

Commonwealth to assume Showers wore a black glove, as seen on the store 

video, to cover up a small tattoo on his right hand, because Patel testified 

the perpetrator wore a latex glove on the one hand. Id. Lastly, Showers 

points out that a search warrant was issued for his home and no evidence 

was recovered. Id.

As a prefatory matter, we note that in framing his issue as a challenge 

to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, Showers conflates two unique 

claims into one argument. As the Commonwealth notes, “Challenges to the 

sufficiency of the evidence and the weight of the evidence are distinct 

inquiries that must be separately briefed and analyzed; an argument as to 

one may not simply incorporate the argument as to the other.” 

Commonwealth’s Brief at 10, citing Commonwealth v. Birdseye, 637 A.2d 

1036, 1039-1040 (Pa. Super. 1994), aff’d, 670 A.2d 1124 (Pa. 1996), cert. 

denied, 518 U.S. 1019 (1996). Furthermore, Showers never preserved his 

weight-of-the-evidence claim with the trial court either orally at any time 

before sentencing, by written motion, or in a post-sentence motion, and he 

did not include the issue in his concise statement. See Pa.Crim.P. 

607(A)(1)-(3); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Therefore, Showers has waived 

his weight claim. Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa. 

Super. 2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2013) (“Failure to properly 

preserve the claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court addresses the 
J-A24025-16

- 8 -

issue in its opinion.”); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not 

included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).

With respect to Showers’s argument in terms of a sufficiency 

challenge, we are guided by the following:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in 

the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient 

evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, 

we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for 

the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and 

circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the 

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no 

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of 

proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt 

by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in 

applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and 

all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 

finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and 

the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted), appeal denied, 112 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2015).

Showers’s argument focuses largely on an allegation that the evidence 

failed to identify him as the robber in question. To this extent, we are also 

guided by the following: 

“[E]vidence of identification need not be positive and certain to 

sustain a conviction.” Although common items of clothing and 

general physical characteristics are usually insufficient to support 
J-A24025-16

- 9 -

a conviction, such evidence can be used as other circumstances 

to establish the identity of a perpetrator. Out-of-court 

identifications are relevant to our review of sufficiency of the 

evidence claims, particularly when they are given without 

hesitation shortly after the crime while memories were fresh. 

Given additional evidentiary circumstances, “any indefiniteness 

and uncertainty in the identification testimony goes to its 

weight.” 

Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868, 874 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) 

(internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 54 A.3d 348 (Pa. 2012).

Robbery is defined, in relevant part, as follows:

(1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing 

a theft, he:

...

(ii) threatens another with or intentionally puts him in 

fear of immediate serious bodily injury[.]

18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii). “An act shall be deemed ‘in the course of 

committing a theft’ if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in flight after 

the attempt or commission.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(2). Moreover,

“[t]he evidence is sufficient to convict a defendant of robbery 

under this section if the evidence demonstrates aggressive 

actions that threatened the victim’s safety. The court must 

focus on the nature of the threat posed by an assailant and 

whether he reasonably placed a victim in fear of immediate 

serious bodily injury. Additionally, this Court has held that the 

threat need not be verbal.” Commonwealth v. Jannett, 58 

A.3d 818, 822 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations and internal 

quotations omitted). “Serious bodily injury” is defined as 

“[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which 

causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or 

impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. “When determining whether a victim has 

been placed in fear of serious bodily injury, this Court uses an 

objective standard; therefore, [the victim’s] subjective state of 
J-A24025-16

- 10 -

mind during the robbery is not dispositive.” Commonwealth v. 

Kubis, 978 A.2d 391, 398 (Pa. Super. 2009) (concluding that 

the nature of appellant’s threat to stab the victim was such that 

a reasonable person in the victim’s position would fear for his life 

or safety even though no knife was physically produced during 

robbery).

Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801, 807 (Pa. Super. 2014), 

appeal denied, 124 A.3d 309 (Pa. 2015).

Here, the trial court found the following:

In the case at bar, the evidence presented at trial was 

sufficient to find [Showers] guilty of robbery. Patel testified that 

a man wearing a white and gray hooded sweatshirt and a glove 

on his right hand came to her Subway Restaurant on 330 Oregon 

Avenue at around 6:00 p.m. on February 2, 2013, pointed a gun 

at her, and demanded the $10 and $20 bills from her cash 

register. Patel further testified that she gave the man the 

money and then he left through the front door. Patel stated that 

the man was approximately 5’9” tall and weighed approximately 

180 pounds. Furia testified that, as he entered the Subway with 

his son at around 6:00 p.m., he bumped into a man leaving 

through the front door. Furia further testified that the man then 

ran out the door with a noticeable limp and Patel told him that 

the man had taken her $20 bills. Aitken testified he recovered 

surveillance footage from an adjacent business which showed a 

man wearing the same type of clothing as the robber [who had] 

run onto 2700 South Randolph Street. McKenna testified that he 

obtained photographs of [Showers] from Whitman Check 

Cashing and [Showers’s] public Facebook profile which showed 

[Showers] wearing the same unique gray and white hooded 

sweatshirt worn by the robber. McKenna further testified that he 

noticed on the surveillance footage that the robber walked with a 

noticeable limp in his right foot and that [Showers] had a 

noticeable limp in his right foot due to an auto accident. 

McKenna stated that the back door of the Subway property led

to the 2700 block of South Randolph Street, which was only a 

short walk to [Showers’s] residence at 2732 South Randolph 

Street. McKenna further stated that [Showers] had a small 

tattoo on his right hand and that he matched the height and 

weight of the description given by Patel and Furia. Thus, when 

afforded all favorable inferences from this evidence, the 
J-A24025-16

- 11 -

Commonwealth proved that [Showers] pointed a firearm at Patel 

in the course of taking $10 and $20 bills from her and that he 

placed her in mortal fear of deadly injury when he did so. Thus, 

the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to find [Showers] 

guilty of robbery.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/28/2016, at 9-10.

Notwithstanding the lack of any positive identification by Patel or 

Furia, our review of the entire record, in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as the verdict winner, and drawing all reasonable inferences 

therefrom, confirms our accord with the trial court’s decision. The 

Commonwealth presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that 

demonstrated Showers was the perpetrator, and he placed Patel in fear of 

serious bodily injury when he pointed a gun and asked for money, including: 

(1) the video surveillance footage; (2) the pictures of Showers from the 

Whitman Check Cashing and Facebook page wearing the same clothing as 

the robber; (3) the visible limp on the right foot that both Showers and the 

robber had; and (4) the location of the Subway in relation to Showers’s 

residence. We emphasize the facts and circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. See 

Melvin, supra. Therefore, even if Showers’s sweatshirt was “mass 

produced” as he alleges, it still is identical to the one the robber was 

wearing. Furthermore, Showers ignores the distinct fact that he and the 

robber were both observed limping on the right foot side. Lastly, we note 

“any indefiniteness and uncertainty in the identification testimony goes to its 
J-A24025-16

- 12 -

weight,” Orr, 38 A.3d at 874, which is an argument that Showers has 

waived for failure to properly preserve.4 Accordingly, Showers’s sufficiency 

claim fails.

In his final argument, Showers complains the trial court erred when it 

sentenced him to a third-strike offense because of the insufficiency of the 

evidence. Showers’s Brief at 14. He merely states, “It cannot be proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] was responsible for this robbery, so the 

sentence should be vacated and a new trial granted.” Id.

Because we find there was sufficient evidence to support Showers’s 

robbery conviction as discussed supra, his argument fails. Nevertheless, it 

also bears mentioning the following:

The issue of the proper interpretation of the mandatory 

minimum sentencing provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714, the 

statute at issue in this case, has been held to implicate the 

legality of the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. 

Ausberry, 891 A.2d 752, 754 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation 

omitted). A “defendant or the Commonwealth may appeal as of 

right the legality of the sentence.” Ausberry, 891 A.2d at 754; 

see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(a).

The scope and standard of review applied to determine the 

legality of a sentence are well established. If no statutory 

authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is 

illegal and subject to correction. Commonwealth v. Johnson,

2006 PA Super 265, ¶ 15, 910 A.2d 60, 66, 2006 WL 2729492. 

____________________________________________

4

 Additionally, to the extent Showers argues the color of the glove that the 

robber was wearing varied with respect to Patel’s testimony and the store 

video, and no evidence of the robbery was found during a search of his 

home, we find these assertions of no consequence since there was an 

abundance of other circumstantial evidence to establish he was the robber.
J-A24025-16

- 13 -

An illegal sentence must be vacated. Johnson, 2006 PA Super 

265, at ¶ 15, 910 A.2d at 66. In evaluating a trial court’s 

application of a statute, our standard of review is plenary and is 

limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error 

of law. Id., 2006 PA Super 265 at ¶ 15, at 66.

Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998, 1001–1002 (Pa. Super. 

2006).

The statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

§ 9714. Sentences for second and subsequent offenses

(a) MANDATORY SENTENCE.—

...

(2) Where the person had at the time of the commission of the 

current offense previously been convicted of two or more such 

crimes of violence arising from separate criminal transactions, 

the person shall be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least 

25 years of total confinement, notwithstanding any other 

provision of this title or other statute to the contrary. Proof that 

the offender received notice of or otherwise knew or should have 

known of the penalties under this paragraph shall not be 

required. Upon conviction for a third or subsequent crime of 

violence the court may, if it determines that 25 years of total 

confinement is insufficient to protect the public safety, sentence 

the offender to life imprisonment without parole.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a). Moreover,

[t]he sentencing court, prior to imposing sentence on an 

offender under subsection (a), shall have a complete record of 

the previous convictions of the offender, copies of which shall be 

furnished to the offender. If the offender or the attorney for the 

Commonwealth contests the accuracy of the record, the court 

shall schedule a hearing and direct the offender and the attorney 

for the Commonwealth to submit evidence regarding the 

previous convictions of the offender. The court shall then 

determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, the previous 

convictions of the offender and, if this section is applicable, shall 

impose sentence in accordance with this section.
J-A24025-16

- 14 -

42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(b).

Here, the trial court found the following:

In the case at bar, this Court did not err when it sentenced 

[Showers] to robbery as a third-strike. As [Showers’s] court 

summary readily showed, [Showers] previously had been 

convicted of two crimes of violence in Pennsylvania. On March 

18, 1993, [Showers] pled guilty to robbery as a first-degree 

felony at docket CP-51-CR-0934001-1992. On April 23, 2008, 

[Showers] pled guilty to burglary as a first-degree felony on 

docket CP-51-CR-0013390-2007. Thus, [Showers] had two prior 

convictions for crimes of violence arising from separate criminal 

transactions. Consequently, this Court did not err when it found 

that his instant conviction for robbery as a first-degree felony 

was a third-strike conviction and accordingly sentenced him to 

25 to 50 years state incarceration.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/28/2016, at 13.

We agree with the court’s findings, and note Showers does not 

challenge the status of his two prior convictions or his present conviction as 

crimes of violence.5 Accordingly, his legality of sentence claim is unavailing.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/18/2017

____________________________________________

5

 We note the pre-sentence investigation was not included in the certified 

record; however, as stated above, Showers does not take issue with these 

prior convictions.