J. S45018/16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

DAVON JONES, : 

 Appellant : 

 : No. 1467 WDA 2015 

 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 2, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000530-2015 

 

BEFORE: OLSON, DUBOW AND PLATT, JJ.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 30, 2016 

Appellant, Davon Jones, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence 

entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas on September 2, 2015, 

following his convictions for Aggravated Assault and Recklessly Endangering 

Another Person. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for 

each of these offenses. After careful review, we conclude that Appellant 

waived this argument by failing to properly develop it in his Brief to this 

Court. 

A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our 

disposition. For purposes of this Memorandum, we summarize the facts and 

 

*

 Retired Senior Judge Assigned to the Superior Court. 
J.S45018/16 

- 2 -

procedural history as follows. During the early morning hours of Christmas 

Day, 2015, security footage from Juliet’s—a strip club—captured Appellant 

and the victim, D’Angelo Troop (“Troop”), engage in a verbal dispute over a 

woman. The argument continued in the parking lot out front, where 

additional security cameras captured Troop leaving the scene in his vehicle, 

followed closely behind by Appellant. Troop drove a few blocks before his 

car was overtaken by Appellant’s vehicle. Troop was shot five times in the 

chest, face, and neck. 

While still in the hospital recovering from his injuries, Troop gave 

multiple statements identifying Appellant as the shooter, including a 

recorded statement to investigators in which Troop stated that he saw 

Appellant reach his hand out of the other vehicle and fire the shots that hit 

him. Troop also identified Appellant as the shooter in a photo array. 

As trial approached, Troop became increasingly uncooperative with the 

prosecution. At trial, Troop denied seeing Appellant shoot him and claimed 

not to know who the shooter was. The Commonwealth introduced Troop’s 

prior statements identifying Appellant as the shooter as substantive evidence 

in its case-in-chief. 

On July 24, 2015, a jury found Appellant guilty of Aggravated Assault 

and Recklessly Endangering Another Person.1 On September 2, 2015, the 

 

1

 Appellant was charged with various additional offenses including, inter alia, 

Attempted Murder, Conspiracy, and firearms charges. The jury acquitted 
J.S45018/16 

- 3 -

trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of ten to twenty years of 

incarceration. 

Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court satisfied 

the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: 

The evidence in this case was insufficient to prove that 

[Appellant] had the mens rea to commit the crimes or that he 

actually committed the crimes. 

Appellant’s Brief at 2. 

Before we reach the merits of the issue raised on appeal, we 

determine whether the issue was properly preserved and developed for 

review. 

Our Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and our case law lay 

out the well-established requirements for preserving a claim for appellate 

review. This Court will address only those issues properly presented and 

developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate 

procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. “Appellate arguments which fail to adhere 

to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are not 

appropriately developed are waived.” Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc, 912 

A.2d 329, 336 (Pa. Super. 2006). Thus, issues raised in a Brief’s Statement 

of Questions Involved but not developed in the Brief’s argument section will 

 

Appellant on some of these charges and was unable to reach a verdict on 

the remaining charges. 
J.S45018/16 

- 4 -

be deemed waived. Harkins v. Calumet Realty Co., 614 A.2d 699, 703 

(Pa. Super. 1992). 

To properly develop an issue for our review, Appellant bears the 

burden of ensuring that his argument section includes citations to pertinent 

authorities as well as discussion and analysis of the authorities. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. 

Super. 2007) (“[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are 

sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with 

pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal 

authorities.” (citation omitted)). Where an Appellant’s argument rests on 

evidence in the record, he must make appropriate citations to the record in 

his argument. Commonwealth v. Franklin, 823 A.2d 906, 910 (Pa. Super. 

2003). 

As this Court has made clear, we “will not act as counsel and will not 

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771. 

Where defects in a brief “impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate 

review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be 

waived.” Id. 

In the instant case, Appellant seemingly attempts to challenge both his 

identity as the shooter and, assuming he was the shooter, his mental state 

at the time of the offense. Questions of identity and mental state are 

distinct issues that Appellant should have properly divided into separate 
J.S45018/16 

- 5 -

argument sections. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The argument shall be divided 

into as many parts as there are questions to be argued”). Instead, the 

argument section of Appellant’s Brief to this Court is a wholly confusing 

amalgamation of de minimis boilerplate case law regarding mens rea and 

cursory discussion and analysis of the identity evidence presented at trial. 

Appellant failed to develop his assertion that he lacked the necessary 

mens rea to commit the offense. At best, Appellant’s brief makes a bald 

assertion that he lacked the mens rea to commit Aggravated Assault and 

Recklessly Endangering Another Person. While Appellant’s Brief does lay out 

the elements of each offense, and cites case law regarding the necessary 

mens rea, Appellant does not in any way discuss the case law, apply the 

facts of his case to the case law cited, or discuss how those facts fail to 

make out the required mental states. 

Instead, Appellant summarily avers that he lacked the required mens 

rea because he was not in any way involved in these crimes. This is an 

issue of identity, not mental state, and as such, Appellant was required to 

provide this Court with relevant authority and analysis regarding identity. 

And while Appellant does discuss the facts of his case in challenging his 

identity as the shooter, he does so without a single citation to relevant 

authority. 

Appellant’s failure to adhere to the rules of appellate procedure and to 

develop either claim prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful 
J.S45018/16 

- 6 -

appellate review. Therefore, we conclude Appellant has waived his issues. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judges Olson and Platt both Concur in Result. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/30/2016