J-A16027-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SAMUAL STEFFIE JR. 

Appellant No. 1936 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered July 22, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County

Criminal Division at No: CP-54-CR-0002094-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2020

Appellant, Samual Steffie Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence 

the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill entered July 22, 2019. On appeal, 

Appellant raises a weight of the evidence claim. For the reasons explained 

below, we affirm the judgment of sentence. 

The factual and procedural background of the instant appeal is 

uncontested. The trial court summarized it as follows:

On June 10, 2019, [Appellant] was found guilty after a jury trial 

of aggravated assault[,] and simple assault[,] as a result of an 

incident that occurred on September 19, 2018[,] where 

[Appellant] did attempt by physical menace, to put Officer Klink 

of the Minersville Police Department in fear of unlawful serious 

bodily injury. On July 22, 2019, [Appellant] was sentenced on the 

aggravated assault charge to 21 months to 4 years in a State 

Correctional Institution. The simple assault charge merged with 

the aggravated assault charge. On August 19, 2019, [Appellant] 

filed a notice of appeal with regard to the sentence imposed on 

July 22, 2019. On August 21, 2019, [the trial court] entered an 
J-A16027-20

- 2 -

[o]rder upon [Appellant] to set forth a concise statement of 

matters complained of on appeal . . . with that statement being 

filed on August 29, 2019.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/09/19, at 1.

On appeal, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence supporting 

his conviction.1 The Commonwealth argues that Appellant waived his 

challenge to the weight of the evidence. We agree. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607 requires that a “claim that 

the verdict is against the weight of the evidence shall be raised with the trial 

judge in a motion for a new trial: (1) orally, on the record, at any time before 

sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a 

post-sentence motion.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 607. This claim must be presented to 

the trial court while it exercises jurisdiction over a matter since “appellate 

review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the 

underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000). 

Instantly, Appellant failed to raise the weight of the evidence claim orally or 

in writing prior to or after sentencing. In fact, Appellant raised the claim for 

the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement, which is insufficient to preserve 

____________________________________________

1

In his Rule 1925 statement, Appellant raised two claims: weight of the 

evidence and best evidence. On appeal, Appellant, abandoned the best 

evidence claim, raising only a weight of the evidence claim. 
J-A16027-20

- 3 -

it for appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 

(Pa. 2009). In Sherwood, the Supreme Court noted:

Regarding [a]ppellant’s weight of the evidence claim[,] we note 

that [a]ppellant did not make a motion raising a weight of the 

evidence claim before the trial court as the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Criminal Procedure require. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). The fact 

that [a]ppellant included an issue challenging the verdict on 

weight of the evidence grounds in his 1925(b) statement and the 

trial court addressed [a]ppellant’s weight claim in its Pa.R.A.P 

1925(a) opinion did not preserve his weight of the evidence claim 

for appellate review in the absence of an earlier motion.

Id. at 494 (footnote omitted). 

Because Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim fails to comport with 

the above rules, we conclude it is waived.2 Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 09/09/2020

____________________________________________

2 Additionally, we note Appellant failed to comply, inter alia, with Pa.R.A.P. 

2117(c) and 2119(e), both requiring Appellant to state the place of raising or 

preserving the weight of the evidence issue.