J-S21007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TREVOR ALAN LAWYER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1516 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022

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

No(s): CP-28-CR-0000773-2020

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JUNE 11, 2023

Trevor Alan Lawyer appeals from the judgment of sentence of an 

aggregate term of fifteen to thirty-six months of incarceration following his 

convictions for obstructing administration of law and resisting arrest. We 

affirm. 

We glean the following factual background from the trial transcript. On 

March 10, 2020, Pennsylvania State Police Troopers Kyler Hull and Tristen 

Shoopack were dispatched to Appellant’s residence in response to a report of 

a domestic altercation between Appellant and his partner, Jessica Schmidt. 

The troopers encountered Ms. Schmidt at the end of Appellant’s half-mile-long 

driveway and obtained her version of events. They advised her to stay there 

while they went to the house to speak with Appellant, who had a visible injury 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21007-23

- 2 -

from the altercation. Ms. Schmidt walked back to the residence and began 

yelling at the troopers “as well as everyone who was in the residence,” and 

the troopers took her into custody for assault. See N.T. Trial, 3/2/22, at 57. 

Ms. Schmidt resisted arrest but was ultimately placed in the police vehicle. 

When Appellant came out of the house during the process of getting her into 

the car, the troopers advised Appellant to remain at the house and not 

approach the vehicle, as they would be transporting Ms. Schmidt to the 

Franklin County Jail.1 

Since Ms. Schmidt continued to act unruly, the troopers stopped at the 

end of the driveway to place restraints on her to prevent spitting and kicking. 

Appellant drove his vehicle to their location and got out. Trooper Hull informed 

Appellant what they were doing, directed Appellant to stay in his vehicle, and 

got in the police vehicle to leave. Instead, Appellant approached the police 

cruiser and opened the rear passenger door, which was unable to be opened 

from the inside, to let Ms. Schmidt out. The troopers exited the vehicle and 

informed Appellant he was under arrest. Appellant attempted to pull away

and continued to resist being handcuffed after being tackled, informing the 

troopers that he was a state champion wrestler who was not going to be taken 

into custody. Trooper Hull ultimately was required to hit Appellant with three 

closed-fist strikes and two knee strikes to effectuate Appellant’s arrest. 

____________________________________________

1

In a separate case, Ms. Schmidt entered a guilty plea to charges stemming 

from the incident. 
J-S21007-23

- 3 -

On March 2, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of obstructing 

administration of law and resisting arrest but found him not guilty of disorderly 

conduct. Appellant was sentenced to the above-referenced term of 

incarceration on May 4, 2022. After Appellant’s trial counsel withdrew, and 

appointed counsel was given multiple extensions of time to file a postsentence motion, Appellant filed a motion stating two bases for 

reconsideration of his sentence. The trial court denied the motion by order of 

October 12, 2022. 

This timely appeal followed. Appellant, after counsel obtained additional 

time to do so, complied with the trial court’s order to file a concise statement 

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

Appellant contended, inter alia, that the trial court committed reversible error 

for denying his “post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal” based upon 

the verdict not being supported by insufficient evidence and being against the 

weight of the evidence. The trial court thereafter submitted a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion observing that Appellant had raised no such claims in his 

post-sentence motion but nonetheless addressing their substance.2

Appellant presents one issue for our review: “Did the trial court commit 

reversible error when it denied [Appellant’s] post- sentence motion for a new 

trial on the basis that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence?” 

Appellant’s brief at 4. 

____________________________________________

2 We laud the trial court for addressing the claims to the best of its ability 

despite its belief that they were not properly presented. 
J-S21007-23

- 4 -

While Appellant’s stated question appears to focus solely on claiming 

that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, his argument also 

invokes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and, at times, conflates 

the two. Our Supreme Court has explained the differences between the 

distinct challenges to a verdict as follows:

A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a 

question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the 

verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime 

charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the 

verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to 

human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is 

insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim 

the court is required to view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit 

of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. 

A motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is 

contrary to the weight of the evidence, concedes that there is 

sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Thus, the trial court is 

under no obligation to view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict winner. An allegation that the verdict is 

against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion 

of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a 

mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same 

facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. A trial judge 

must do more than reassess the credibility of the witnesses and 

allege that he would not have assented to the verdict if he were a 

juror. Trial judges, in reviewing a claim that the verdict is against 

the weight of the evidence do not sit as the thirteenth juror. 

Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that 

notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater 

weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all 

the facts is to deny justice.

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751–52 (Pa. 2000) (cleaned up). 

For our part, this Court conducts the same de novo, plenary review of a 
J-S21007-23

- 5 -

sufficiency claim, but reviews a trial court’s ruling on a weight claim for an 

abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 

495 (Pa.Super. 2020). 

Appellant, to the extent that he challenges evidentiary sufficiency, 

identified neither in his Rule 1925(b) statement nor his brief which conviction 

he assails or what elements of either were not proven. In his brief, he merely 

notes the charges and the fact that the troopers testified at trial. See

Appellant’s brief at 8. Appellant quickly moves on to his weight argument, 

asserting that “a review of all of the facts and evidence presented at trial show 

unequivocally that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the 

evidence.” Id. Specifically, Appellant suggests that his “testimony was 

credible and unequivocal that the events testified [to] by Troopers Hull and 

Shoopack did not take place in the manner that [the t]roopers testified they 

did.” Id. at 9. Rather, as he and Ms. Schmidt testified, Appellant came to 

the end of the driveway when Ms. Schmidt screamed for help and asked what 

was going on, and, without notice, cause, or warning, the troopers threw him 

to the ground and began punching him. See id. at 9-10 (citing Ms. Schmit’s 

testimony, N.T. Trial, 3/2/22, at 166-83). See also N.T. Trial, 3/2/22, at

205-09 (Appellant’s testimony). 

The trial court concluded that Appellant’s bald, general assertion in his 

Rule 1925(b) statement that the trial evidence was insufficient was not a 
J-S21007-23

- 6 -

properly-raised sufficiency claim.3 See Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23, at 3. We 

agree. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Arnold, 284 A.3d 1262, 1279 

(Pa.Super. 2022) (“If an appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence 

was insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or 

elements upon which the evidence was insufficient. . . . Where a 1925(b) 

statement does not specify the allegedly unproven elements, the sufficiency 

issue is waived on appeal.” (cleaned up)). 

Regarding Appellant’s weight claim, the trial court and the 

Commonwealth contend that claim was not preserved for appellate review 

because it was not raised in an oral or written motion at any time prior to this 

appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23, at 5-6;4 Commonwealth’s brief at 

4. Again, we agree. Appellant did not raise a weight claim before sentencing 

and, despite being properly informed on the record of his post-sentence rights 

and the grant of additional time for newly-appointed counsel to file a postsentence motion, a weight claim was not included therein with the sentencing 

challenges. See N.T. Sentencing, 5/4/22, at 18-19; Order, 5/31/22 (granting 

____________________________________________

3 The trial court nonetheless explained in its opinion why the evidence was 

sufficient to sustain both convictions. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23, at 3-

5. If waiver did not apply, we would reject Appellant’s sufficiency challenges 

for the reasons stated by the trial court. 

4 The trial court alternatively opined that the weight claim did not merit a new 

trial because no particular facts were “so clearly of greater weight that in 

ignoring them we deny justice to [Appellant].” Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23, 

at 7. We discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in 

declining to give more weight to Appellant’s self-serving testimony than the 

jury did. 
J-S21007-23

- 7 -

extension of time to file post-sentence motion); Motion for Reconsideration of 

Sentence, 6/20/22 (moving solely for sentencing relief). 

Accordingly, Appellant’s weight claim is waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 

607(A) (“A claim that the verdict was 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.”); Commonwealth v. 

Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1047 (Pa.Super. 2022) (“An appellant’s failure to avail 

himself of any of the prescribed methods for presenting a weight of the 

evidence issue to the trial court constitutes waiver of that claim.” (cleaned 

up)). 

As Appellant failed to present any claim entitling him to relief, we affirm 

his judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/11/2023