J-S70040-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

COREY PHINIZY

Appellant No. 1627 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 9, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000358-2014

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2015

Corey Phinizy appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County following his convictions for 

burglary1and criminal trespass.2 After our review, we affirm.

On October 21, 2013, Jayson Leypolt was awakened in the early 

morning by a rustling sound in his bedroom; he saw a man using a cell 

phone for light and rummaging through his closet. Leypolt was able to 

chase Phinizy from his home. Leypolt reported the incident to the 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503.
J-S70040-15

- 2 -

Conshohocken Borough Police Department and identified Phinizy from a 

photo array. 

At trial, Phinizy admitted on cross-examination that he did not know 

the victim. He admitted that he entered the victim’s apartment without 

permission, that he was trespassing, and that he went there to buy 

marijuana from someone named Dwayne Johnson. N.T. Trial, 12/22/14, at 

87-89, 91. 

Following trial, a jury convicted Phinizy of burglary and criminal 

trespass. The court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of five to 

fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Phinizy raises one issue for our 

review: “Did the trial court err in denying the motion for judgment of 

acquittal and thereafter finding appellant guilty of the crime of burglary since 

there was no sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of unlicensed 

entering with intent to commit a crime therein?” 

Phinizy’s claim is waived. The court ordered Phinizy to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Trial Court Order, 

6/9/15. In his Rule 1925(b) Statement, Phinizy stated: “The evidence was 

insufficient as a matter of law to convict appellant of Burglary[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) Statement, 6/29/15. The trial court noted that Phinizy failed to 

identify which elements of his burglary conviction were not established at 

trial. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/15, at 4. 

In order to preserve a challenge to sufficiency of the evidence on 

appeal, an appellant must state with specificity the element or elements of 
J-S70040-15

- 3 -

the crime upon which he alleges the evidence was insufficient. See 

Commonwealth v. Veon, 109 A.3d 754, 775 (Pa. Super. 2015), citing

Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) and

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009). Here, 

Phinizy’s Rule 1925(b) Statement fails to identify which specific element of 

his burglary conviction lacked sufficient evidence. See Garland. 

Accordingly, we find Phinizy’s claim waived on appeal.3

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

3 Were we to address the merits of this claim, we would find the evidence 

sufficient to support the burglary conviction. In a challenge to sufficiency of 

the evidence, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising 

therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict 

winner. Commonwealth v. Hall, 701 A.2d 190, 195 (Pa. 1997). The 

Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial 

evidence. Commonwealth v. Dellavecchia, 725 A.2d 186, 188 (Pa. Super. 

1998)(en banc). 

A person commits the offense of burglary if, “with the intent to commit 

a crime therein, the person: (1) Enters a building or occupied structure, or 

separately secured or occupied portion thereof that is adapted for overnight 

accommodations in which at the time of the offense any person is 

present[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502. Phinizy argues he had no intention of 

stealing anything or of committing any violent act. He claims his actions 

were a result of “mere stupidity as opposed to criminality.” Appellant’s 

Brief, at 9. The jury, however, was convinced otherwise. The victim awoke 

to find Phinizy rifling through bags in his bedroom closet. The jury could 

certainly infer that Phinizy was searching for items to steal. The 

circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support Phinizy’s burglary 

conviction. 
J-S70040-15

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/2/2015