J-S18026-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CLARENCE R. HOBEREK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1187 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 30, 2023

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

No(s): CP-63-CR-0000891-2022, 

CP-63-CR-0002222-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: September 3, 2024

Clarence R. Hoberek appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following his convictions for theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, 

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, driving under the influence of alcohol or 

controlled substances (“DUI”), careless driving, and two counts of driving 

while operating privileges suspended or revoked.

1 We conclude Hoberek

waived his claim and affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court set forth the following factual history:

The following facts were adduced through the testimony at 

[Hoberek’s] jury trial. Around March of 2021, Bill Verelst 

invited [Hoberek], who had recently fallen onto hard times, 

to stay with him and his mother at their residence . . . in 

Burgettstown. While [Hoberek] was staying at Bill Verelst’s 

residence, he was not given consent, either by Bill Verelst 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(a), 3925(a), 3928(a), and, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§

3802(a)(1), 3714, 1543(b)(1)(iii) respectively.
J-S18026-24

- 2 -

or his fiancé, Michele Fisher-Rice, to use any of the vehicles

located at the residence, as Bill Verelst was aware that 

[Hoberek] did not possess a driver’s license. In October of 

2021, Bill Verelst and Michele Fisher-Rice traveled to 

Colorado, while Bill Verelst’s mother, Patsy Verelst, was 

away in Virginia, leaving [Hoberek] alone at the residence. 

Prior to Bill Verelst leaving for Colorado, [Hoberek] asked 

him if he would be able to use the vehicle while he was gone, 

to which Bill Verelst again informed [Hoberek] that he was 

not able to drive the vehicle under any circumstances. 

While in Colorado, Bill Verelst became sick and had to return 

home. After returning home, Bill Verelst and Michele FisherRice encountered [Hoberek] asleep on the couch. Upon 

waking up, [Hoberek] stated “I didn’t have anything to do 

with anything. I didn’t do anything” and “I didn’t do it. I 

wasn’t here all week.” Unaware of what [Hoberek] was 

talking about, Bill Verelst and Michele Fisher-Rice proceeded 

to scour the house, ultimately discovering that the

downstairs of the residence was “completely destroyed” and 

“disheveled.” After returning upstairs, Bill Verelst observed 

that [Hoberek] was no longer in the residence and began to 

search for him. Unable to find [Hoberek], Bill Verelst

proceeded to call the police and indicated to them that 

someone had broken into his residence and rifled through 

his belongings. At this juncture, all the vehicles were still

present at Bill Verelst’s residence.

After contacting the police, Bill Verelst and Michele FisherRice left to attempt to return the rental car. Bill Verelst drove 

the rental car, while Michele Fisher-Rice accompanied him 

in the Jeep Compass, leaving the Dodge Dart as the sole

vehicle at the residence. Upon returning home from 

attempting to return the rental vehicle, Bill Verelst and 

Michele Fisher-Rice noticed that the Dodge Dart was missing 

and proceeded to call the police to report that the Dodge 

Dart had been stolen. 

At this point, Michele Fisher-Rice left to go to work at the 

Dollar General store near the residence. While driving to the 

Dollar General, Michele Fisher-Rice encountered the missing 

Dodge Dart, which she observed was being driven by 

[Hoberek]. After seeing [Hoberek] driving the Dodge Dart, 

Michele Fisher-Rice called the police and informed them that 

she had just s[een] the missing vehicle. While Bill Verelst
J-S18026-24

- 3 -

was on the phone with the police, [Hoberek] returned to the 

residence, driving the Dodge Dart that had been missing. 

Upon seeing Bill Verelst exit the residence, [Hoberek]

reentered the Dodge Dart and drove away. After [Hoberek]

drove away in the Dodge Dart, that was the last time that 

Bill Verelst saw him that day. 

Later that day, at 5:21 p.m., Trooper Fernando Abbondanza 

of the Pennsylvania State Police visited Bill Verelst at his 

residence after being dispatched in response to the phone 

calls that Bill Verelst had made to police earlier in the day. 

Upon arriving at Bill Verelst’s residence, Trooper 

Abbondanza observed that the house was “in a bit of 

disarray.” Trooper Abbondanza then interviewed Bill Verelst, 

through which Trooper Abbondanza learned that the Dodge 

Dart was missing from the residence. Trooper Abbondanza 

further learned, through his investigation, that [Hoberek]

was observed driving the missing Dodge Dart on Paris 

Colliers Road. 

Based upon his investigation, Trooper Abbondanza 

determined that [Hoberek] was a suspect as it pertained to 

the missing Dodge Dart. As part of his further investigation 

into the matter, Trooper Abbondanza queried the 

information for the Dodge Dart and learned that the vehicle 

was registered to Patsy Verelst. Trooper Abbondanza also 

obtained [Hoberek’s] demographic information and queried 

[Hoberek’s] driver’s license, through which Trooper 

Abbondanza learned that [Hoberek] was DUI suspended. 

Further utilizing [Hoberek’s] information, Trooper 

Abbondanza was able to provide a photograph of [Hoberek]

to Bill Verelst, who identified [Hoberek] was the suspect. 

After concluding his investigation at the scene, Trooper 

Abbondanza entered the Dodge Dart as a stolen vehicle into

the National Criminal Information Center. 

Following his conversation with Trooper Abbondanza, Bill 

Verelst contacted his neighbor, Dylan Wolanski, to inform 

him that [Hoberek] had stolen the Dodge Dart. The next 

day, Dylan Wolanski learned that [Hoberek] was seen

driving the Dodge Dart near the start of Paris Colliers Road, 

specifically, parked in a parking lot of a nearby store. Dylan 

Wolanski then proceeded to the location where [Hoberek]

was parked and upon arriving at the location, observed 

[Hoberek] standing next to the Dodge Dart. Eventually, 
J-S18026-24

- 4 -

[Hoberek] entered the Dodge Dart and drove down Paris 

Colliers Road. After [Hoberek] began driving the Dodge 

Dart, Dylan Wolanski called Bill Verelst to inform him of what 

was transpiring and proceeded to follow [Hoberek] down 

Paris Colliers Road. In addition to calling Bill Verelst, Dylan 

Wolanski also called the police and informed them that he 

was following [Hoberek]. 

After [Hoberek] passed the Verelst residence, he became 

aware that Dylan Wolanski was following him, at which 

point, [Hoberek] exited the Dodge Dart and yelled “I don't 

know who you are. What’s your problem? Why are you 

following me?” After Dylan Wolanski yelled at [Hoberek] in 

response, [Hoberek] then proceeded to re-enter the Dodge 

Dart and turned left onto Bartleyville Road. 

While on Bartleyville Road, [Hoberek] again stopped the 

Dodge Dart and exited the vehicle, at which point he 

approached Dylan Wolanski’s vehicle and began banging on 

its windows, while also attempting to open the door to the 

vehicle. Following [Hoberek’s] unfruitful attempt at opening 

the door to Dylan Wolanski’s vehicle, [Hoberek] again reentered the Dodge Dart and turned right onto Hanlon 

Station. At the end of Hanlon Station, [Hoberek] stopped 

the Dodge Dart for a third time, exited the vehicle equipped 

with a walking cane, walked towards Dylan Wolanski’s

vehicle, and pulled the cane into the air as if he were going 

to smash the windows of Dylan Wolanski’s vehicle. At this 

point, Dylan Wolanski cracked his window and pulled out his 

firearm, resulting in [Hoberek] running back to the Dodge 

Dart.

After re-entering the Dodge Dart once again, [Hoberek]

turned right onto Eldersville Road. Eventually, [Hoberek]

turned onto a secondary road, stopped and exited the 

Dodge Dart, and stated “You can have the car. Keep the car. 

I’m done. I give up” before proceeding to walk down the 

road. Dylan Wolanski then proceeded to go over to the 

Dodge Dart to see if the keys were in the ignition. After 

failing to observe any keys, Dylan Wolanski yelled out to 

[Hoberek] to return the keys, at which point, [Hoberek] ran 

into the woods. Dylan Wolanski then re-entered his vehicle 

and began driving down the road, ultimately spotting 

[Hoberek] walking in the middle of the road. 
J-S18026-24

- 5 -

As Dylan Wolanski followed, [Hoberek] walked up a nearby 

driveway. Spotting a lady standing on the front porch of the 

house, Dylan Wolanski shouted at her to call the police, as 

he did not have service at the time. 

Throughout the incident, [Hoberek] was continuously 

speeding, reaching speeds of 65 miles per hour on a road 

with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour and drove erratically, 

including crossing the center line of the road and driving off 

of the road “20 or 25 times.” In addition to [Hoberek’s]

dangerous driving, [Hoberek] also smelled of alcohol and 

had watery eyes during his interactions with Dylan 

Wolanski. Further, upon [Hoberek] abandoning the Dodge 

Dart, the interior of the vehicle was littered with cans of beer 

and smelled of alcohol. 

Shortly after [Hoberek] abandoned the Dodge Dart, Trooper 

Jared King of the Pennsylvania State Police arrived on the 

scene, having been dispatched in response to the calls made 

by Bill Verelst and Dylan Wolanski regarding the stolen 

Dodge Dart. Upon arriving at the scene, Trooper King was 

able to observe the Dodge Dart, as well as meet with Dylan 

Wolanski. Through his discussion with Dylan Wolanski,

Trooper King was informed that [Hoberek] was the driver of 

the Dodge Dart and was also provided with a physical 

description of [Hoberek]. Dylan Wolanski further informed 

Trooper King about [Hoberek’s] whereabouts at the time, 

stating that [Hoberek] had fled into the woods. 

Following his discussion with Dylan Wolanski, Trooper King 

overheard a dispatch from Washington County 911 

regarding an individual matching [Hoberek’s] description 

that was seen walking in a field near 460 Cedar Grove Road. 

Upon proceeding to the location, Trooper King observed an 

individual matching [Hoberek’s] description walking in the 

field, at which point Trooper King confronted the individual 

and placed him into handcuffs. After placing the individual 

into handcuffs, Trooper King searched the individual and 

discovered an identification card that confirmed the identity 

of the individual as [Hoberek]. During the aforementioned 

interaction with [Hoberek], Trooper King smelled a strong 

odor of alcohol emanating from [Hoberek]. In addition to

the odor of alcohol, Trooper King further observed that 

[Hoberek] appeared disheveled, had watery eyes, and was 

verbally combative. Based upon his observations of
J-S18026-24

- 6 -

[Hoberek], along with his training and experience, Trooper 

King believed that [Hoberek] may have been under the 

influence of alcohol and therefore, was incapable of safely 

operating a motor vehicle. Trooper King then proceeded to 

place [Hoberek] under arrest.

After [Hoberek] was placed under arrest, he was 

subsequently transported to the Pennsylvania State Police 

barracks located in Moon Township. Once at the barracks, 

Trooper King requested [Hoberek] to submit to chemical 

testing of his breath and twice read him Form DL-26. 

Following the first recitation of Form DL-26, [Hoberek]

requested to speak with an attorney. Trooper King then read 

[Hoberek] Form DL-26 a second time, at which point 

[Hoberek] became belligerent to a point that Trooper King 

deemed his conduct to be a refusal to submit to the chemical 

testing. At no point did [Hoberek] sign Form DL-26. 

As part of the investigation, Trooper Thomas Schuster of the 

Pennsylvania State Police conducted an interview of 

[Hoberek] that same day. Prior to conducting the interview, 

Trooper Schuster read [Hoberek] his Miranda warnings. 

Following the recitation of his rights under Miranda, 

[Hoberek] signed the Miranda Rights Warning and Waiver 

form, indicating that he was willing to waive his Miranda 

rights and proceed with the interview. 

During the interview with Trooper Schuster, [Hoberek] 

admitted to driving the Dodge Dart and stated that he had 

been drinking alcohol during the incident. Throughout the 

interview with [Hoberek], Trooper Schuster smelled an odor 

of alcohol emanating from [Hoberek], which led Trooper 

Schuster to believe that Hoberek was under the influence of 

alcohol.

Trial Cout Opinion, filed Nov. 28, 2023, at 6-12 (citations and footnotes 

omitted).

Hoberek was found guilty of theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen 

property, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and driving while operating 

privilege is suspended or revoked, DUI, and driving while operating privileges 
J-S18026-24

- 7 -

are suspended or revoked and the court found him guilty of careless driving.

The trial court sentenced Hoberek to an aggregate term of five to ten years’ 

incarceration followed by 12 months reentry supervision. Hoberek filed a postsentence motion, alleging “there was insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, 

to support the charges against [Hoberek]” and “[t]he prosecution’s witness’ 

testimony was inconsistent and incredible to the degree that the court’s 

verdict was so contrary to the weight of the evidence so as to shock one’s 

sense of justice.” Post Sentence Motion, filed Feb. 8, 2023, at 2. The trial court 

denied the motion.

Hoberek timely appealed.

2

In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Hoberek 

stated the trial court had “committed an error of law and abuse of discretion 

____________________________________________

2 Hoberek filed a timely post-sentence motion on February 8, 2023. The

motion was denied by operation of law in June 2023, but the trial court did 

not enter an order deeming the motion denied. On September 12, 2023, the 

trial court denied the post-sentence motion. Hoberek filed a timely Notice of 

Appeal on October 2, 2023. See Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 

735 (Pa.Super. 2003), (finding a breakdown occurs when the clerk of courts 

fails to enter an order deeming a post-sentence motion denied by operation 

of law and notifying the defendant of same); Commonwealth v. 

Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133, 138 (Pa.Super. 1995) (holding that appellant’s 

notice of appeal was timely, as it was filed within 30 days of an untimely order 

denying the appellant’s post-sentence motion).

Further, Hoberek filed a single notice of appeal listing two docket numbers, 

rather than filing a notice of appeal at each docket as required by 

Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018). However, we find 

quashal or remand not necessary, as a breakdown in the court occurred 

because the court entered an order requiring Hoberek to file “an appeal.” See 

Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157, 160 (Pa.Super. 2019)

(concluding breakdown in the court occurs when a court misadvises appellants 

of their appeal rights by advising them they can pursue appellate review by 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S18026-24

- 8 -

in denying [Hoberek’s] Motion for Judgment of Acquittal based upon the 

weight of the evidence at trial in that [Hoberek] should not have been found 

guilty based upon the standard of beyond of reasonable doubt” and 

“committed a clear error of law and abuse of discretion in denying [Hoberek’s] 

Motion for New Trial based upon the weight of the testimony and evidence 

submitted at trial and that [Hoberek] could not have been found guilty under 

the reasonable doubt standard and therefore the remedy would be a new trial 

awarded.” Rule 1925(b) Statement, filed Oct. 21, 2023.

Hoberek raises the following issue in his brief: “Whether the Court 

committed an error of law or abuse of discretion in denying [Hoberek’s] PostTrial Motion.” Hoberek’s Br. at 7.

Hoberek argues that the evidence showed areas where the trial court 

should have exercised discretion by using “reason, especially when applying 

the beyond reasonable doubt standard.” Id. at 9. He points out that two hours 

after the alleged vehicle theft Trooper Abbondanza testified that he observed 

the house was “dissheveled” and that there was no video of the officer reading 

Hoberek the DL-26-A form, even though a video was required by department 

protocol. He further notes there was no blood draw, even though the police 

could have obtained a warrant for one. In addition, Hoberek states that a video 

depicted Hoberek telling Trooper Schuster that he had permission to use the 

vehicle and that he had been using the Dodge Dart, as well as Patsy and Bill 

____________________________________________

filing a single notice of appeal, even though the court is addressing cases at 

multiple docket numbers).
J-S18026-24

- 9 -

Verelst’s cars, for months. He further states that the Commonwealth 

presented no evidence he was behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. 

Hoberek notes that Patsy Verelst testified she did not remember 

speaking with the troopers on the phone or her age and remembered going 

to Virginia only after being reminded in the courtroom hallway. He further 

notes that Patsy had left the vehicle keys on the kitchen table when Bill and 

Michelle were away, suggesting she left the keys because Hoberek had 

permission to use the vehicle.

Hoberek maintains the trial court “did not apply the proper weight 

regarding all of the above facts from trial, nor did the trial court apply any of 

the above facts to the law controlling this case.” Id. at 11. He claims there 

were too many inconsistencies and mishandling of protocol for Hoberek to be 

found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is unclear whether on appeal Hoberek is challenging the sufficiency of 

the evidence, the weight of the evidence, or both. The trial court found he 

waived his sufficiency and weight claims because he failed to specify in his 

Rule 1925(b) statement which convictions lacked sufficient support or were

contrary to the weight of the evidence. Tr.Ct.Op. at 15-16. For the sufficiency 

challenge, the court states that Hoberek failed to specify which “element or 

elements of the relevant verdicts, let alone which of the six verdicts, the 

evidence was allegedly insufficient at” and found the claim was “wholly 

undeveloped, vague, and lack[ed] the requisite sufficient specificity that would 

allow th[e c]ourt to prepare an adequate legal analysis.” Id. at 15. For the 
J-S18026-24

- 10 -

weight claim, the court similarly found Hoberek failed to specify which verdicts 

were against the weight of the evidence or provide reasons why the verdicts 

were against the weight of the evidence. It concluded that the weight claim 

“suffer[ed] the same fatal flaw as the sufficiency of the evidence claim,” in 

that it was vague, undeveloped, and lacked the requisite specificity to allow 

the court to engage in legal analysis. Id. at 15-16.

We conclude Hoberek waived his sufficiency and weight challenges. 

“[T]o preserve a challenge to either the sufficiency or weight of the evidence 

on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b) concise statement must state with 

specificity the elements or verdicts for which the appellant alleges that the 

evidence was insufficient or against the weight of the evidence.” 

Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1048 (Pa.Super. 2022).

“[S]pecificity is of particular importance in cases where . . . [an a]ppellant was 

convicted of multiple crimes, each of which contains elements that the 

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Hoberek stated the trial court

“committed an error of law and abuse of discretion in denying [Hoberek’s] 

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal based upon the weight of the evidence at 

trial in that [Hoberek] should not have been found guilty based upon the 

standard of beyond of reasonable doubt.” He also alleged that it had 

“committed a clear error of law and abuse of discretion in denying [his] Motion 

for New Trial based upon the weight of the testimony and evidence submitted 

at trial and that [Hoberek] could not have been found guilty under the 
J-S18026-24

- 11 -

reasonable doubt standard.” Rule 1925(b) Statement. The Statement failed 

to specify the conviction or convictions, or the elements of them, that he was 

challenging. He therefore waived his claims.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DATE: 9/3/2024