J-S43009-14

______________________________ 

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

VERNANDO R. JONES 

 Appellant No. 3409 EDA 2012 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 8, 2012 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005904-2011 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2014 

 Appellant, Vernando R. Jones, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his 

bench trial convictions of second degree murder, burglary, aggravated 

assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, criminal 

trespass, and possessing an instrument of crime.1

 We affirm. 

 In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 3502(a), 2702(a), 2701(a), 2705, 3503(a)(1)(ii), 

and 907(a), respectively. 
J-S43009-14

- 2 - 

restate them in their entirety.2

 Appellant raises the following issues for our review: 

IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT 

ON THE CHARGE OF MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE 

AND ALL OTHER CHARGES AS THE VERDICT IS NOT 

SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS THE 

COMMONWEALTH DID NOT PROVE THAT [APPELLANT] 

WAS AN ACTOR, CONSPIRATOR OR ACCOMPLICE WITH 

REGARD TO THE HOMICIDE, NOR DID THE 

COMMONWEALTH PROVE THAT [APPELLANT], IF HE 

ACTED, ACTED WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL OR 

PREMEDITATION OR WITH MALICE? 

IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE 

VERDICT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE GREATER WEIGHT 

OF THE EVIDENCE? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 3). 

____________________________________________ 

2

 Appellant and the female victim dated briefly in 2010. Shortly thereafter, 

female victim severed contact with Appellant when the male victim moved in 

with female victim. Over the next several months, Appellant sent female 

victim a large number of text messages to which female victim rarely 

responded. On February 25, 2011, female victim called Appellant and asked 

to borrow money. That same day, Appellant spent several hours with 

female victim in her home, and eventually agreed to lend female victim the 

money. Appellant sent female victim text and voicemail messages over the 

next several days which indicated his desire to rekindle their romantic 

relationship. When female victim ignored Appellant’s messages, he sent her 

threatening and derogatory messages. On February 28, 2011, Appellant 

called female victim several times in the early morning, and kicked down 

female victim’s door after she ignored his calls. Upon entering female 

victim’s home with a knife, Appellant found female victim hiding in the 

bathroom, and attacked her with his fists, feet, and knife. When male victim 

tried to intervene, Appellant fatally stabbed him in the chest and fled the 

scene. Appellant was subsequently arrested. Female victim identified 

Appellant as the individual who broke into her home and fatally stabbed 

male victim. 
J-S43009-14

- 3 - 

As a preliminary matter, “a challenge to the weight of the evidence 

must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived.” Commonwealth v. 

Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 

672, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim 

challenging the weight of the evidence generally cannot be raised for the 

first time in a Rule 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 830 

A.2d 1034 (Pa.Super. 2003). 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, even if the trial court responds to 

the claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Id. Instantly, Appellant failed to raise 

at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion his claim regarding weight of the 

evidence. Rather, Appellant raised the claim for the first time in his Rule 

1925(b) statement. Therefore, Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim is 

waived. See id. 

 After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Rose DeFinoNastasi, we conclude Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence issue merits no 

relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly 

disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed 

September 16, 2013, at 9) (finding: Appellant forcibly entered female 

victim’s home without license or privilege; front door was splintered, and 

footprint was found by doorknob; totality of circumstances permit inference 
J-S43009-14

- 4 - 

that Appellant intended criminal purpose; female victim identified Appellant 

as individual who forcibly entered her home and murdered male victim; 

female victim was credible eyewitness; text and voicemail messages 

between female victim and Appellant corroborated female victim’s account of 

events; evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of second degree 

murder and related offenses).3

 The record supports the trial court’s 

decision; therefore, we have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm 

on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/29/2014 

____________________________________________ 

3

 We note the trial court opinion mistakenly refers to female victim as Ms. 

Brooks.