### 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 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 judg ment 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 p erson, criminal

trespass, and possessing an instrument of crime. 1 

### We affirm.

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

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, w e 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 2 010. Shortly thereafter,

female victim severed contact with Appellant when the m ale victim moved in

with female victim. Over the next several months, Ap pellant 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 sev eral hours with

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

money. Appellant sent female victim text and voicema il 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 v ictim hiding in the

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

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

scene. Appellant was subsequently arrested. Female victi m 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 o f the evidence

must be raised with the trial judge or it will be wa ived.” 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 cann ot 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 e vidence issue to the

trial court constitutes waiver of that claim, even if th e 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 rega rding 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 o f the parties, the

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

relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusse s and properly

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

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

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

footprint was found by doorknob; totality of circums tances permit inference

### J-S43009- 14

- 4 -

that Appellant intended criminal purpose; female victi m identified Appellant

as individual who forcibly entered her home and murde red male victim;

female victim was credible eyewitness; text and voicemai l messages

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

events; evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of seco nd 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.