J-S15005-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RASHEED HALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 663 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 21, 2015,

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0004943-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RASHEED HALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 664 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 21, 2015,

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0004945-2014

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 24, 2022

In these nunc pro tunc appeals,

1 Appellant Rasheed Hall, appeals from 

the judgments of sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of multiple 

crimes relating to the robbery of Sharday Williams and the shooting of Derrick 

____________________________________________

1 This Court consolidated Appellant’s appeals sua sponte pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

513. Order, 8/23/21.
J-S15005-22

- 2 -

Moye.

2

 Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and 

he claims the trial court abused its discretion by permitting a witness to testify 

regarding the discovery of a firearm because the testimony was allegedly more 

prejudicial than probative. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows: 

On January 30, 2014, at 11:30 p.m., Sharday Williams and her 

boyfriend Derrick Moye left Moye’s residence located on the 2600 

block of West Lehigh Avenue. After taking a few steps towards 

her car, co-defendant Clinton Brown approached Williams, stole 

her wallet, and ran away. Observing the robbery of his girlfriend

Williams, Moye chased after co-defendant Brown. As Moye chased 

co-defendant, [Appellant] emerged from the front of a nearby bar, 

struck Moye in the head with a firearm and then fired one shot 

into Moye’s chest. [Appellant] and co-defendant then fled the 

scene together on foot, running in the same direction.

Following the shooting, Williams and Moye went to Moye’s home, 

where his mother also resided. Moye’s mother dialed 911, and 

police and an ambulance arrived shortly thereafter. Moye was 

taken to Temple University Hospital. Police officers then took

Williams to Northwest Detectives where she provided a description 

of [Appellant and co-defendant]. Based upon “flash” information 

describing [Appellant] and co-defendant, police officers stopped 

three males who were standing together: [Appellant], codefendant, and another male. An hour after the robbery and 

shooting, [o]fficers then brought Williams to the location where

____________________________________________

2 Appellant properly filed separate appeals at each trial court docket. See 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1144 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en 

banc), appeal denied, 242 A.3d 304 (Pa. 2020); see also Pa.R.A.P. 341. 

However, Appellant purports to appeal from the March 26, 2021 order denying 

his post-sentence motions that were filed nunc pro tunc. It is well settled that 

the appeal “properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the 

denial of post-sentence motions.” Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 

A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc) (citation omitted). Appellant’s 

judgments of sentence were entered on August 21, 2015, and we have 

corrected the appeal paragraphs accordingly. See id.
J-S15005-22

- 3 -

officers had the three individuals stopped, and Williams identified 

[Appellant] and co-defendant as the two males who stole her 

wallet and shot Moye. 

Search incident to their arrests, police recovered two cell phones 

from [Appellant] and co-defendant. Detectives obtained search 

warrants for the phones, however, they were unable to access 

[Appellant’s] phone. After obtaining the cell phone number for 

co-defendant’s phone, detectives then obtained search warrants 

for the subscriber information and call logs for that phone. 

Detectives determined that co-defendant’s contacts included one 

with the name of “Sheed.” The number associated with “Sheed”

was [Appellant’s] cell phone number. Detectives called the 

number for “Sheed,” and [Appellant’s] cell phone rang. Detectives 

reviewed the call logs and determined that [Appellant] and codefendant communicated multiple times during the period of 

January 29, 2014 to January 31, 2014, including two phone calls, 

roughly eight minutes apart, that occurred just after the robbery 

and shooting. 

Police obtained a warrant to search the property located at 2531 

West Oakdale Street, where [Appellant] resided. As part of the 

search, Detective Leonard Azzarano recovered five .32 caliber 

rounds, one .40 caliber round, and fourteen .22 caliber rounds 

from a bowl in the kitchen. Detective Azzarano also recovered 

one black and one tan jacket from the dining room. Detective 

Kevin Sloan recovered numerous .45 caliber rounds from inside a

suitcase in the middle bedroom of the second floor, along with a 

dry cleaning receipt, dated 1/28/14, with [Appellant’s] name on it 

and a description of the article of clothing cleaned as one jumpsuit. 

Shortly after the robbery, police recovered a silver .22 caliber 

revolver from the 2600 block of Sterner Street, which was 

approximately one block from the residence of co-defendant 

Brown. 

Hyung Le, a forensic scientist with the Philadelphia Police Office of 

Forensic Science, testified that there was gunshot residue on the 

black Dickie jumpsuit worn by [Appellant] and recovered from him 

the night of his arrest, in particular, on the outside front and back 

of the right sleeve and cuff. 

At a suppression hearing, Williams testified that on the night of 

the robbery and shooting, she and her boyfriend Moye exited his 

house. As they were walking toward her car, co-defendant Brown 

came from her right, snatched her purse and ran off to the left. 
J-S15005-22

- 4 -

As Moye chased after co-defendant, Williams observed [Appellant] 

step out from in front of the bar that was two houses down, run 

towards Moye and shoot him in the chest. Williams described

[Appellant] as wearing a black hoodie, a black Dickie jacket and 

blue pants. Williams stated that from the time they exited the 

house until the shooting occurred was about two minutes. 

Detective Wayne Brown testified that he brought Williams to 

identify three males who had been stopped within an hour of when 

the shooting occurred. Detective Brown testified that the three 

males who were detained were standing outside the police car, 

that it was dark but the streetlights were lit, that Williams was 

seated in the [d]etective’s car no more than 15 [feet] to 20 [feet]

away with a clear view of the males, and that Williams positively 

identified [Appellant] and co-defendant as the two individuals 

involved in the robbery and shooting. Detective Brown testified

that Williams identified [Appellant] by his Dickie outfit or jacket. 

Trial Ct. Op., 8/9/21, at 1-4 (formatting altered).

On May 26, 2015, at trial court docket number 4943-2014, the jury 

found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of 

crime (PIC), conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, and Violations of the 

Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA) possession of a firearm by a prohibited person 

and carrying a firearm without a license.

3

 At trial court docket number 4945-

2014, the jury found Appellant guilty of robbery and conspiracy to commit 

robbery.4 On August 21, 2015, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence 

of 198 months to 396 months of incarceration. 

____________________________________________

3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(1), 907, 903, and VUFA §§ 6105(a)(1) and 

6106(a)(1), respectively. Also at docket 4943-2014, Appellant entered a 

guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled 

substance in violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

4 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), and 903, respectively.
J-S15005-22

- 5 -

Appellant filed timely appeals at each trial court docket. After review,

this Court concluded that Appellant failed to properly preserve his issues on 

appeal, found all of Appellant’s issues waived, and affirmed the judgments of 

sentence. Commonwealth v. Hall, 2705 EDA 2015, 2017 WL 2829319, at 

*3 (Pa. Super. filed June 30, 2017) (unpublished mem.). Thereafter, 

Appellant filed a timely pro se Post Conviction Relief Act5 (PCRA) petition. The 

PCRA court appointed counsel, and Appellant filed an amended PCRA petition

on March 19, 2020, and a second amended PCRA petition on November 19, 

2020. In his second amended PCRA petition, Appellant asserted that prior 

counsel was ineffective and requested the reinstatement of his post-sentence 

motion and direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On November 20, 2020, the 

PCRA court granted Appellant’s second amended PCRA petition and reinstated 

Appellant’s post-sentence motion and direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc.

On November 21, 2020, Appellant filed post-sentence motions nunc pro 

tunc. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motions, and Appellant 

filed an appeal nunc pro tunc at each trial court docket. Appellant’s appeal at 

4945-2014 was assigned Superior Court docket 664 EDA 2021, and the appeal 

at trial court docket 4943-2014 was assigned Superior Court docket 663 EDA 

2021. 

After Appellant filed his counseled nunc pro tunc direct appeals, 

Appellant filed a petition to proceed pro se and requested a hearing pursuant 

____________________________________________

5 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S15005-22

- 6 -

to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). On June 3, 2021, 

this Court remanded this matter to the trial court for a Grazier hearing at 

both 663 EDA 2021 and 664 EDA 2021. On July 9, 2021, the trial court held 

a Grazier hearing and concluded that Appellant properly waived his right to 

counsel, vacated the appointment of counsel, and permitted Appellant to 

proceed pro se at both dockets. As noted, these appeals were consolidated 

sua sponte, and the trial court filed its opinion on August 9, 2021.6

While Appellant was proceeding pro se in the instant appeal, Justin C. 

Capek, Esquire, (Counsel) entered his appearance on behalf of Appellant on 

June 29, 2022. Counsel filed an application to strike Appellant’s pro se brief 

and a request for an extension of time to file a corrected Rule 1925(b) 

statement. In an order filed on July 18, 2022, this Court granted the

application to strike Appellant’s pro se brief, denied the request to file a 

corrected Rule 1925(b) statement and request for an extension of time in 

____________________________________________

6 Appellant was permitted to proceed pro se on July 9, 2021, following the 

Grazier hearing, and Appellant filed his pro se Rule 1925(b) statement that 

same day at both trial court dockets. The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion on August 9, 2021. On September 14, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se

motion in this Court requesting that we remand for the trial court to address 

the issue Appellant raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement. However, the only 

issue Appellant raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement was a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions for robbery and aggravated 

assault, which the trial court addressed in its August 9, 2021 opinion. This 

Court denied Appellant’s motion for remand on October 5, 2021. 
J-S15005-22

- 7 -

which to file a new Rule 1925(b) statement,7 and permitted Appellant to file 

an amended counseled brief within thirty days. Appellant timely filed his 

amended brief on August 9, 2022, and the Commonwealth timely filed its 

amended brief on September 8, 2022. 

In his amended brief, Appellant presents the following issues:

1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to 

sustain the verdicts of guilty for the crimes of aggravated 

assault, VUFA §§ 6105 & 6106, possession of an instrument of 

crime, and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault?

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Ms. 

Gloria Mitchell to testify to the discovery of a firearm when the 

probative value of her testimony did not substantially outweigh 

the prejudice to [Appellant] at trial?

Appellant’s Am. Brief at 3 (formatting altered).

Before we reach the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must first address 

whether Appellant properly preserved these issues. In Appellant’s pro se July 

9, 2021 Rule 1925(b) statement, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence 

concerning his convictions for robbery and aggravated assault. See Rule 

1925(b) Statement, 7/9/21. As stated previously, after the Grazier hearing 

where Appellant was permitted to proceed pro se and after the appellate briefs 

were filed in this matter, Counsel entered his appearance for Appellant, and 

____________________________________________

7

In its amended brief, the Commonwealth incorrectly states that the July 18, 

2022 order of this Court granted Appellant’s request to file a corrected Rule 

1925(b) statement. Commonwealth’s Am. Brief at 6. In fact, this Court in its 

July 18, 2022 order granted the application to strike Appellant’s pro se brief 

and permitted Appellant’s counsel to file an amended counseled brief. See 

Order, 7/18/22 at 1-2. However, this Court denied Appellant’s application to 

file a corrected Rule 1925(b) statement. See id. at 2.
J-S15005-22

- 8 -

he filed a request to strike Appellant’s pro se brief and a request to file a 

corrected Rule 1925(b) statement and an extension of time in which to file the 

new Rule 1925(b) statement. Although we granted Appellant’s application to 

strike the pro se brief and permitted Appellant’s counsel to file an amended 

brief, this Court denied Appellant’s request to file a new Rule 1925(b) 

statement. However, in his counseled amended brief, Appellant argues issues

that were not raised in his pro se July 9, 2021 Rule 1925(b) statement, namely 

the lack of sufficiency of the evidence for the crimes of aggravated assault, 

conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, VUFA §§ 6105 and 6106, and PIC, 

based on vague, tenuous, uncertain, and prejudicial witness testimony from 

one of the victims, Sharday Williams, concerning his identification as a 

perpetrator, and the discovery of a firearm. Further, Appellant challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence based on the lack of corroborating ballistic evidence

for the gunshot primer residue, and he claims the trial court abused its 

discretion by admitting testimony from Gloria Mitchell, the person who 

discovered the firearm in the snow a few blocks away from the shooting, was 

more prejudicial than probative. See Appellant’s Am. Brief at 3, 13, 18, 19, 

20-23; Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/9/21. 

It is well settled that only issues properly raised in a timely Rule 1925(b) 

statement are preserved for appellate review. See Commonwealth v. 

Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (holding that issues not raised in a 

Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for appellate review); see 

also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating that “[i]ssues not included in the 
J-S15005-22

- 9 -

Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(4) are waived”), 302(a) (providing that issues may not be 

raised for the first time on appeal). 

In the argument section of his counseled amended brief, Appellant

asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of aggravated 

assault beyond a reasonable doubt based on the insufficiency of the 

identification evidence and gunshot residue evidence, not lack of proof of

serious bodily injury. See Appellant’s Am. Brief at 13-20. In contrast, in his 

pro se Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant asserted that the evidence was 

insufficient for aggravated assault because the Commonwealth allegedly failed 

to prove serious bodily injury. Notably, Appellant did not challenge the 

sufficiency of his conspiracy to commit aggravated assault conviction in his 

pro se Rule 1925(b) statement. Appellant also challenged the sufficiency of 

his robbery conviction in his Rule 1925(b) statement, which was not argued 

in his counseled amended brief. See Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/9/21. 

Because the issues Appellant now argues were not raised in his Rule 1925(b) 

statement, we are constrained to conclude that Appellant’s sufficiency claims 

for aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault are 

waived. Additionally, Appellant did not include any sufficiency of the evidence 

claims in his pro se 1925(b) statement concerning the PIC nor VUFA offenses, 

therefore, the instant sufficiency claims for these offenses are also waived. 

Further, we agree with the Commonwealth that Appellant’s claims that the 

identification testimony from one of the victims, Sharday Williams, and the 
J-S15005-22

- 10 -

ballistics experts’ testimony were vague, tenuous, uncertain, and prejudicial 

is tantamount to an attack on the credibility of these witnesses which is an

improper basis to establish a sufficiency of evidence claim. Commonwealth’s 

Am. Brief at 8. Therefore, Appellant’s claims fail even if there were not 

waived. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 939 (Pa. Super. 

2013); Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281-82 (Super. 2009). 

Additionally, Appellant did not assert any of these theories nor a challenge to 

the admissibility of Gloria Mitchell’s testimony, the individual who found the 

firearm on the ground a few days after the incident, in his Rule 1925(b) 

statement.

Our review concludes that the waiver of all of Appellant’s sufficiency 

claims is appropriate because his Rule 1925(b) statement did not state the 

specific elements for offenses that Appellant now alleges the Commonwealth 

failed to prove at trial, and further, his counseled amended brief asserts 

theories different from those raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See 

Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780; see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 191 A.3d 

830, 834-35 (Pa. Super. 2018) (finding a challenge on appeal under theory 

different from that raised in the Rule 1925(b) statement waived because the 

trial court did not have an opportunity to review it); Commonwealth v. 

Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating “in order to preserve 

a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 

1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon 

which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.” (citation 
J-S15005-22

- 11 -

omitted)); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 909 A.2d 839, 845 (Pa. Super. 2006) 

(providing that “[a] theory of error different from that presented to the trial 

jurist is waived on appeal, even if both theories support the same basic 

allegation of error which gives rise to the claim for relief.” (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Gordon, 528 A.2d 631, 638 (Pa. Super. 1987)); 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii), 302(a). Likewise, Appellant’s claim concerning the 

admissibility of Gloria Mitchell’s testimony was not raised in his Rule 1925(b) 

statement.

8

 See Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780. For these reasons, we conclude 

that Appellant has waived the issues he presents on appeal, therefore, we 

affirm the judgments of sentence.9 

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

8 To clarify and distinguish Appellant’s attempts to challenge the testimony of 

Sharday Williams and Gloria Mitchell, we note that in his amended brief, 

Appellant for the first time asserts that Sharday Williams’ testimony failed to 

establish the Appellant’s identity as the shooter, and this claim was not 

presented in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement. However, Appellant’s 

challenge with respect to Gloria Mitchell’s testimony, is that the trial court 

abused its discretion in admitting her testimony. This issue was not raised in 

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement and is therefore, waived.

9

In any event, were we to reach the merits of Appellant’s challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions, we would affirm based 

on the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/9/21. 
J-S15005-22

- 12 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/24/2022