J. S45022/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COUR T OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : JAMAL ANTHONY YOUNGER : Appellant : : No. 1676 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 13, 20 15 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001084-2015

BEFORE: OLSON, DUBOW AND PLATT, JJ. * JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 30, 2016 Appellant, Jamal Younger, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence entered by the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas on May 21, 2015, following his convictions for Robbery, Simple Assau lt, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, Theft by Unlawful Takin g, Receiving Stolen Property and Criminal Conspiracy. 1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence for each of these offenses. After car eful review, we conclude that Appellant waived this argument by filing an im permissibly vague Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement and, therefore, we affi rm.

* Retired Senior Judge Assigned to the Superior Cour t.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701; 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701; 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, respe ctively.J.S45022/16

- 2

-

A detailed factual and procedural history is unnece ssary to our disposition. Appellant filed a timely Pa.R.A.P. 19 25(b) Statement, raising the following, verbatim : “[w]hether the Commonwealth has proven each and eve ry element of the crimes of robbery, simple assault, r ecklessly endangering another person, theft by unlawful takin g, receiving stolen propery [sic] and criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement; see also Appellant’s Brief at 8. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) Opinion, in wh ich the trial court opined that Appellant’s 1925(b) statement was too v ague and unspecific to address Appellant’s claim. Trial Court Opinion, fi led 2/10/16, at 2 (stating the trial court “cannot reasonably imagine what ele ment of each crime is alleged to be unclear or insufficiently proven.”). An appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement “shall concis ely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to chall enge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R .A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). A Rule 1925(b) statement “which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalen t of no [Rule 1925(b)] Statement at all,” and will result in waiver. Lineberger v. Wyeth , 894 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa. Super. 2006). When an appellant chal lenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court has made clear our require ment that “an appellant’s Rule 1925(b) [S]tatement must state with specificit y the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence wasJ.S45022/16

- 3

-

insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Garland , 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). By filing an overly broad Rule 1925(b) Statement, A ppellant failed to

alert the trial court to which elements of which of fenses he intended to challenge. Because he failed to provide a proper R ule 1925(b) statement, Appellant waived his challenge to the sufficiency o f the evidence. See Garland, supra; Lineberger , supra

. Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinq uished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/30/2016