J. S45022/16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

JAMAL ANTHONY YOUNGER : 

 Appellant : 

 : No. 1676 WDA 2015 

 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 13, 2015 

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 Assault, Recklessly 

Endangering Another Person, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Receiving Stolen 

Property and Criminal Conspiracy.1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence for each of these offenses. After careful review, we conclude 

that Appellant waived this argument by filing an impermissibly vague 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement and, therefore, we affirm. 

 

*

 Retired Senior Judge Assigned to the Superior Court. 

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, respectively. 
J.S45022/16 

- 2 -

A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our 

disposition. Appellant filed a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, raising 

the following, verbatim: 

“[w]hether the Commonwealth has proven each and every 

element of the crimes of robbery, simple assault, recklessly 

endangering another person, theft by unlawful taking, 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 which the trial court 

opined that Appellant’s 1925(b) statement was too vague and unspecific to 

address Appellant’s claim. Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/10/16, at 2 (stating 

the trial court “cannot reasonably imagine what element of each crime is 

alleged to be unclear or insufficiently proven.”). 

An appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement “shall concisely identify each 

ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge 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 equivalent 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 challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence, this Court has made clear our requirement that “an appellant’s 

Rule 1925(b) [S]tatement must state with specificity the element or 

elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was 
J.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, Appellant failed to 

alert the trial court to which elements of which offenses he intended to 

challenge. Because he failed to provide a proper Rule 1925(b) statement, 

Appellant waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See 

Garland, supra; Lineberger, supra. 

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/30/2016