J

- S41038

- 20

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v. BRAXTON ROBERT BECKER ,

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1841 M DA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 21 , 2019

in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division , at No(s): CP

- 14

- CR

- 0001893

- 2018

. BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J. , McLAUGHLIN , J. and STRASSBURGER, J.* MEMORANDUM BY K U NSELMAN , J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2021 Braxton Robert Becker appeals from judgment of sentence 1 imposed after a jury found him guilty of hindering apprehension or prosecution

. 2 We affirm

. We derive the foll owing facts from the record. B ecker ’s charges stem from the deletion of vi deo footage from his fraternity house’s surveillance system during a police investigation into the death of one of the fraternity’s potential new members , Timothy Piazza

.

1 We no te that Becker pu rported to appeal from the October 8 , 2019 order d enyi ng his post

- sentence motion s. “In a criminal action, appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post

- sentence motio ns. ” Commonwealth v . Shamberger , 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001) ( en banc ) (citation omitted)

. We have corrected the caption accordingly.

2 18 Pa

. C.S.A. § 5105 (a)(3).J

- S410 38

- 20

- 2

-

By way of backgroun d, Becker was a memb er of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity on the ca mpus of Pennsylvania State University in State College , Pennsylvania

. I n February 2017, Becker served on the frate rnity’s executive board as its house manager. In that role, he w as r esponsible for the f raternity house’s video surveillance system and was th e only fraternity member who kn e w how the system operated. The surveillance system was c omprised of sixteen cameras and two digital video recorder (DVR) boxes, DVR

- 1 and DVR

- 2

. Relev ant to this appeal, the system included cameras in the hou se ’ s basement.
O n Thursday, February 2, 2017, the fraternity held a party at its house for potential new members consisting of , inter alia , a drinking obstacle
course, where fraterni ty m embers direc ted potential new me mbers to d rink
excessiv e amounts of alcohol in short p eriods of time at different drinking stations. During the party , Piazza, who was 19 years old , was a potential new membe r , and participated in the drinking obstacle c ours e , became

se verely intoxicated. At approxi mately 11: 20 p. m., Piazza fell down the frat ernity house’s basement stairs, sustaining serious injur ies

. The fraternity house’s surveillance system recorded portions of the party

. The next morning, just before 11: 00 a.m. , on Friday, F ebruary 3, 2017, a S tate Colle ge police officer r espo nded to a 91 1 call at the fraternity house

. T he officer found Piazza unconscious on a couch. Fraternity membersJ

- S410 38

- 20

- 3

-

told the officer that Piazza had fallen down the basement stairs the previo us

n ight . Piazza was transported by ambulance to a med ical center

. At about 2:00 p.m. the same day, February 3, 2017, Detective Craig Ripka and Lieutenant Keith Robb of the State College Police Department visited the fraternity house t o investigate Piazza’ s in jury

. F raternity members t old them a bout the party and Piazza’s fall. The off icers immediately observed video cameras in rooms of the house and asked for
assistance in acquiring video footage of P iazza’s fall. The fraternity’s president, Brendan Young, dir ected the officers to Beck er. Becker agre ed to obtain the video footage and said he would contact them when he had it ready. After about two hours at the house, Detective Ripka and Lieutenant Robb returned to the police sta tion . Less than an hour later , Becker notified them the v ideo foot age was ready and Detective Ripka returned to pick it up

. Becker provided him with two video clips on a thumb drive. U pon viewing the clips at the police station that evening , Det ective Ripka discovered that nei ther video cl ip related to what police had

r equested. Both clips were from earlier in t he day on Friday, February 3, 2017, the f irst from 7:00 to 7:15 a.m. , and the second from 9:29 to 9:35 a. m . In both clips, the camera ang les captured the upstairs areas of the house and Piazza’s condition the mor ning after his fall, but they did not show the party or Piazza’s fall. Before leaving work that evening, Detective Ripka contactedJ

- S410 38

- 20

- 4

-

Becker to req uest additional video footage. Becker agreed and told Detective Ripk a to contact him on Monday, February 6, 2017, to ar range pickup of the requested video on Monday afternoon

. Meanwhile , throughout the day on February 3, 2017 , Becker exchanged text messages with his fraternity member s , expressing his willingne s s to delete the fraternity house’s video surveillan ce footage and to lie about its existence. A t 1 2:42 p.m. on Friday, February 3, 2017, the fraternity’s treasurer, Adam Mengden, sent Becker the following text
message , “Era sing the cam eras could be the lo o k as lo ok [sic] as long as no one fou nd out[.] ” N.T., 5/28/201 9, at 247, Exh. 48 . A few minutes la ter at 12:46 p.m., Becker responded, “ I think the exa ct same thing[.] ” Id. at 248, Exh. 48. Second s later, Becker texted M engden agai n. This time , he referenced

a se rvice call for the video surveillance system he had arranged a few days before the party

. A technician had just serviced the surveillance equipment at the house on January 3 0, 2017, and confirmed the system was operation al. Becker ’ s text to M engden read , “The guy [service technician] told me to check them i n like a few days to make sure they wer e recording. I could say I checked and they weren’t and just turned them on[.] ” Id. Around the same time, Becker discussed dele ting the vid eo footage in aJ

- S410 38

- 20

- 5

-

M icr osoft GroupMe 3 messaging application he shared with the fr aternity’s executive board members

. A t 12:39 p.m. on February 3, 2017, Becker stated to the group , “We just got the cameras fixed ... so that’s not good if the y’ re l ooking into what happened[.] ” N

. T., 5/28/2019, at 256, Exh. 49 (ellipsis in original) . He add ed a few seconds later , “I could see if I could erase last night and say they didn ’t start recording till today. The entire obstical [ sic ] course is recorded o n th ere probably if the house board is looking [

. ] ” Id. Later that same day, Becker and Daniel Cas ey , the fraternity’s administrative vic e president and pledge master , exch ange d text messages regarding the two video clips Becker had provided to police

. A t 5:31 p.m. o n February 3, 2017 , Casey sent Becker the following text message s, “What times did [pol ice] take tape of [?]” and “Like is the obstacle c ourse in it?”
N .T., 5/28/2019, at 225

- 27, Exh. 37 at 62

- 63

. One minute later , Becker responded, “N ah. They to ok ta pes from 7 and 9 30 a m[.] ” Id. Casey quickly replied, “Fuck yes [

. ] ” Id. Seconds later, Appella nt sent Casey two
messages : “We should be good” and “O n that front at least [

. ] ” Id. The next day, Saturday, February 4, 2017, Piazza died from his inj uries.

3 “GroupMe is an Internet

- based application that allows a user to create a grou p and add other users. Each member of the group ca n then send text comm unications to the ent ire group. ” N.T ., 5/28/2017 , at 250

- 51.J

- S410 38

- 20

- 6

-

The m orning of Monday, Fe bruary 6, 2017, Detective Ripka and Officer Adam Salyards, a community re lations officer with the State College Pol ice Department, returned to the fraternity house to ask for additi onal video footage. Becker agreed an d to ok Detective Ripka and Officer S alyards to a small audio visual (AV) closet on the third floor of the house, which house d the video surveillance eq u ipment. At 10: 29 a.m., Becker unlocked the closet door using his key

. Detective Ripka and Officer Saly ards asked Becker to provide vide o footage from all sixteen cameras in the house from 8:00 p.m. on February 2, 2017 , to 11:45 a.m. on February 3, 2 017, wh ich would include the time from before P iazza’s fall to when he was transported to the hospital

. Becker immediat ely sat at the conso le in the AV closet and b egan downloading video footage from DVR

- 1 and DVR

- 2 using a remote control. Becker had sole possess ion and control over the video surveillance equipment and remote control for more than thirty min utes , from a bout 10:30 a.m. to j ust after 11:00 a.m. Detective Ripka noted that Becker had

“ a very good understanding an d working knowledge of the [ video

surve illance ] system, ” did not need to consult an instruction manual, knew how many days the re cord ed video foo tage is retained bef ore being overwritten, and knew the number of minutes of discrepancy between real
time and the time

- stamp on the v ideo footage

. N. T. 5/28/19 Id. at 81.J

- S410 38

- 20

- 7

-

Shortly after 11:00 a.m., Lieutenant Robb arrived with an information technology (IT ) specialist from the Borough of State College to assist with the download. After several hours of downloading , police real ized it would take seve ral days to downlo ad the requested video footage; thus, the IT specialist removed the equipment and police bro ught it to t he police station
to finish the download

. The IT department put a working copy of the February 2

- 3, 201 7 video footage on a terabyte hard drive for de te ctives to use in t heir investigation since viewing footage directly from the video equip ment was too slo w. The DVR bo xes wer e placed in the ev idence room

. At this time, p olice did not question why the February 2

- 3, 2017 video footage did not contain anything from the basement because fraternity members told them that the basement camer as were not working at t he time of t he party

. However, s everal months later, in July 2017, as part of a separate investigation by the State Colle g e Police Depa rtment involving a different incident at the same fraternity , police discovered tha t the video surveillance system c aptu red video fo otage from the frate rnity’s basement on dates other than those relevant to the investigation into Piazza’s fal l on February 2, 2017

. At this point , police discovered that there was no video footage of the basement prior to 10: 3 9 a .m. on Feb ruar y 6 , 2017, d espite the
existence of basement video footage on other dates and times

.J

- S410 38

- 20

- 8

-

Based on this discovery, t he State C ol lege Police D epartment sent the two DVR boxes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FB I ) to be analyzed f orensically. At trial, the Commonwealt h presented the test imony of an expert in digital f orensic analysis, who had determined at the P hiladelphia R egional Compu ter Forensics Laboratory that the video footage captured prior to Monday, February 6, 201 7, had been deleted from DVR

- 2. A ccording to DVR

2’s system log, the deletion occurred at 10:39 a.m. on February 6, 2017, which was during th e time that o nly Becker wa s seated at the equipment console purportedly downloading video footage for Detective Ripka and Officer Salyards

. W hile Becker w as sitting at and op erating the DVR boxes in the AV closet, Detective Ripka and Officer Salyards testified they wer e not watchin g him every second. They were standing either in the A V close t or its vicini ty while Becker was s eated at the console in the closet, but Detectiv e Ripka and Officer Salyards were also tending to other tasks , such as completing consent forms, t alking with o ther fraternity members , and making phone calls

. DVR

- 2’s system log reflected that the user had selected the “Cle ar All Data” event, deleting all of the video tha t had been recorded on the hard drive . The expert was able to recover the deleted video footag e from DVR

- 2 . However, due to physical damage to its hard drive , no vid eo footage could be recovered from DVR

- 1 a t either the Philadelphia labora toryJ

- S410 38

- 20

- 9

-

or the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, where it had been sent for further analysis

. T he Commonwealth also presented a n expert in Speco Technologies products, the man ufacturer of the two DVR boxes, who testifie d re garding the “Clear All Data” opt ion . She explain ed the “Clear All Data” selection on
DV R

- 2 on February 6, 2017 was a manual deleti on by someone using a remote control or mouse while seated at the physical DVR machine. The expert further testified that , whi le using the remote control, the “Clear All
Dat a” event could be completed in less than thirty seconds. Based on the foregoing, B ecker was cha rged with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence (tampering) ; obstructing the administration of l aw o r other gove rnmental function (o bstructing) ; and hindering apprehension or prosecution (hindering)

. A fter a three

- day jury trial held May 28

- 30, 2 019, the jury foun d Becker guilty of hindering , and not guilty of the two other aforesaid charges. On A ugus t 21, 2019, Becker was senten ced to two years of probation , 100 hour s of community service, and a $5,000 fine

. Appellant timely filed th ree post
- sent ence motions for judgment of acquittal, to vacate and/or reconsider the fin e imposed, and forJ

- S410 38

- 20

- 10

-

cquit tal/ arrest of j u dgment. The trial co urt denied the post

- sentence motions following a hearing. This timely

- filed appeal followe d. 4 On appeal , Becker t presen ts two issues for our review.
I. Whether the trial court should have granted Appellant’s motion for judg ment of acqu ittal for obstructio n of justice when the jury found [Appellant] not guilty of tampering with evidence, deleti ng a video, which i s the basis of the obstruction of justice charge. [ 5 ]
II. Whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence

. Becker ’s B rief at 5 (capitaliz ation altered; suggested answers omitted). In his first issue, Becker contends the tr ial court erred when it den ied his motion for judgment of acquittal of hindering

. Appellant’s Brief at 11

- 16

. We consider this issue min dful of the following.
A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the evid ence to sustain a conviction on a particular charg e, and is gran ted only in cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to carry its burden regarding that c harg e. The stan dard of review for c laims of insufficient evidence is well

settled. With respect to s uch claims, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner. In that light, we decide if the evidence and all re ason able inferen ces from that eviden ce are sufficient to establish the elements of the off ense beyond a reasonable doubt. We keep in

4 Becker complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (b)

. In lieu of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opini on, the trial court referred us to its October 8, 2019 opinion and order denying Becker ’s post
- sentenc e motions

.
5 It app ears Becker mistakenly worded this issue in bot h hi s statement of questions and Rule 1925(b) statement. Becker was found guilty of hindering and not guilty of obstruc ting. We presu me Becker challenges his hindering conviction, a s that is what he a rgued in his post

- sentence motion and the argument sec tion of his brief.J

- S410 38

- 20

- 11

-

mind that it was f or the trier o f fact to determine the weight of the evidence an d the credibility of witnesses. The jury w as f ree to belie ve all , part or none of the evidence. This Court may not weigh the evidence or substi tute its judg ment f or that of the factfinder. Com m onwealth v. D evries , 112 A.3d 663, 667 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted). “This standard is equally a ppli cable to cas es where the evidenc e is circumstantial rather than direct so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime be yond a reason able doubt.” Commonwealth v. Antidormi , 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Supe r. 2014). The hindering s tatu te provides in relevant part as follows. (a) Offense defined. — A person commits an offense if, wit h intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for crime

... , he: (3) conceals or destroys evidence of the crime, or tamp ers with a w itness, informant, d ocument or other source of information, regardless o f its admissi bility in evidence[.] 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105 (a) (3) ( so me emphasis a dded )

. Becker argues his hindering conviction should be overturned because the jury acqu itte d him of tam pering

. 6 Becker ’ s Brief at 12

. Becker maintains

6 The tampering statute provides in relevant part as follows. A person commits a misdemeanor of the se cond degree if , believing that an official procee ding or inve stigation is pending or about to be instituted, he: (1) alters, destr oys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity or availability in s uch proceeding or investigation [.] (Footnote Continued Next Page)J

- S410 38

- 20

- 12

-

that be cause tampering is a statutory element of hindering , and he was acquitted of tamper ing, he must also be acquitted of hindering

. Id.
B y its plain language, howev er, tampering is onl y on e a lter nativ e element of the hin dering statute as evidenced by the use of the word “ or ” in subsection (a)(3) . Acquitta l of tampering does not pre clud e the jury fro m fi nding Becker concealed or destroyed evidence under the hindering statute. As deta iled above, t he jury heard testimony from t wo detectives assigned to the investigation , two police officers involved in the investigation , a n FBI expert in digital f orens ic a nalysi s who recovered some of the deleted video footage , a different expert who ex plai ned the “Cle ar All Data” functio n, and the technician who serviced and confirmed the video surveillance equipment was working properly days before Piazza’s fall.
In a ddit ion, t he Commonwealth presented evidence of , inter alia , text
messages of Becker di scussing del eting th e video foot age on the same day he knew police were investigating Piazza’s fall ; photographs of Becker unlocking the AV closet and sitting at the equ ipme nt console with the DVR remote in his hand just minutes before the deletion occu rred ; the sy stem log of DVR

- 2 sh owing the “Clear All Data” entry at 10:39 a.m. on February 6, 2017 , a time when Becker was the only person seated at the console and police w ere not continuously observing him ; expert testimony that the

(Foo tnote Contin ued)

_______________ ________ 18 Pa.C.S. § 4910(1).J

- S410 38

- 20

- 13

-

manual deletio n co uld take les s than 30 seconds; a nd the deleted video footage that was recovered by the FBI

. T his evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that Becker wanted and w as w illing to delete the video footage and lie about its existence, that Becker had the ability and opportu nity to do so, and that the video was actually deleted.
T he combination of the evidence links Becker beyond a reasonable doubt a s the one who delete d su rveillance video footage of the dates and times requested by poli ce i n connection with their investig ation into Piazza’s injuries and death

. Accordingly, we conclude the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed in the light most favorab le t o the Commonwealth, were sufficient to establish the elements of hind ering beyond a reasonable doubt

. Nonetheless, on appeal Becker relies on three c ases to support his argument tha t his acquittal of the tampering offense means he must also be acqui tted of the hindering offense: Commonwealth v. Reed , 9 A.3d 1138 ( Pa. 2010), Commo nwealth v. Magliocco , 883 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2005), and Commonwealth v. Baker - Myers , 210 A.3d 1093 (Pa. Super. 2019) ( en banc )

. Appellant’s Brief at 12

- 18. The trial court found A ppellan t’s reliance

on the cases misplaced . Opinion and Order on D efen dant’s Post

- Sentence Motions, 10 /8/2019, at 2. Upon review, w e agree that the cases upon which Becker relies are inapposite

. None of the cases involv e d the crimes herein

. T he p lain langu ageJ

- S410 38

- 20

- 14

-

of the criminal stat ute s at issue in Reed , Magliocco , and B aker - Myers each spe cifically stated that the grading or an ele ment of the offense was

co n tingent upon the commi ss ion of a n underlying predicate offense
spe cifically referen ced within the Cri mes Code , 18 Pa.C.S

. A. § § 101

- 9546

. In
contrast , tampering is not a pred icate offens e of hindering . M oreover, t h e hindering statute does not , by its express terms, contain any predicate offense as an element of the crime

. Our Supreme Court has made clear tha t Magli occo “was grounded in the delineation of the elements of ethn ic intimidat ion set forth in the text of that statute .” Commonwealth v. Miller , 35 A.3d 1206, 12 12

- 13 (Pa. 2012) ( reaffirming “the long

- standing and well

- established principle that
consist ency in a verdict is not required” and holding inco nsistent jury

ver dict s of gui lt on second

- degree murder charge but acquittal on the predicate felony of robbery did not require vacatur of second

- degree murder conviction)

. As our Supreme Court noted, “ Mag liocco and Reed are distinguished by the plain text of their par ticu lar governin g statutes, which

co ntrolled our disposition of those cases, but are not generally applicable to other offenses.” Miller , 35 A.3d at 1213. The same holds true for the statute

a t issue in Baker - Myers

. Accordingly, we disagree wi th Becker that these

cases afford him relief. Insofar as Becker argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal based on inconsistent verdicts, “[i]t is well

-J

- S410 38

- 20

- 15

-

settle d that inco nsistent verdicts are permissible in this Commo nwea lth.” Common wealth v. Barnes , 1 6 7 A.3d 110, 120 (Pa. Super. 2017) ( en banc ) (citation omitted). We note first that inconsistent verdicts, while often perplexing, are n ot considered mistakes and do not cons titute a basis for reversal. Consistency in ver dict s in crimina l cases is not neces sary. When an acquittal on one count in an indictment is inconsistent with a conviction on a second count, the court looks upon the acq uittal as no more than the jury’ s assu mption of a power which they had no right to ex erci se, but to w hich they were dispo sed through lenity. Thus, this Court will not disturb guilty verdicts on the basis of apparent inconsistencies as long as there is evid ence to support the verdict . The rule that inconsistent verdicts do not constitute re vers ible error a pplies even where th e acquitted offense is a lesser included offense of the charge for which a defendant is found guilty. Id. ( quoting Commonwealth v. Pet teway , 847 A.2d 713 , 718 (P a. Super. 2 004) ). As our Supreme Court noted in Miller , “[ w] hi le recognizi ng that the jury’s v erdict appears to be inconsistent, we refuse to inquire into or speculate upon the nature of the jury’s deliberations or the rationale behind the jury’s decision . Whether t he jury’s verdict was the result of mistake,

com prom ise, lenity, or any other fact i s not a question” for this Court to review. 35 A.3d at 1213 (citations omitted)

. Accordingly, having determined there is sufficient evi dence to support the verdi ct, we will not disturb Becker ’s hindering conviction on thi s basis

.J

- S410 38

- 20

- 16

-

Tu rning to B ecker ’s challenge to the weight of the evidence, the trial court must use the following standard in assessing a weight

- of

- the

- evidence claim

. A motion for a new trial based o n a claim t hat the verdict is against the weight of t he e vidence is a ddressed to the disc retion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the sa me facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judg e is to dete rmine that notwithst anding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the fact s is to deny justice. It has oft en been sta ted that a new trial should be awarded whe n th e jury’s ver dict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opport unity to prevail. Commonwealth v. Izurieta , 171 A.3d 803, 809 (Pa. Super. 2017) (cit atio n omitted). On appeal, we evalu ate the trial court’s ruling with the following in mind. Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question o f whether t he verdict is against the weight of the ev iden ce. Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial ju dge when re viewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight o f the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdic t was or was not against the wei ght of the evidence and that a new trial should be gr ante d in the int erest of justice. C ommonwealth v. Beatty , 227 A.3d 1277, 1285

- 86 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted).J

- S410 38

- 20

- 17

-

Before we address the merits of Becker ’s weigh t claim, we must determine whether Becker has preserved it for our review. Commonw ealt h v. Rivera , 238 A.3d 482, 495 ( Pa. Super. 2020)

. In his post

- sentence motion s , Becker ’ s entire weight

- of

- the

- evidence claim consisted of the following sentence: “The verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidenc e in that the evidence prepondera tes sufficiently against the verdict s to [ sic ] that a serious miscarriage of justice has resulted with respect to the conviction.” Post

- Sentence Motion , 9/3/ 2019, at ¶ 21

. At the October 3, 2019 hearing, Becker d id not make any argument relating to his weig ht claim

. Se e generally , N.T., 1 0/3/2019. In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Becker raised a combined , boilerplate sufficiency and weight claim: “Whether the verdict is ag ainst the weight and sufficiency of the evid ence . ” Rule 1925(b) Statement, 11/26/2 019, at ¶ 3. Imp roper preservation o f a challenge to the weight of the evidence before the trial court renders the challenge waived on appeal.
A weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a post
- sentence motion , by a written motion before sen tenc ing, or oral ly prior t o sentenci ng. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607. Failure to properly preserve the claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court addr esses the issue in its op inion. A boiler plate motion , either that “ t he evidence was insufficient to suppor t th e verdict , ” or that “ the verdict was against the weight of the evidence , ” is not a precise statement of issues and grounds relied upon. Such assign ments of error not onl y do not foster but discourage alert and zeal ous advocac y, for anyone may make them wit hout giving thought to what the issues really are.J

- S410 38

- 20

- 18

-

Rivera , 238 A.3d at 497 ( some cita tio ns, quotation marks , and brackets omitted; some capitalization altered). Thus, a post
- verdict motion , either that “the evide nce was ins ufficient to support the ve rdic t ,” or that “the verdict was aga inst the weight of the evidence ,” will preserve no issue for appellate review unless the motion goes on to specify i n what respect th e ev idence was insufficient, or why the verdict w as against the weight of the evidence

. Id . (citation omitted). Instantly, we conclude t he single, conclusory, and boilerplate sentence
in Becker ’s post
- sentence motion, which fail ed to specify why the verdic t was against the weight of the evidence, is ina dequate to preserve Becker ’s
wei ght claim on app eal. See id. For th e foregoing rea sons, Becker is not entitled to relief on his claims and we affirm his judgment of sentence. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judge Strassburger did not participate in the co nsideration or decision of this c ase.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 04/21/2021