J-S46023-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOHN KERKULA,

Appellant No. 2451 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of July 29, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0007936-2013

BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Appellant, John Kerkula, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on July 29, 2014. We affirm.

As the learned trial court explained:

Appellant was charged by criminal complaint on August 6, 

2013, with [multiple counts of robbery, conspiracy, and 

other, related crimes]. The[] charges stemmed from an 

incident which occurred [on] the night of August 5, 2013, 

on Route 413 in Bristol Township, Bucks County, in the 

parking lot of a [7-Eleven convenience store]. . . . 

Appellant waived his right to a trial by jury. Appellant’s 

[bench] trial began on March 25, 2014. On March 26, 

[2014, the trial court found Appellant] guilty [of four counts 

of robbery (under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii), (iii), (iv) 

and (v)) and four counts of conspiracy (under 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 903(c))]. Viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth[] as the verdict winner, the 

following relevant testimony was presented at trial[.]
J-S46023-15

- 2 -

On August 5, 2013, at approximately 10:30 [p.m.,] 

Appellant was positioned as a front-seat passenger in a Ford 

Crown Victoria in the parking lot of the [7]-Eleven. The 

vehicle was being operated by Jarod Evans. . . . The victim 

in this case, Skyler Sargeant, accompanied by Franklin 

Talley, entered the rear of the vehicle to make an illegal 

purchase of Percocet[.]

After entering the vehicle, Sargeant proceeded to remove 

money from her pocket to purchase the drugs she believed 

the occupiers of the Crown Victoria possessed. Sargeant 

removed approximately $870[.00] from her person, which 

she stated that the front-seat passenger of the vehicle, 

[Appellant], then took from her. After the money was 

taken, Talley left the car, and Evans and [Appellant] 

informed Sargeant that she was not getting her money 

back, and then told her to exit the car as well.

When Sargeant refused to exit the vehicle, Appellant and 

Evans threatened to shoot her. Sargeant was not deterred 

by the threat and a physical confrontation occurred over the 

money, resulting in Sargeant being physically forced from 

the vehicle. In a final effort to recover her money, Sargeant 

proceeded to grab onto the driver’s window as the car 

began to exit the parking lot. Sargeant hung onto the 

vehicle for a period of time as it pulled away, despite the 

car [traveling] approximately 25 to 35 miles per hour.

Officer Tom Van Winkle of the Bristol Township police 

spotted the vehicle and [] Sargeant clinging to it as it pulled 

out from the [7]-Eleven. He immediately activated his 

emergency lights. Officer Van Winkle saw the car continue 

up a curb and off the roadway until [] Sargeant fell off. At 

no point during the pursuit did Officer Van Winkle lose sight 

of the Crown Victoria.

Officer Van Winkle was able to stop the vehicle after 

approximately a quarter mile of pursuit when it pulled into 

the Stadium Bar. After approaching the vehicle and 

speaking with the occupants, Officer Van Winkle was able to 

affirmatively identify [] Appellant as the passenger. He 

determined that the car was owned by [] Appellant’s 

brother, who was not in the vehicle at the time. At no point 
J-S46023-15

- 3 -

were any drugs or weapons found on the person of [] Evans 

[or] Appellant, or within the Crown Victoria.

While Officer Van Winkle was speaking with Evans and 

[Appellant], other officers appeared at the scene. 

Furthermore, [] Sargeant had followed the car after she had 

fallen from it and relayed to the officers what had occurred, 

stating, while visibly upset, that she had been robbed and 

threatened by the occupants in the vehicle which had been 

pulled over by Officer Van Winkle. A search of the car 

recovered no weapons or drugs, but it did result in the 

recovery of the approximately $870[.00] that [] Sargeant 

stated had been stolen.

Appellant was taken into custody that night and given his 

Miranda[1] warnings by Sergeant Kevin Burns of the Bristol 

Township police. After receiving his Miranda warnings, 

Appellant spoke freely with Sergeant Burns without an 

attorney. He stated that he went to the [7]-Eleven to meet 

some females, and that [] Sargeant and [] Talley proceeded 

to enter the back of his vehicle without prompting.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/7/14, at 1-4 (internal citations and some internal 

capitalization omitted).

On July 29, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an 

aggregate term of four to ten years in prison, and to serve a consecutive 

term of two years of probation. Appellant did not file a post-sentence 

motion. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and the trial court ordered him 

to file and serve a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Appellant 

listed the following two claims in his Rule 1925(b) statement:

____________________________________________

1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
J-S46023-15

- 4 -

1. [Appellant] was denied [the] opportunity to complete a 

plea agreement because the district attorney required that 

co-defendant also plead guilty.

2. The verdict of guilty was against the weight of the 

evidence.

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 10/3/14, at 1 (some internal 

capitalization omitted).

Within Appellant’s brief to this Court, Appellant has failed to include a 

“statement of the questions involved” section, as is required by Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 2116. However, the argument section of 

Appellant’s brief is headed in the following manner:

Appellant’s issues can be addressed in a single argument. 

The denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, then 

denied a fair trial. This denial by the trial court was an 

error.

Appellant’s Brief at 6 (some internal capitalization omitted).

The argument section of Appellant’s brief does not contain any 

argument or claim that the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s 

“motion to withdraw the guilty plea.” See Appellant’s Brief at 6-8. 

Therefore, any such claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 

116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that, were the appellant “fails to 

expand upon [a] claim in the argument section of his brief . . . the claim is 

waived”). Further, Appellant waived his weight of the evidence claim on 

appeal, as Appellant failed to raise the claim before the trial court. 
J-S46023-15

- 5 -

Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised in the lower 

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”).2

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/30/2015

____________________________________________

2 To the extent Appellant’s brief claims that the evidence is insufficient to 

support his convictions, the claim is waived because Appellant did not raise 

the claim in his court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement. Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues not included in the [Rule 1925(b) s]tatement . . . 

are waived”).