J-S75006-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RINGO RODRIGUEZ

Appellant No. 2710 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 20, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003582-2013

BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014

Appellant, Ringo Rodriguez, appeals from the August 20, 2013 

judgment of sentence of one and one-half to five years’ imprisonment 

imposed following a bench trial where he was found guilty of criminal 

conspiracy to commit possession with intent to deliver a controlled 

substance.1 After careful review, we affirm.

The certified record reveals the following relevant factual and 

procedural history of this case. On August 1, 2012, at approximately 11:30 

p.m., Officer Mario DeLaurentiis was conducting a narcotics surveillance. 

N.T., 8/20/13, at 9. Appellant yelled, “yo, yo,” and Officer DeLaurentiis 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(c).
J-S75006-14

- 2 -

observed one of Appellant’s co-defendants2(Moreno) stand up “from the 

lot.” Id. at 10. At that time, Officer DeLaurentiis observed another of 

Appellant’s co-defendants (Augustine) approach Appellant and engage in 

conversation. Id. Appellant motioned with his hands toward the lot, he and 

Augustine walked into the lot where Moreno was positioned, and all three 

engaged in conversation. Id. at 9, 14-15. Officer DeLaurentiis observed 

Augustine conversing with Moreno. Id. at 10-11. Appellant remained 

standing next to Augustine, and Augustine handed U.S. currency to Moreno 

in exchange for an item that Moreno retrieved from the base of a fence. Id. 

After Augustine left the area, police recovered from him a clear packet with 

a blue star sticker, containing cocaine.3 Id. at 11. Appellant and Moreno 

continued to stand together when another co-defendant (Ortiz) approached 

both of them. Id. Officer DeLaurentiis again observed Moreno exchange 

small items taken from the base of the fence for U.S. currency provided by 

Ortiz. Id. at 11-12. Shortly after this observation, police arrived on location 

and recovered a plastic bag with a silver star sticker, containing cocaine, 

from Ortiz. Id. at 12. Appellant, Moreno, Augustine, and Ortiz were 

arrested. Id. Police then searched the lot where Officer DeLaurentiis 

____________________________________________

2 Officer DeLaurentiis referred to Moreno, Augustine, and Ortiz as Appellant’s 

“co-defendants” during his testimony. The certified record discloses 

Appellant was tried alone.

3 There was a stipulation at trial that the substances analyzed tested positive 

for the presence of cocaine. N.T., 8/20/13, at 16. 
J-S75006-14

- 3 -

observed Appellant, Moreno, Augustine, and Ortiz conversing and 

exchanging U.S. currency for small items. Id. at 13. Police retrieved a 

container from the base of the fence containing nine clear bags of cocaine. 

Id. The nine bags were the same size and packaged in the same manner as 

the bags that were recovered from Augustine and Ortiz and were stamped 

with star stickers of various colors. Id. at 13-14.

On March 27, 2013, the Commonwealth filed an information charging 

Appellant with the aforementioned offense as well as possession with intent 

to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance (PWID) and intentional 

possession of a controlled substance.4 Criminal Information, 3/27/13. A 

bench trial was held on August 20, 2013. At the conclusion of the bench 

trial, Appellant was found guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit PWID and 

acquitted of all other charges. 

Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on September 19, 2013. On 

September 25, 2013, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), within 30 days. On October 23, 2013, 

Appellant filed a “Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal and 

Request for Extension of Time to File a Supplemental Statement of Errors 

Upon Receipt of All Notes of Testimony.” Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) 

____________________________________________

4 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30) and 780-113(a)(16), respectively. 
J-S75006-14

- 4 -

Statement, 10/23/13, at 1. In addition to requesting additional time to file a 

supplemental Rule 1925(b) Statement, Appellant raised the following issue.

The evidence was insufficient to convict of criminal 

conspiracy with the seller of the controlled 

substances.

Id. at 3, ¶ 3. In his request for an extension of time, counsel acknowledged 

that filing a Rule 1925(b) statement without a full understanding of the trial 

procedures posed a risk to preserving issues for appellate review.

Without Notes of Testimony, or a consultation with 

appellant, counsel might venture a guess at what 

additional issues may be raised on appeal, but to do 

so would risk a claim that counsel waived issues not 

raised or failed to file a sufficiently specific

Statement. Accordingly, ... [appellate counsel] can 

not now file a comprehensive and complete 

Statement of Errors Complained Of On Appeal.

Id. at 2-3, ¶ 6. (emphasis added). 

Thereafter, on November 21, 2013, the trial court granted Appellant’s 

request for an extension of time to file a concise statement of matters 

complained of on appeal. Trial Court Order, 11/21/13, at 1. Specifically, 

the trial court ordered Appellant to “file a 1925(b) Statement of record no 

later than thirty (30) days from the entry of this [o]rder[.]” Id. In the 

event Appellant was unable to obtain the notes of testimony, the trial court 

ordered Appellant “to file and serve a statement that the said notes are 

irretrievable [] ... within thirty (30) days.” Id. The order also explicitly 

advised Appellant, “any issue not properly included in the Statement timely 

filed and served pursuant [to] the said Rule shall be deemed waived.” Id. 
J-S75006-14

- 5 -

(italics removed). Appellant did not file a supplemental statement or any 

response to the trial court’s November 21, 2013 order. On March 18, 2014, 

the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review.

[I.] Was not the evidence insufficient for conviction 

of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance 

with intent to deliver where, in the only 

transaction in which [A]ppellant participated, 

he acted as the buyer’s agent, not the seller’s 

agent?

Appellant’s Brief at 2. 

Our standard of review on challenges to the sufficiency of evidence is 

well established. 

There is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction 

when the evidence admitted at trial, and all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as 

verdict winner, are sufficient to enable the 

fact[]finder to conclude the Commonwealth 

established all of the elements of the offense beyond 

a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Morales, 91 A.3d 80, 87 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). 

“The Commonwealth can meet its burden by wholly circumstantial evidence 

and any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder 

unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no 

probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.” 

Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 277 
J-S75006-14

- 6 -

(Pa. 2014). “[T]he trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of 

witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). “Because evidentiary 

sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our 

scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 

126 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Diamond v. Pennsylvania, 

135 S. Ct. 145 (2014). 

However, before we may review Appellant’s issue, we must first 

address the trial court’s and the Commonwealth’s contention that Appellant 

has waived his issue for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b). 

Commonwealth’s Brief at 6-7; Trial Court Opinion, 3/18/14, at 1-2. Rule 

1925(b) provides in pertinent part as follows.

(4) Requirements; waiver.

(i) The Statement shall set forth only those rulings or 

errors that the appellant intends to challenge. 

(ii) The 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. The judge shall not require the 

citation to authorities; however, appellant may 

choose to include pertinent authorities in the 

Statement. 

...

(vii) Issues not included in the Statement and/or not 

raised in accordance with the provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(4) are waived

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i)-(ii), (vii) (emphasis added).
J-S75006-14

- 7 -

“[A] Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court to 

identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to no Concise 

Statement at all.” Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908, 911 (Pa. 

Super. 2002) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 841 A.2d 430 (Pa. 2003). 

“An overly vague or broad Rule 1925 statement may result in waiver. The 

Rule 1925(b) statement must be detailed enough so that the judge can write 

a Rule 1925(a) opinion....” Majorski v. Douglas, 58 A.2d 1250, 1258 (Pa. 

Super. 2012), appeal denied, 70 A.2d 811 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 134 

S.Ct. 910 (U.S. 2014). (citation, quotation marks, and parenthetical 

omitted). “[T]he courts lack the authority to countenance deviations from 

the Rule’s terms; the Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions 

or selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are responsible for 

complying with the Rule’s requirements; Rule 1925 violations may be raised 

by the appellate court sua sponte.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 

494 (Pa. 2011).

Moreover, relevant to Appellant’s issue, we have concluded “that when 

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the [a]ppellant’s 1925 

statement must ‘specify the element or elements upon which the evidence 

was insufficient’ in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” Commonwealth 

v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citations omitted), appeal 

denied, 3 A.3d 670 (Pa. 2010); see also Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 

A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding that “a generic statement stating 
J-S75006-14

- 8 -

‘[t]he evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions,’” was 

inadequate to preserve the issue on appeal) citing Gibbs, supra.

As noted, Appellant’s initial 1925(b) statement merely averred, “[t]he 

evidence was insufficient to convict of criminal conspiracy with the seller of 

the controlled substances.” Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 10/23/13, 

at 3, ¶ 3. This bald and vague assertion fails to identify which specific 

element or elements the evidence was insufficient to prove. See Gibbs,

supra. While we recognize Appellant filed this statement on October 23, 

2013, without the benefit of the trial transcripts, Appellant was given until 

December 23, 2013 to file a new, sufficiently detailed statement. See Trial 

Court Order, 11/21/13, at 1.5 Appellant failed to file a new Rule 1925(b) 

statement as explicitly ordered by the trial court, despite acknowledging that 

Appellant was unable to file a complete and comprehensive statement on 

October 23, 2013.6 See Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 10/23/13, at 

2-3, ¶ 6. 

____________________________________________

5 We observe the 30th day fell on Saturday, December 21, 2013. When 

computing the 30-day filing period “if the last day of any such period shall 

fall on Saturday or Sunday ... such day shall be omitted from the 

computation.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. Therefore, Appellant was required to file 

his Rule 1925(b) on or before Monday, December 23, 2013. 

6 Appellant acknowledges this failure in his brief. “No Supplemental 

Statement was necessary after review of the transcript.” Appellant’s Brief at 

4, n.1.
J-S75006-14

- 9 -

Significantly, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court addressed 

Appellant’s failure to comply with its order. “Thus, the court is left without 

any indication as to what errors [Appellant] believes occurred, or[] ... how or 

why the evidence may be insufficient. Therefore, all issues that [Appellant] 

could have raised should be deemed waived and the judgment of sentence 

should be affirmed.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/18/14, at 1-2.

Based on the foregoing authority, because Appellant failed to provide a 

sufficiently detailed Rule 1925(b) statement from which the trial court could 

identify the pertinent issues related to Appellant’s claim of error, we are 

constrained to conclude Appellant has waived his sole issue on appeal.7 See 

____________________________________________

7 We observe that even if Appellant had preserved this issue for our review, 

it is without merit. In order to sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, 

the Commonwealth must prove “that the defendant (1) entered into an 

agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person or 

persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent and (3) an overt act was done in 

furtherance of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 

998 (Pa. Super 2006) (citation omitted). “The conduct of the parties and

circumstances surrounding their conduct may create a web of evidence 

linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Id. (citation omitted). Further, “[t]he Commonwealth does not have to 

prove that there was an express agreement to perform the criminal act; 

rather, a shared understanding that the crime would be committed is 

sufficient.” Commonwealth v. Nypaver, 69 A.3d 708, 715 (Pa. Super. 

2013) (citation omitted). In this case, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, it was reasonable for the fact finder to infer 

that Appellant had a shared understanding to commit PWID. See Nypayer,

supra; Morales, supra. The conduct of Appellant, under the 

circumstances, which included Appellant calling out to Moreno, walking 

toward him with Augustine, remaining present while cocaine was exchanged 

for money, and remaining present during a subsequent cocaine transaction, 

created a web of evidence that was sufficient to link Appellant to a criminal 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S75006-14

- 10 -

Heggins, supra; Majorski, supra; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii), (vii). 

Accordingly, the August 20, 2013 judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/31/2014

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. See McCall, supra. Accordingly, 

there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of criminal conspiracy to 

commit PWID.