J-S03019-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEVEN SAVOY

Appellant No. 1455 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 25, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007045-2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 19, 2015

Appellant, Steven Savoy, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered April 25, 2014, by the Honorable Jeffrey P. Minehart, Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. No relief is due. 

The trial court aptly summarized the pertinent facts as follows.

On June 4, 2011, at approximately 8:53 a.m., Emergency 

Medical Services (“EMS”) arrived at [Savoy’s] apartment building 

at 2411 N. 11th Street in response to an emergency call where 

they were met by defendant in the lobby of the apartment 

building. He was holding the victim, [six-month-old] Essence 

Savoy, in his arms. EMS transported the victim to St. 

Christopher’s Hospital and while in route [sic] they administered 

epinephrine and adrenaline to the victim. Once at St. 

Christopher’s, the victim was given another round of epinephrine 

and regained her pulse, but not her ability to breathe. The 

victim, who was in a coma, was put on a respirator. However, 

on June 10, 2011, the respirator was removed and at 2:43 p.m., 

the victim was declared dead by Children’s Hospital medical 

personnel. 
J-S03019-15

- 2 -

In his testimony, [Savoy] stated that on June 4, 2011, at 

approximately 8:30-8:35 a.m., his girlfriend, Ebony Prattis left 

the victim under his care and then departed the apartment she 

shared with defendant with her three other children for a 

birthday party. According to [Savoy], after his girlfriend left, he 

was playing a video game when he heard the victim gasping for 

air as she lay on the other end of the sofa. He thought she 

needed to vomit so he picked her up. After picking up the 

victim, he shook the victim three or four times. After the third 

time, the victim’s head went limp and he laid her back on the 

sofa. [Savoy] then attempted to give the victim CPR, causing 

“milk and stuff” to come out of her mouth when he blew harder. 

[Savoy] then went to the neighbor’s apartment and called his 

girlfriend and then 9-1-1. Per 9-1-1 instructions, he laid the 

victim on the floor and did a finger sweep of the victim’s mouth, 

wherein he found a penny. He then attempted CPR again, but 

saw no response. He felt that he was incorrectly performing CPR 

and ran for the elevator when he heard an ambulance. Because 

the elevators often operated slowly, [Savoy] instead ran down 

the steps, with the victim in his arms, to meet paramedics. 

An examination of the victim’s brain and spinal cord 

revealed that the victim suffered from inflicted neuro trauma (or 

abusive head trauma), which is injury to the top of the spinal 

cord where it meets the brain. Dr. Lucy Rorke-Adams, an expert 

in neuropathology, concluded that Mr. Savoy had shaken the 

victim so violently that he spinal cord had separated from the 

lower part of her brain, resulting in respiratory arrest and cardiac 

arrest. Dr. Rorke-Adams described internal trauma to the brain, 

spinal cord and eyes as a result of the shaking, as well as 

external trauma to the victim’s head caused by blunt impact. 

The manner of death was deemed to be homicide. 

Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/14 at 2-3 (unnumbered). Following a bench trial, 

Savoy was convicted of third-degree murder1and endangering the welfare of 

a child by a parent or guardian.2 On April 25, 2014, the trial court 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c). 

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304. 
J-S03019-15

- 3 -

sentenced Savoy to fifteen to thirty years’ incarceration. Thereafter, Savoy 

filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied without a hearing 

on May 7, 2014. This timely appeal followed. 

On appeal, Savoy raises the following issues for our review:

I. Is appellant entitled to an arrest of judgment with respect 

to his convictions for murder of the third degree and 

endangering the welfare of a child by a parent or guardian 

since the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts of 

guilt as the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of 

proving appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

II. Is appellant entitled to remand for resentencing since the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive, 

unreasonable and not reflective of appellant’s character, 

history and condition?

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Savoy first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his 

convictions. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as 

follows.

The standard we apply when reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial 

in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is 

sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the 

above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our 

judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts 

and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the 

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

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of 

proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt 

by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in 

applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and 

all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 
J-S03019-15

- 4 -

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. Furthermore, when reviewing a sufficiency 

claim, our Court is required to give the prosecution the benefit of 

all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

However, the inferences must flow from facts and 

circumstances proven in the record, and must be of such volume 

and quality as to overcome the presumption of innocence and 

satisfy the jury of an accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The trier of fact cannot base a conviction on conjecture and 

speculation and a verdict which is premised on suspicion will fail 

even under the limited scrutiny of appellate review.

Commonwealth v. Slocum, 86 A.3d 272, 275-276 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(citation omitted). 

Savoy argues that his conviction for third-degree murder was 

insufficient as the Commonwealth failed to establish that he acted with the 

requisite malice. Third-degree murder is defined as all other murders that 

are not first or second degree murder: 

Third degree murder occurs when a person commits a killing 

which is neither intentional nor committed during the 

perpetration of a felony, but contains the requisite malice. Malice 

is not merely ill-will but, rather, wickedness of disposition, 

hardness of heart, recklessness of consequences, and a mind 

regardless of social duty. Malice may be inferred from the use of 

a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim's body. Further, 

malice may be inferred after considering the totality of the 

circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted). 

Although Savoy admits on appeal that he shook his infant daughter, 

he purports to justify his actions as a necessary attempt to save the child. 
J-S03019-15

- 5 -

He also argues that while his actions may have been “extremely foolish, they 

were no more than utterly negligent.” Appellant’s Brief at 22. 

We find Savoy’s argument to be unavailing. It defies the scientific

evidence. As noted by the trial court, the Commonwealth’s expert witness 

testified that Savoy shook the infant with such violence that the victim 

suffered both internal injuries, resulting in the separation of the spinal cord 

and brain, and external injuries in the nature of blunt force trauma to the 

victim’s head. See N.T., Trial, 10/17/13 at 23-24, 37-38. It was reasonable 

for the trial court to conclude that grabbing and shaking the victim – and 

infant – with enough violence to result in non-accidental internal and 

external trauma constituted, at a very minimum, extreme recklessness of 

consequences such that sufficient evidence of malice existed to support 

Savoy’s conviction of third-degree murder. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 

918 A.2d 766, 774-775 (Pa. Super. 2007) (evidence sufficient to find malice 

where appellant shook infant victim with enough violence to fracture ribs, 

shaking him and/or otherwise causing his head to strike an object), appeal 

denied, 940 A.2d 362 (Pa. 2008). We therefore hold that there was 

sufficient evidence to establish malice. 

Savoy additionally argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 

his conviction of endangering the welfare of a child by a parent or guardian. 

Our review of the record reveals that Savoy does not develop this claim in 

any meaningful manner or provide pertinent legal authority in support 

thereof. Therefore, we find this claim waived for lack of development. See 
J-S03019-15

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Delvalle, 74 A.3d 1081, 1087 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(finding undeveloped claim to be waived). 

Savoy’s remaining claim raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects 

of his sentence. Preliminarily, we must determine whether Savoy has the 

right to seek permission to appeal the sentencing court’s exercise of its 

discretion. See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 

2010). When an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence, we utilize a four-part test to determine:

(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa. 

R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly 

preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify 

sentence, see Pa. R. Crim. P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s 

brief has a fatal defect, Pa. R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether 

there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from 

is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 

PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 9781(b). 

Id. (internal citations omitted). 

In the present case, our review of the record reveals that although 

Savoy raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement all of the arguments he now 

seeks for us to review in support of his discretionary aspects of sentencing 

claim, he failed to raise these specific arguments either at sentencing or in 

his post-sentence motion. See Petition for Reconsideration of Sentence, 

4/28/15 at ¶¶4-5 (challenging only that sentence will “lead to deterioration 

of Defendant’s ability ... to become a useful and productive member of 

society” and constitutes extreme hardship on Defendant’s family). As Savoy 

preserved none of the arguments he now raises in support of his 
J-S03019-15

- 7 -

discretionary aspects of sentencing claim either at sentencing or in his postsentence motion, they are not subject to our review. See Commonwealth 

v. Tejada, --- A.3d ---, ---, 2015 WL 62931, *9 (Pa. Super., filed 1/6/15).

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/19/2015