J-S50021-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

VINCENT GARDNER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 624 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 16, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0014343-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED: APRIL 16, 2021

Appellant, Vincent Gardner, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment 

of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on 

April 16, 2015. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the factual history of this matter as follows:

[O]n July 14th, 2013, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Appellant and 

his brothers, Haleem and Quantel, forced their way into a house 

located at 2829 Wharton Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Haleem took out a revolver, put it to the head of an occupant of 

the home, 13 year old [C.H.], then attempted to force the gun’s 

barrel into [C.H.’s] mouth, and demanded money, drugs, and 

guns. Nothing was identified as [having been] taken during the 

invasion. This ordeal took approximately 15 minutes. During the 

commission of the robbery, the minor was punched in the mouth 

by Quantel Gardner, which caused it to bleed. [Appellant]

searched the house. After the Appellant and his brothers fled the 

home, [C.H.] called his mother, ... and then told Stephon Hill, his 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S50021-20

- 2 -

uncle, what had occurred. [C.H.] had named the attackers to his 

family members.

The next day, Stephon Hill searched out and found Haleem 

Gardner, physically assaulted him and took a black and silver 

revolver from him. This type of weapon was described by [C.H.] 

as the weapon pulled on him during the home invasion. Stephon 

Hill took the revolver from Haleem Gardner and gave it to a 

Jacques Charles, who, later that evening, was gunned down in the 

2700 block of Reed Street. He died from his injuries. The gun 

taken by Stephon Hill and described by [C.H.], was found next to 

the body of Jacques Charles, along with several .38 caliber bullets 

in his pocket.

Although the facts related to the home invasion are simple 

and straight forward, the only eyewitness testimony presented at 

trial was long and drawn out, as [C.H.] was obviously reluctant 

and intimidated to testify against his attackers from the witness 

stand and fac[e] them in a courtroom. Given this reluctance and 

his avoidance of directly answering questions, this [c]ourt, at the 

Commonwealth’s request, declared him to be a hostile witness and 

permitted the Commonwealth to utilize previous statements given 

by [C.H.] to Philadelphia Police personnel, as well as testimony 

given before a grand jury, as prior consistent statements. The 

Commonwealth read from the prior statements the questions and 

this witness’[s] answers, then asking if he recalled that question 

and answer. The witness did recall some and denied many of the 

questions specifically about the persons on trial in order to avoid 

implicating them face to face. It was clear to this [c]ourt that the 

witness was intimidated by their presence in the courtroom. N.T., 

09-17-2014, P. 17 to P. 122.

The same was true of the witness, Stephon Hill, who was 

also deemed hostile and was then confronted with his prior 

statements, given his clear combative nature and stated 

reluctance to testify. Mr. Hill, on several occasions throughout his 

testimony, spoke of actions against “snitches” and claimed that 

the answers to detectives’ questions were fabricated by them in 

order to frame the defendants. N.T., 09-17-2014, P. 159 to P. 

223.

When the prior statements of [C.H.] and Stephon Hill were 

read together, the jury was presented with a clear, albeit 
J-S50021-20

- 3 -

circuitous and drawn out, picture of what occurred that night in 

the home during the invasion.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/30/19, at 2-4.

On September 22, 2014, a jury convicted Appellant of robbery, burglary,

and conspiracy to commit burglary.1 The following day, the trial court 

convicted Appellant of the crime of persons not to possess a firearm.2 On 

April 16, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term 

of incarceration of fifty-five to 110 years.

Appellant filed a timely direct appeal, which was docketed at 1333 EDA 

2015. However, on April 5, 2018, the case was dismissed due to Appellant’s 

failure to file an appellate brief.

On December 18, 2018, Appellant filed a timely petition pursuant to the 

Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, seeking reinstatement 

of his direct-appeal rights. On February 14, 2019, the PCRA court granted 

Appellant relief and reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. 

Appellant filed this appeal on March 5, 2019. Both Appellant and the trial 

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following issues for our review, which we have 

renumbered for disposition:

1. Was the evidence presented at trial insufficient as a matter of 

law to support the verdict[?]

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3502, 3701, and 903, respectively.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105.
J-S50021-20

- 4 -

2. Did the court err when it allowed the introduction of a firearm 

and bullets from unrelated homicide to be entered into evidence?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (full capitalization omitted).

In his first issue, Appellant purports to argue that there was insufficient 

evidence to support his convictions. Appellant’s Brief at 24-27. We analyze 

arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence under the following 

parameters:

The standard we apply in 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[’s]. 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 finder 

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.

Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939, 943-944 (Pa. Super. 2011).

Instantly, Appellant has abandoned any argument concerning the 

sufficiency of the evidence. Regarding sufficiency-of-the-evidence issues, an 

appellant must specify the elements upon which the evidence was insufficient 

in order to preserve the issue for appeal. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 
J-S50021-20

- 5 -

959 A.2d 1252, 1257–1258 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding waiver where the 

appellant failed to specify the elements of particular crime not proven by the 

Commonwealth). See also Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 

(Pa. Super. 2009) (finding claim waived under Williams for failure to specify 

either in Rule 1925(b) statement or in argument portion of appellate brief 

which elements of crimes were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt).

Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement presents the following 

pertinent issue, which fails to specify the elements of the crimes allegedly not 

proven by the Commonwealth:

1. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient, as a matter of 

law, to support the verdict.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement (Record Entry 60), 3/4/19, at 1.

In addressing this issue, the trial court stated the following:

Here, Appellant has made nothing more than a boilerplate 

claim that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to 

support the convictions for burglary, robbery and conspiracy. He 

has not specified the element(s) of the offense for which he 

believes the evidence was lacking. As such, he has waived his 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/30/19, at 5.

Likewise, Appellant has failed to specify in his appellate brief the 

elements of the crimes that allegedly were not established. Appellant’s Brief 

at 24-27. Rather, Appellant’s argument consists of citation to case law and 

challenges to the credibility and reliability of the testimony offered by the 
J-S50021-20

- 6 -

Commonwealth’s witnesses. Appellant’s argument concludes with the 

following summation:

There was insufficient evidence to convict Appellant .... The 

Judgment of Sentence and convictions must be vacated.

Appellant’s Brief at 27. Consequently, Appellant’s non-specific claim 

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, which fails to specify the elements 

of the particular crimes allegedly not proven by the Commonwealth, is waived. 

Williams, 959 A.2d at 1257–1258.

Appellant last argues that the trial court erred when it permitted the 

introduction into evidence of a firearm and bullets that were discovered during 

the investigation of an unrelated homicide. Appellant’s Brief at 20-23. 

Specifically, Appellant states:

Stephon Hill according to a prior statement searched out 

and found Harleem Gardner physically assaulted him and took a 

black and silver revolver from him. The [c]ourt concluded that 

this type of weapon was described by [C.H.] as the weapon pulled 

on him during the home invasion. Stephon Hill took the revolver 

from Harleem Gardner and gave it to Jacque Charles, who, later 

that evening, was [g]unned down on the 2700 block of Reed 

Street. He died from his injuries. The gun taken by Stephon Hill 

and described by [C.H.], was found next to the body of Jacques 

Charles, along with several .38 caliber bullets in his pockets.

Admission of the firearm and bullets recovered in the 

homicide investigation was extremely prejudicial and outweighed 

any probative value.

Id. at 21-22.

Before we address the merits of this issue, we must consider whether 

the claim has been properly preserved for appellate review. Initially, we 
J-S50021-20

- 7 -

observe that Appellant has failed to specify where in the record the evidence 

was admitted at trial and where he preserved this claim by lodging a proper 

objection.

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 302(a) provides that “issues 

not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time 

on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). In addition, it is an appellant’s obligation to 

demonstrate which appellate issues were preserved for review. Pa.R.A.P. 

2117(c), 2119(e).

Furthermore, Pa.R.A.P. 2119 addresses arguments in appellate briefs 

and corresponding references to the record and provides, in relevant part, as 

follows:

If reference is made to the pleadings, evidence, charge, 

opinion or order, or any other matter appearing in the record, the 

argument must set forth, in immediate connection 

therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a reference to the place 

in the record where the matter referred to appears ... .

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (emphases added). 

It is not the role of this Court to develop an argument for a litigant or to 

scour the record to find specific evidence to support an appellant’s arguments. 

J.J. DeLuca Co. Inc. v. Toll Naval Assocs., 56 A.3d 402, 411 (Pa. Super. 

2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. 

Super. 2007)). Therefore, “[w]hen an allegation is unsupported [by] any 

citation to the record, such that this Court is prevented from assessing this 

issue and determining whether error exists, the allegation is waived for 
J-S50021-20

- 8 -

purposes of appeal.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387, 393 (Pa. 

Super. 2009) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c)).

In order to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a 

timely and specific objection at trial. A failure to object to an offer 

of evidence at the time the offer is made, assigning the grounds 

[for objection], is a waiver upon appeal of any ground of complaint 

against its admission.

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 684 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citations 

and quotation marks omitted).

In Commonwealth v. Colon, 846 A.2d 747 (Pa. Super. 2004), the 

appellant’s counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude a witness’s testimony. 

Id. 846 A.2d at 752. The court denied the motion, and the appellant’s counsel 

failed to object on the record to the ruling. Id. Counsel also did not object 

when the witness was called to testify. Id. Relying on Griffin, this Court 

determined the appellant waived his right to argue the issue on appeal. Id. 

at 753.

Instantly, Appellant’s bald assertion regarding the admission of a 

firearm and bullets lacks any supporting citation or proof in the record. In 

contradiction to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c), in the argument portion of his appellate 

brief, Appellant has failed to comply with the mandatory briefing requirements 

by failing to offer citation to the notes of testimony. In addition, Appellant 

has not directed our attention to a place in the record where a proper objection 

to the admission of the evidence had been made.
J-S50021-20

- 9 -

As stated supra, it is not our role to scour the record for the evidence 

that could possibly support Appellant’s argument. J.J. DeLuca Co. Inc., 56 

A.3d at 411. This Court has consistently held that failure to comply with 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) results in the waiver of the issue on appeal. Appellant’s 

failure to comply with Rule 2119(c) compels our conclusion that this issue is 

waived.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judge Strassburger did not participate in the consideration or decision 

of this case.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/16/21