J. S73002/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

FREDERICK DEMON DEAN, : No. 1402 WDA 2015

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, August 17, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0003379-2014

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS AND JENKINS, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

Frederick Demon Dean appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County on August 17, 2015, after a 

jury found him guilty of one count each of persons not to possess firearms, 

firearms not to be carried without a license, possession of a controlled 

substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, and 

possessing instruments of crime.1 The trial court sentenced appellant to an 

aggregate term of imprisonment of 81 to 168 months. We affirm.

The record reflects that shortly before 9:00 p.m. on August 26, 2014, 

SWAT officers on a vehicle patrol detail observed appellant walking 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1), 35 P.S. 

§ 780-113(a)(16), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104, and 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a), respectively.
J. S73002/16

- 2 -

northbound on a sidewalk in the 1100 block of Wayne Street in Erie. (Notes 

of testimony, 6/16/15 at 31-34.) The sidewalk runs alongside the parking 

lot of TJ’s bar. (Id.) The officers observed appellant walking toward a 

house located next to that parking lot. (Id.) Immediately after the patrol 

vehicle passed appellant, officers heard a gunshot coming from the direction 

where they had just observed appellant. (Id. at 35.) No other individuals 

were in the area. (Id. at 35-36.) The officers stopped the cruiser, exited, 

and began looking for appellant. (Id. at 36.) The officers then found a gun 

in the backyard of the house that they observed appellant walking toward. 

(Id.) A grass strip measuring approximately 10 to 15 feet separates the 

parking lot of TJ’s bar from that particular house. (Id. at 34.)

The officers then went into TJ’s bar to look for appellant. (Id. at 

39-40). The bartender told the officers that appellant was in the back of the 

kitchen hiding in a closet. (Id. at 41.) The officers found appellant sitting in 

a utility closet. (Id. at 43.) The utility closet contained a sink. (Id.) 

Appellant was completely wet. (Id.) Officers instructed appellant to show 

them his hands. (Id. at 43.) Appellant refused and began kicking the 

officers. (Id.) Appellant was tased and then taken into custody. (Id. at 

43-44.) During this incident, appellant, without provocation, stated, “I 

wasn’t shooting at you guys. If this goes away[,] I’ll give you whatever you 

want. I know several drug dealers from Detroit.” (Id. at 45.)
J. S73002/16

- 3 -

Surveillance footage corroborated law enforcement’s version of events. 

(Notes of testimony, 6/17/15 at, 33-28; 60-74.) It also revealed that 

appellant was wearing a hat when police officers initially observed him prior 

to the shot being fired. When he entered TJ’s bar, however, appellant was 

no longer wearing the hat. Surveillance footage established that prior to 

entering TJ’s bar, appellant walked into the area where the gun was found 

and made a “throwing motion” over a 6-foot stockade fence. Officers 

subsequently recovered the hat on the ground on the other side of the 

stockade fence from where officers observed appellant making the “throwing 

motion.” A baggie of heroin was tucked inside the hat. (Id.)

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

[WHETHER] THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS 

INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE CRIMES OF 

POSSESSION OF AN INSTRUMENT OF CRIME AND 

FIREARMS NOT TO BE CARRIED WITHOUT A 

LICENSE AS THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH 

THAT [APPELLANT] WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE 

HANDGUN THAT WAS ENTERED AS EVIDENCE IN 

THIS CASE[?]

Appellant’s brief at 2.

Appellant’s brief contains no legal argument on this issue. Instead, 

appellant sets forth three and a half pages of “facts” with citations to the 

trial transcript. Following these “facts,” appellant baldly asserts, “It could 

have been placed there by anyone. Thus, the decision of the jury on all of 

the firearms counts should be vacated.” (Id. at 9.)
J. S73002/16

- 4 -

Appellant waives his issue on appeal for failure to develop a legal 

argument. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 

2009) (reiterating that “where an appellate brief fails to provide any 

discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the 

issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is 

waived”); citing to Commonwealth v. Walter, 966 A.2d 560, 566 (Pa. 

2009); Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786, 799 n.12 (Pa. 2008); 

Commonwealth v. Puksar, 951 A.2d 267, 293-294 (Pa. 2008). See also 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring that each point treated in an argument must be 

“followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed 

pertinent”). Finally, our supreme court has long held that it is not the 

court’s obligation to formulate an appellant’s arguments. See 

Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 135 (Pa. 2008); 

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 717 A.2d 468, 482-483 (Pa. 1998).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Lazarus, J. joins this Memorandum.

Jenkins, J. files a Concurring Statement in which Lazarus, J. also joins.
J. S73002/16

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2016