J-S57006-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

PRESTON STROMAN

Appellant No. 1842 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 14, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000561-2012

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OTT, J., and STABILE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 21, 2015

Appellant, Preston Stroman, appeals from the May 14, 2013 judgment 

of sentence of one year’s probation imposed after being convicted by a jury 

of possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana.1 After 

careful review, we affirm.

The trial court has summarized the relevant factual and procedural 

history as follows.

On October 15, 2011, Officer Darnell Jessie 

(“Officer Jessie”) and his partner, Officer Millick, 

were on routine patrol in the area of 66th and 

Lebanon Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Officer 

Jessie observed a red Ford Taurus, PA tag HHD 998, 

failing to signal while making a right turn, in violation 

of Motor Vehicle Code 334-B. Officer Jessie initiated 

____________________________________________

1 35 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 780-113(a)(16), and 780-113(a)(30), respectively.
J-S57006-15

- 2 -

an investigative stop. The Ford was occupied by 

three individuals – a female driver, a female frontseat passenger and a male rear-seat passenger. At 

trial, Officer Jessie identified [Appellant] as the rearseat passenger.

As Officer Jessie was approaching the Ford, he 

observed [Appellant] quickly move his upper torso to 

the right and down toward the floor of the Ford. As 

Officer Jessie was asking the driver for her 

paperwork, he got a signal from Officer Millick. 

Officer Millick then came around to the driver’s side 

of the Ford and [Appellant] was removed from the 

Ford. At that time, Officer Jessie observed a clear 

plastic bag in the area where [Appellant] was sitting. 

The bag contained a brown handled cigar/cigarette 

and blue pills. Officer Jessie recognized these items 

as Marijuana and Xanax, respectively. The bag was 

located on the left rear floor of the Ford, next to 

[Appellant]’s right foot.

[Appellant] was taken into custody for 

possession of a controlled substance. When 

questioned about the items recovered from the Ford, 

[Appellant] stated that he had a prescription for the 

Xanax, but he was unable to produce one. 

[Appellant] also stated that the bag containing the 

drugs was his. The items recovered from the Ford 

were placed on a property receipt. A seizure

analysis corresponding to the property receipt 

revealed that item one tested positive for the 

presence of Marijuana and item two tested positive 

for the presence of Alprozolam, also known as 

Xanax.

...

On October 15, 2011, [Appellant] was arrested 

and charged with possession of a controlled 

substance [and possession of marijuana]. On May 

14, 2013, the matter proceeded to a trial. 

[Appellant] requested and was granted a waiver of a 

jury trial. Thereafter, the Commonwealth presented 

the testimony of Officer Jessie and the seizure 
J-S57006-15

- 3 -

analysis relative to the items recovered from the 

Ford. [Appellant] presented the testimony of Ms. 

McCray and the 75-49 for the case. Based upon the 

testimony and the evidence presented, [on May 14, 

2013,] the [t]rial [c]ourt found [Appellant] guilty of 

the crime of possession [of a controlled substance 

and possession of marijuana] and sentenced 

[Appellant] to one year of reporting probation.[2]

Trial Court Opinion, 3/20/15, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).

Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. On June 12, 2013, 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Thereafter, on June 27, 2013, the 

trial court ordered Appellant to file, within 30 days, a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1925(b). It was not until July 29, 2014, that Appellant filed his 

Rule 1925(b) statement.3

____________________________________________

2 Appellant was sentenced to one year’s probation on the possession of a 

controlled substance charge, and no further penalty was imposed for the 

possession of marijuana charge. Sentencing Order, 5/14/13.

3 We note that, ordinarily, the failure to file a timely court-ordered 1925(b) 

statement results in a waiver of all issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) 

(explaining Rule 1925(b) is a bright-line rule). However, “[t]he complete 

failure to file the [Rule] 1925 concise statement is per se ineffectiveness 

because it is without reasonable basis designed to effectuate the client’s 

interest and waives all issues on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 

39 A.3d 335, 339 (Pa. Super. 2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Burton, 

973 A.2d 428, 432 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc); see also generally 

Commonwealth v. Scott, 952 A.2d 1190, 1192 (Pa. Super. 2008). In such 

circumstances, Rule 1925(c)(3) directs us to remand for the filing of a Rule 

1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc and for the preparation of an opinion by 

the trial court. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3). Instantly, however, Appellant’s July 

29, 2014 statement, although untimely filed, cures the defect that would be 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S57006-15

- 4 -

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

Whether the [trial] court erred in finding that the 

evidence was sufficient to convict ... Appellant of 

simple possession of a controlled dangerous 

substance based upon the words of ... Appellant 

alone, without other evidence independent of ... 

Appellant’s words, in violation of the corpus delicti 

rule[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review. “In reviewing 

the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented 

at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the 

jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 

91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. 

Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015). “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 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

rectified by a remand pursuant to Rule 1925(c)(3). Further, the trial court 

did not file its Rule 1925(a) opinion until after the filing of the untimely Rule 

1925(b) statement. Therefore, the trial court had the opportunity to address 

Appellant’s issues on appeal. Accordingly, we are not precluded from 

reviewing Appellant’s sole issue he advances on appeal as it was included in 

his Rule 1925(b) statement.
J-S57006-15

- 5 -

citation omitted), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2014). As an appellate 

court, we must review “the entire record ... and all evidence actually 

received[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[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.” 

Commonwealth v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983, 1014 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 925 (Pa. 2014). “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).

Instantly, however, Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient 

because the Commonwealth violated the corpus delicti rule. Appellant’s 

Brief at 12. Specifically, he argues that he “was only proven to have been 

merely present in the red Ford Taurus and was never shown to have 

possessed the bag containing [X]anax and marijuana by independent 

evidence, separate and apart from his stand alone admission.” Id. at 13.

The corpus delicti rule provides that the 

Commonwealth bears a burden of showing that the 

charged crime actually occurred before a confession 

or admission by the accused can be admitted as 

evidence. The corpus delecti [sic] is literally the 

body of the crime; it consists of proof that a loss or 

injury has occurred as a result of the criminal 

conduct of someone. The purpose of the corpus

delicti rule is to guard against the hasty and 

unguarded character which is often attached to 
J-S57006-15

- 6 -

confessions and admissions and the consequent 

danger of a conviction where no crime has in fact 

been committed.

Commonwealth v. Otterson, 947 A.2d 1239, 1249 (Pa Super. 2008) 

(quotation marks and citations omitted).

We dealt with a similar circumstance in Otterson, which we addressed 

as follows. “Initially, we point out that even though Appellant has framed 

his argument as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the corpus 

delicti rule applies to the admissibility of evidence.” Id. at 1249 (citation 

omitted). In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence, 

our standard of review is one of deference. Commonwealth v. Selenski, 

18 A.3d 1229, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2011), vacated in part on other grounds, 92 

A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014). Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are 

within “the sound discretion of the trial court, and its discretion will not be 

reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). “An 

abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the 

overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is 

manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, 

as shown by the evidence of record.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 884 A.2d 

920, 924 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), 

appeal denied, 928 A.2d 1289 (Pa. 2007). Furthermore, “if in reaching a 

conclusion the trial court over-rides [sic] or misapplies the law, discretion is 

then abused and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct the error.” 
J-S57006-15

- 7 -

Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182, 1188 (Pa. Super. 2009) 

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 986 A.2d 150 (Pa. 2009).

We note, however, that Appellant has waived his corpus deliciti

challenge for failure to preserve it below. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 302(a) provides that, “[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are 

waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” The relevant 

testimony of Officer Jessie, elicited by the Commonwealth, is as follows.

A. There was a clear plastic bag right where 

[Appellant] was sitting. In that bag, it had a brown 

handle cigar/cigarette, which I immediately 

recognized as marijuana. Inside that was also blue 

pills. Once that was removed, looked on the pills 

and had a stamp of 3721, which in my previous 

experience was Xanax. So [Appellant] was taken 

into custody for a violation of controlled substance.

Q. I’m going to ask you a question. You said that 

the bag was near [Appellant]. Where was it?

A. It was in the left side of the vehicle where he was 

sitting as his right foot, so kind of like in the seat --

well on the floor next to the right foot.

Q. Okay. And was [Appellant] asked about the 

items in the bag?

A. That’s correct.

Q. What did he say?

A. He had said that he had a prescription, but he 

could not produce one.

Q. What did he say about the marijuana?

A. He didn’t say anything in reference to the 

marijuana.
J-S57006-15

- 8 -

N.T., 5/14/13, at 11-12. Accordingly, the record reveals that no objection 

was raised contemporaneously to the testimony at issue. Therefore, 

Appellant has waived this issue on appeal.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude Appellant has waived his 

challenge to the corpus delicti rule. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s 

May 14, 2013 judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/21/2015