J. S14038/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

FREDERICK STARNESS, JR., : No. 2062 EDA 2018

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 16, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-SA-0003081-2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 13, 2020

Frederick Starness, Jr., appeals the February 16, 2018 judgment of 

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

following a trial de novo that resulted in his conviction of the summary offense 

of reckless driving.1 The trial court imposed mandatory fines and costs. We 

affirm.

We glean the following from the trial court’s opinion: On September 13, 

2017, at approximately 1:50 a.m., Officer Roney2 was patrolling in the area 

of Henry Street, a residential area where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. 

 

1 A person is guilty of reckless driving if he “drives any vehicle in willful or 

wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 3736(a).

2 Officer Roney’s first name does not appear of record.
J. S14038/20

- 2 -

(Trial court opinion, 10/9/19 at 2, 4.

3) Officer Roney observed appellant 

travelling “at a high rate of speed” and the officer “decided to follow him.” 

(Id. at 2.) The officer testified that she had to travel 55 to 60 miles an hour 

to catch appellant. (Id. at 2, 4.) She further testified that appellant was 

going “at least 20 to 25 miles [per hour] over the speed limit . . . in a 

residential area” where “[p]edestrian safety is a concern.” (Id. at 4.)

Appellant testified that he was travelling 3 to 4 miles an hour over the speed 

limit and was aware of wildlife and children in the area. (Id. at 2, 4.)

Following his conviction and sentencing, appellant filed a timely appeal. 

Appellant was ordered to file a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and timely complied. In his 

Rule 1925(b) statement, appellant raised the following issue:

[Whether t]he trial court erred in finding [appellant] 

guilty because the evidence was insufficient to 

support a conviction for [r]eckless [d]riving contrary 

to 75 Pa.C.S.[A. §] 3736[a?] The only evidence of 

guilt was the police officer’s testimony that

[appellant’s] vehicle exceeded the speed limit, and 

speeding, by itself, does not give rise to a conviction 

for [r]eckless [d]riving. See Commonwealth v. 

Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa.Super. 2003).

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, 6/19/19 (emphasis added).4 The trial 

court then filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

 

3 The trial court’s opinion does not contain pagination. Therefore, for the ease 

of discussion, we have assigned each page a corresponding number.

4 We note that appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement contains argument in 

violation of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4).
J. S14038/20

- 3 -

On appeal, appellant raises the following issue:

Whether the trial court erred when it found [a]ppellant

guilty of reckless driving when the only evidence 

against him at trial was testimony that he exceeded 

the speed limit by an undetermined amount?

Appellant’s brief at 6.

At the outset, we note that appellant seemingly raised a sufficiency 

challenge in his Rule 1925(b) statement. A reading of appellant’s brief, 

however, reveals he raises a weight of the evidence challenge. Appellant’s 

failure to raise his weight claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement waives the claim 

on appeal.5 See Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011).

Even assuming that appellant properly preserved a weight of the 

evidence claim, appellant’s claim would be without merit. “The weight of the 

evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or 

none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” 

Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906, 909 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal 

denied, 927 A.2d 623 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Devine, 26 A.3d 

1139, 1146 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 42 A.3d 1059 (Pa. 2012).

In his brief, appellant requests this court to assess witness credibility

and reweigh the evidence. Specifically, appellant requests that we credit his 

testimony over that of the police officer. We decline to do so. 

 

5 Appellant was not required to raise a weight of the evidence claim in a 

post-sentence motion because no post-sentence motions are required “in

summary case appeals following a trial de novo in the court of common 

pleas.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(D).
J. S14038/20

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 546 (Pa.Super. 2016). The trial 

court, as fact-finder, had “the duty to determine the credibility of the 

testimony and evidence presented at trial.” Id. (citation omitted). Appellate 

courts “cannot and do not substitute their judgment for that of the fact-finder.”

Id.

Here, the trial court weighed the evidence, assessed the credibility of 

the witnesses, and determined that the evidence proved that appellant was 

guilty of reckless driving. Therefore, even if appellant preserved his weight 

challenge, we would conclude that the trial court’s verdict was not so contrary 

to the evidence so as to shock one’s sense of justice. See Devine, 26 A.3d 

at 1146 (reiterating where trial court ruled on weight, appellate court may 

reverse if verdict so contrary to evidence to shock one’s sense of justice).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/13/2020