J-S79036-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LUIS RIVERA,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 854 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 10, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000743-2017

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2019

Luis Rivera (“Rivera”) appeals from the judgment of sentence1imposed 

following his convictions of indecent assault, endangering the welfare of 

children (“EWOC”), and corruption of minors.2 We affirm.

Rivera’s convictions stem from inappropriate sexual contact with a 

minor, T.R., which the jury found to have occurred at various points in time 

throughout 2015. On January 10, 2018, Rivera was sentenced to 31⁄2 - 10 

years in prison. On January 11, 2018, Rivera filed Consolidated Post Sentence 

Motions (“Motions”), alleging that the jury’s verdicts were against the weight 

____________________________________________

1 Rivera purports to appeal from the May 11, 2018 Order denying his PostSentence Motions. However, “a direct appeal in a criminal case can only lie 

from the judgment of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 

116, 117 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(7), 4304(a)(1), 6301(a)(1)(ii).
J-S79036-18

- 2 -

of the evidence and that the Commonwealth failed to put forth sufficient 

evidence to sustain the convictions.

3

 The trial court denied Rivera’s Motions 

on May 11, 2018. Thereafter, Rivera filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement. 

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

I. Whether [Rivera’s] [M]otion for acquittal should be 

granted because the Commonwealth failed to 

provide sufficient evidence at trial to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that [Rivera] did commit the 

charges of indecent assault, [EWOC], and corruption 

of minors?

II. Whether the jury’s verdicts were against the weight 

of the evidence?

Brief for Appellant at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In his first claim, Rivera contends that the Commonwealth failed to put 

forth sufficient evidence at trial to justify any of his three convictions. Brief 

for Appellant at 13-15. A review of Rivera’s Brief reveals that his entire

argument on this point, as to all three convictions, can be gleaned from the 

following excerpts:

“The Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence at trial 

that Rivera is guilty of [the instant crime] as defined by the 

statute.” 

***

“Rivera argues that he told both the detective and the jury [that] 

he did not commit the alleged acts.” 

***

____________________________________________

3 Rivera filed Amended Consolidated Post Sentence Motions on February 12, 

2018. 
J-S79036-18

- 3 -

“Rivera argues that he never violated his duty of care because he 

never touched [T.R.] in a sexual manner.” 

***

“Rivera argues that he never corrupted T.R. because he never 

touched her in a sexual manner.” 

Id. (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Our standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

is whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences

derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the

[] verdict-winner, are sufficient to establish all elements of the 

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not weigh the 

evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. 

Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude every 

possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is free to resolve any 

doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt 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.

Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(quotations and citations omitted).

We first note that 

[i]n order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence on appeal, the appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement must 

state with specificity the element or elements of the crime upon 

which the appellant alleges the evidence was insufficient. ... Such 

specificity is of particular importance in cases, where, as here, the 

appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains 

numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond 

a reasonable doubt. 

Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504, 518 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). Our review of the 

record indicates that Rivera’s Concise Statement contained even less detail 
J-S79036-18

- 4 -

than his Brief, merely stating that the evidence was insufficient. 

Consequently, Rivera’s first claim is waived.

Even if Rivera’s first claim were not waived as a result of an inadequate 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement, he still would not be entitled to relief.

In his Brief, Rivera failed to provide any substantive reason as to why the 

Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to establish all elements of the 

crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We decline Rivera’s invitation to 

accept flat statements of his innocence as meritorious challenges to the jury’s 

verdicts. “It is not the role of this Court to develop an appellant’s argument 

where the brief provides mere cursory legal discussion.” Lechowicz v. 

Moser, 164 A.3d 1271, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa. 2009); see also Commonwealth v. Kane, 

10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that appellate briefs must develop 

arguments sufficient for review). Bald assertions of insufficient evidence, 

without more, will not warrant relief. See Commonwealth v. Murchinson, 

899 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that the appellant’s claim was 

waived on appeal where he failed to develop meaningful argument beyond 

citing boilerplate law and asserting that the evidence fell short of such law.) 

Accordingly, Rivera is not entitled to relief on this issue. 

In his second claim, Rivera challenges the jury’s assessment of certain 

testimony. In his Brief, Rivera maintains that 

the jury placed too great a weight on the testimony of the 

Commonwealth’s witness. The jury improperly weighed the 
J-S79036-18

- 5 -

emotional testimony of T.R. The jury heard several times that 

Rivera denied committing the allegations. They heard he told [the 

police] he did not violate T.R. Rivera testified in his own defense 

that he never committed the sexual offenses. 

Brief for Appellant at 16. 

An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with 

a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of 

review applied by the trial court[.] Appellate review of a weight 

claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying 

question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear 

and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the 

gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the 

trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the 

verdict is [or is not] against the weight of the evidence. One of 

the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is 

the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was not against 

the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted 

in the interest of justice.

***

Discretion is abused ... where the judgment is manifestly 

unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record 

shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or illwill. ... [A court palpably abuses it discretion where it invades the] 

exclusive domain of the jury.

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055-56 (Pa. 2013) (quotations and 

citations omitted). “[T]he determination of the credibility of a witness is within 

the exclusive province of the jury.” Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 

803, 809 (Pa. Super. 2017).

Again, Rivera’s argument focuses on the testimony presented at trial. 

Determining the credibility of witnesses is within the exclusive purview of the 

finder of fact. See id., supra. It is not the role of the court to supplant the 
J-S79036-18

- 6 -

jury’s credibility determinations or to adjust the corresponding weight placed 

on various testimony. To do so would constitute an abuse of discretion.

In its Opinion, the trial court appropriately pointed out that the “jury is 

free to place whatever weight or emphasis it felt appropriate in light of all the 

testimony and evidence presented at trial.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/11/2018, 

at 12. In addition, the trial court reflected on the authority of a jury to find 

guilt based on a victim’s testimony alone.4 Id. (referencing, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Gabrielson, 536 A.2d 401 (Pa. Super. 1988).

Ultimately, after acknowledging the existence of conflicting testimony, the trial 

court found that the 

jury was able to weigh all the information that [Rivera] 

mentioned in his [Motions] before rendering its verdict, 

and there [was] nothing to suggest that the jury ignored 

any relevant testimony and/or information in reaching its 

verdict. Further, based on all of the evidence presented at 

trial, ... the decision rendered by the jury does not shock 

the court’s sense of justice. 

Id. at 12-13 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Our review of the record supports the trial court’s findings and lends no 

basis upon which to find an abuse of discretion. The trial court properly 

applied the law and respected the domain of the jury. We find nothing in 

Rivera’s Brief or the record that would warrant a conclusion that the trial 

court’s determinations were the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. 

Accordingly, Rivera is not entitled to relief.

____________________________________________

4 We note that the record indicates that the Commonwealth did not rely solely 

on T.R.’s testimony. See N.T., 11/1/2017, at 27-76.
J-S79036-18

- 7 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/28/2019