J-A09036-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DARON DOMINIQUE PARKS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 142 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 9, 2023

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

No(s): CP-02-CR-0005749-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2024

Appellant Daron Dominique Parks appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed following his convictions for first-degree murder and related 

charges. On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s evidentiary rulings 

and the jury instructions. After review, we affirm on the basis of the trial 

court’s opinion.

The underlying facts of this matter are well known to the parties. See

Trial Ct. Op., 7/6/23, at 6-11. Briefly, Appellant and Ramonta Yancey (codefendant) were charged with criminal homicide and related charges in 

connection with the murder of Tameka Dallas. Following a jury trial, Appellant 

was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery of a motor vehicle, tampering 
J-A09036-24

- 2 -

with evidence, and criminal conspiracy.1,2 On January 9, 2023, the trial court 

sentenced Appellant to consecutive terms of life for first degree murder, three 

to six years of incarceration for robbery of a motor vehicle, and three to six 

years of incarceration for criminal conspiracy. See Sentencing Order, 1/9/23, 

at 1-2. The trial court imposed no further penalty for tampering with evidence. 

See id. at 1.

Appellant did not file post-sentence motions. Appellant filed a timely 

appeal, and both the trial court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues:

1. Did the trial court err when it allowed the Commonwealth to 

cherry pick parts of a statement from a coded jail call and

interpret it for the jury without allowing Appellant to offer the

other part for context. The [trial c]ourt violated the Rule of

Completeness. See[] Pa.R.E. 106.

2. Did the trial court erred [sic] when it denied Appellant the

opportunity to clear up the misrepresentation caused by the

denial because he ruled that the second part was a self-serving

hearsay statement or a Bruton issue.[3] The court said [codefendant] could not cross-examine the statement. The court 

disallowed an important part that provided context.

3. Did the court err when it allowed [co-defendant] to block the

stipulation and thus enabled the Commonwealth to put on

evidence that allegedly deciphered only part of that statement

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 3702(a), 4910(1), and 903(a), respectively. 

2 The jury also convicted co-defendant of first-degree murder, robbery of a 

motor vehicle, tampering with evidence, and criminal conspiracy. Codefendant filed an appeal docketed at 13 WDA 2023, which we address in a 

separate memorandum.

3 Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).
J-A09036-24

- 3 -

without context. Was the [trial] court fair and did it provide 

equal treatment?

4. Did the trial court err when it allowed the Commonwealth to 

use a non[-]expert to provide an opinion on the translation of 

the coded message? Detective Depaoli was not qualified as an 

expert and did not testify to having any training or job 

experience in interpreting coded messages. In fact, she

testified that she just took a stab at it. The lay opinion was

impermissible; she was not present during the conversation 

and did not have personal knowledge as to the discussion. 

5. Did the trial court err when it allowed the Commonwealth an

instruction on second degree murder with respect to robbery 

of a motor vehicle, without any evidence that the decedent[’s]

car was taken by force or that she was aware that her vehicle 

was being taken. In Commonwealth v. Jones, 771 A.2d 796

[(Pa. Super. 2001)], it says force is that of which the victim is 

aware and by reason of that force is compelled to part with his 

property.

6. Did the trial court err when it allowed the Commonwealth an

instruction on second degree murder, Title 18, 3702 Robbery 

of a motor vehicle, when it is not specifically enumerated in the 

statue for murder in the second degree.

Appellant’s Brief at 2-4 (formatting altered).

4

 

____________________________________________

4 Appellant’s Brief contains one single argument section, and it is difficult to 

understand which portions of the argument apply to the issues presented. 

See Appellant’s Brief at 17-37. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, the argument in Appellant’s brief is required to be divided 

into separate sections for each question presented. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) 

(stating “[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are 

questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part . . . the

particular point treated therein”). On this basis, the Commonwealth urges 

this Court to quash the appeal. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 13 (stating that 

Appellant’s “statement of questions involved purports to raise six claims while 

Appellant’s argument section is a rambling discussion in which it is difficult to 

discern where one ‘issue’ ends, and another begins” (some formatting 

altered)). Although we do not condone Appellant’s failure to comply with our 

Rules of Appellate Procedure, we do not find that appellate review is 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A09036-24

- 4 -

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court aptly addressed Appellant’s 

issues and correctly concluded that Appellant was not entitled to relief. See

Trial Ct. Op. at 11-19. After careful consideration of the record, the parties’

arguments, and the trial court’s conclusions, we affirm on the basis of the trial 

court opinion. See id. Accordingly, we affirm.5

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 9/24/2024

____________________________________________

completely precluded, and we will not quash the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 

(providing that if defects in the appellant’s brief are substantial, the appeal or 

other matter may be quashed or dismissed); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. 

Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003) (declining to quash where 

arguments can reasonably be discerned from the defective brief).

5 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the 

event of further proceedings.