J-S08006-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHNATHAN DELACRUZ 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1205 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 26, 2021

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

No(s): CP-06-CR-0004611-2019

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2022

Johnathan Delacruz appeals from his judgment of sentence of life 

imprisonment without possibility of parole (“LWOP”) following his conviction 

for murder in the second degree and related crimes. We affirm.

The trial court provided an extensive, detailed description of the facts 

underlying Appellant’s conviction which we need not reproduce here. See

Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/21, at 1-8. Succinctly, Appellant and Capreece 

Sudler were passengers in a car that was in line at a McDonald’s drive-through 

when the victim, Isai Colon, approached the car and inquired whether the 

occupants desired to purchase marijuana. Appellant and Sudler, who were 

both armed, decided to rob Mr. Colon. While attempting to pistol-whip 

Mr. Colon during the course of the robbery, Appellant’s gun discharged into 

Mr. Colon. Appellant and Sudler fled on foot. Mr. Colon died as a result of 
J-S08006-22

- 2 -

the gunshot wound. Sudler testified as to these facts at trial, and a jury 

convicted Appellant of second-degree murder, robbery, and criminal 

conspiracy. On August 25, 2021, the trial court imposed the mandatory 

sentence of LWOP for the murder conviction1 and a concurrent sentence of 

fifty-four months to ten years for conspiracy.

2

 Appellant did not file a postsentence motion, but he did file a timely notice of appeal. Thereafter, both 

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

Appellant presents the following questions to this Court:

A. Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient as 

a matter of law wherein the Commonwealth’s evidence 

presented at trial failed to establish that [Appellant] caused

the death of another while engaged in a felony, specifically 

robbery, nor conspiracy to the same?

B. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence 

wherein the verdict is so contrary to the evidence and 

shocks one’s sense of justice wherein the Commonwealth’s 

evidence presented at trial failed to establish that 

[Appellant] caused the death of another while engaged in a 

felony, specifically robbery, nor conspiracy to the same?

C. Whether the court’s sentence was illegal, unconstitutional, 

and cruel and unusual wherein the sentence imposed [i]s a 

lifetime sentence, the statutorily required sentence for 

murder in the second degree?

____________________________________________

1 That statute states that, “[e]xcept as provided under section 1102.1 

[regarding sentences for juveniles convicted of murder], a person who has 

been convicted of murder of the second degree . . . shall be sentenced to a 

term of life imprisonment.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(b). 

2 The robbery conviction merged for purposes of sentencing. See N.T. 

Sentencing, 8/25/21, at 3. 
J-S08006-22

- 3 -

Appellant’s brief at 5-6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

The following legal principles apply to our review of Appellant’s claims 

of error. As to Appellant’s sufficiency challenge, we bear in mind:

Because a determination of evidentiary sufficiency presents a 

question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope 

of review is plenary. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, 

we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient 

to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth 

need not preclude every possibility of innocence. It is within the 

province of the fact-finder to determine the weight to be accorded 

to each witness’s testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving 

every element of the crime by means of wholly circumstantial 

evidence. Moreover, as an appellate court, we may not re-weigh 

the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder.

Commonwealth v. Palmer, 192 A.3d 85, 89 (Pa.Super. 2018) (cleaned up). 

Appellant’s claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence 

is governed by the following principles: 

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 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.

Commonwealth v. Beatty, 227 A.3d 1277, 1286 (Pa.Super. 2020) 

(cleaned up).
J-S08006-22

- 4 -

We review Appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the

mandatory sentence of LWOP for second-degree murder mindful that “[a]s 

the constitutionality of a statute presents a pure question of law, our standard 

of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary,” and that “a statute 

will not be found unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly 

violates the Constitution. If there is any doubt as to whether a challenger has 

met this high burden, then we will resolve that doubt in favor of the statute's 

constitutionality.” Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 118 

(Pa.Super. 2014) (cleaned up). 

After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs and 

the applicable law, we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion on the 

part of the trial court as to the issues raised by Appellant, and we affirm the 

judgment of sentence on the basis of the cogent and well-reasoned opinion 

that Honorable Scott E. Lash entered on November 3, 2021. 

Specifically, Judge Lash observed that the law and the evidence, 

including reasonable inferences therefrom, supported the jury’s finding that 

Appellant and Sudler conspired to rob Mr. Colon, and that his death occurred 

during the course of the robbery. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/21, at 9-12 

(detailing the elements of the crime and Sudler’s testimony). Appellant’s 

argument that the verdict is unsound because it is based upon Sudler’s “biased 

and self-motivated testimony” is unavailing. Appellant’s brief at 18. See, 

e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 939 (Pa.Super. 2013) 
J-S08006-22

- 5 -

(observing that an attack on the credibility of the Commonwealth’s witness 

“goes to the credibility of the witness's testimony, and is, therefore, not an 

attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, but an allegation regarding the 

weight it should have been afforded.”). 

We further conclude that the trial court properly rejected Appellant’s 

challenge to the weight of the evidence as waived. See Trial Court Opinion, 

11/3/21, at 12-13. See also Commonwealth v. Mbewe, 203 A.3d 983, 988 

(Pa.Super. 2019) (“[A] challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised 

with the trial judge [pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 607] or it will be waived.” 

(cleaned up)); Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) (“A claim that the verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a 

new trial: (1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by 

written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence 

motion.”). 

Finally, Judge Lash accurately applied this Court’s precedent to conclude 

that a LWOP sentence for second-degree murder is not unconstitutional. See

Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/21, at 13-14 (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. 

Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 503 (Pa.Super. 2020) (discussing continued viability 

of precedent holding that LWOP sentence for second-degree murder is not 

unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment)). 

As to all of the foregoing points, we adopt the trial court’s reasoning as 

our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on those bases. 
J-S08006-22

- 6 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/27/2022