J-S49005-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

BARBARA BRYANT,

Appellant No. 3308 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 26, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010674-2017

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 05, 2019

Appellant, Barbara Bryant, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 6 

to 23 months’ incarceration, followed by 1 year of probation, imposed after 

she was convicted of false imprisonment, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2903, criminal 

conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, and recklessly endangering another person, 18 

Pa.C.S. § 2705. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts and pertinent procedural history of 

this case, as follows:

At approximately six o’clock on the morning of November 19[], 

2015, Renee Valentine was awoken by the sound of hammering 

at her front door. Confined to the first floor as the result of a 

medical condition, Ms. Valentine was the first individual within her 

home at 5533 West Master Street to encounter the disturbance. 

Startled, Ms. Valentine phoned her daughter Ms. Renedya 

Stokes[,] who was asleep upstairs. Before Ms. Stokes made her 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S49005-19

- 2 -

way downstairs, Ms. Valentine heard the individuals outside 

comment that everyone inside the house was going to die. Ms.

Valentine then peered through the window, recognizing 

[Appellant] and Clarence. When Ms. Stokes came downstairs after 

getting dressed, she also looked out the window and identified the 

landlord, [Appellant], and Clarence were present along with a 

third individual holding a shotgun, later determined to be Jerome. 

At this point, Ms. Stokes called for her then-fifteen-year[-] 

old son, Zyair Stokes[,] to come down from his bedroom. Ms. 

Stokes and Zyair opened the interior metal safety door inward and 

discovered a thick board of plywood obscuring their exit. Hearing 

the continued drilling of nails, further securing the blockage in 

place, Mr. Stokes and Zyair attempted to break through the 

barrier. In addition to the front door, there were two windows and 

one rear door on the first floor of the property; however, none 

could safely be utilized for escape. The back door was blocked by 

cinder blocks that [Appellant] directed be placed there a few 

months prior, the window in the kitchen could not be reached 

without having to climb on a dangerously unsteady sink, and the 

window near the air conditioner did not open. Additionally, 

Jerome threatened to kill Ms. Stokes should she exit the house. 

Ms. Stokes sent Zyair upstairs to retrieve her phone in order to 

call 911 and request police assistance. After Ms. Stokes 

disconnected with emergency dispatch, she proceeded to take 

photographs of the encounter and a short video. These 

photographs included Jerome with a shotgun and the car of 

[Appellant]. 

Officer Richard Green received flash information of a woman 

and two males leaving the scene of 5533 Master Street in a vehicle 

with a license plate belonging to [Appellant]. Approximately 20 

minutes after the 911 phone call was placed, he arrived at 5533 

Master Street to find the front door boarded up with people 

trapped inside. Unable to remove the paneling himself, ... [the] 

[o]fficer ... called for fire and rescue to remove the barrier. 

[Firemen] arrived shortly thereafter. After a failed attempted to 

pry off the plywood from the door’s frame, firemen eventually had 

to saw through the wood to allow everyone inside to exit. A video 

taken by Ms. Stokes of the firemen sawing through the door was 

introduced by the Commonwealth at trial. 

[Appellant] appeared before the [trial court] on August 17,

2018[,] in a waiver trial charged with two counts of [f]alse 

[i]mprisonment, two counts of [c]onspiracy [to commit] [f]alse
J-S49005-19

- 3 -

[i]mprisonment[,] and [r]ecklessly [e]ndangering [a]nother 

[p]erson[.] She was found guilty on all counts. 

Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/19, at 1-3 (unnumbered; citations to the record 

omitted). 

On October 26, 2018, Appellant was sentenced to the aggregate term 

stated supra. She filed a timely post-sentence motion, which was denied. 

She then filed a timely notice of appeal.1 Appellant complied with the trial 

court’s subsequent order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal, and the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion on June 14, 2019.

Herein, Appellant states three issues for our review:

[I.] Whether the weight of the evidence was enough to sustain a 

conviction pursuant to [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 607?

[II.] Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction 

pursuant to [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 606 and the weight of the evidence 

was enough to sustain a conviction pursuant to Rule 607[?]

[III.] Whether the [p]ost-[s]entence [m]otion, in which [Appellant

argued she] has no prior record ... [and] requested a 

[p]robationary sentence without [h]ouse [a]rrest, as [h]ouse 

[a]rrest was stressful for her, should have been granted?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Appellant’s claims are waived. Initially, she only presents an argument 

regarding her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain her 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant erroneously stated she was appealing from the November 1, 2018 

order denying her post-sentence motion. “In a criminal action, appeal 

properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the denial of postsentence motions.” Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 

n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc). We have corrected the caption accordingly. 
J-S49005-19

- 4 -

convictions, thus abandoning her weight-of-the-evidence and sentencing 

challenges for our review. See id. at 7. 

In regard to her sufficiency issue, Appellant simply cites our standard of 

review, and then states that her convictions “should be reversed as the 

evidence presented by the Commonwealth did not meet the elements of the 

alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Clearly, this undeveloped argument is inadequate to permit us to 

meaningfully review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Appellant’s 

convictions. Therefore, this claim is also waived. See Commonwealth v. 

Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“When briefing the various 

issues that have been preserved, it is an appellant’s duty to present 

arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must 

support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and 

with citations to legal authorities. ... [W]hen defects in a brief impede our 

ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal 

entirely or find certain issues to be waived.”). Additionally, Appellant’s 

sufficiency claim is waived because she failed to specify, in her Rule 1925(b) 

statement, the element(s) of her crimes that the Commonwealth failed to 

prove. Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) 

(“[W]hen challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the 

[a]ppellant’s [Rule] 1925[(b)] statement must ‘specify the element or 
J-S49005-19

- 5 -

elements upon which the evidence was insufficient’ in order to preserve the 

issue for appeal.”) (citations omitted).

For these reasons, we deem all of Appellant’s issues waived and affirm 

her judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/5/19