J-A10021-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BENY GARCIA

Appellant No. 3669 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated November 23, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014202-2013

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., SOLANO, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY SOLANO, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2017

Appellant Beny Garcia appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his conviction 

for corruption of a minor.1 We affirm. 

On July 20, 2015, Appellant was convicted of corruption of a minor 

following a bench trial.2 On November 23, 2015, after determining that 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii).

2 The complainant at trial was Appellant’s wife’s eleven-year-old sister, who 

lived in the house next door to Appellant. On multiple occasions, Appellant 

inappropriately touched the complainant over her clothes, and on one 

occasion, tried to convince the complainant to have sexual intercourse with 

him. The complainant recalled that Appellant had inappropriately touched 

her on several other occasions, but she could not remember the exact dates 

or the details of what had occurred. Appellant was acquitted of the charge of 

indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age. See 18 Pa.C.S. 

§ 3126(a)(7).
J-A10021-17

- 2 -

Appellant was not a “sexually violent predator” under the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act,3 Appellant was sentenced to three years of 

sex offender probation. 

Appellant timely appealed, raising the following issues:

1. Because of the mental age of Defendant, did he have the 

mens rea to commit the crime charged?

2. Was the statute under which the Defendant [was] convicted, 

which does not allow testimony regarding Defendant’s mental or 

psychological disability, constitutional? 

3. Did the contact by Defendant with the Complainant constitute 

a criminal offense under the statute?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (suggested answers omitted). 

Appellant’s first issue challenges the conviction on the basis that his 

low IQ negates the mens rea required by the statute,4and his second issue 

challenges the constitutionality of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301, the statute under 

which he was convicted. Specifically, Appellant claims the statute is 

unconstitutional because it does not provide an exception for individuals like 

Appellant, who are “mentally handicapped,” and are thus, according to 

Appellant, incapable of possessing the mens rea required for conviction. 

Appellant’s Brief at 5-6. 

____________________________________________

3 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10–9799.41.

4 Appellant does not specify whether this challenge is to the sufficiency or 

weight of the evidence at trial.
J-A10021-17

- 3 -

In its 1925(a) opinion, trial court found these issues waived for appeal, 

as Appellant had not raised them earlier. See Trial Ct. Op., 6/17/16, at 3-4. 

On appeal, Appellant’s counsel concedes that he did not raise these issues at 

trial and explains that he failed to do so because he “hadn’t thought of 

[them] at the time and because [he] thought the judge would find 

[Appellant] not guilty.” Appellant’s Brief at 5. Nonetheless, Appellant’s 

counsel argues that this Court should not find the issues waived because 

they pertain to the Constitution, and “[t]he Constitution exists whether it is 

argued or not.” Id. 

Our Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that “[i]ssues not raised in 

the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on 

appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Moreover, Pennsylvania law makes it clear that 

an appellant’s claim can be waived by failure to raise it before the trial court, 

even if the claim makes an argument under the Constitution. See

Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(recognizing that “issues regarding [t]he constitutionality of a statute can be 

waived”), appeal denied, 114 A.3d 416 (Pa. 2015); Commonwealth v. 

Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 117 (Pa. Super. 2013) (collecting cases); 

Commonwealth v. Haynes, 340 A.2d 462, 464 (Pa. Super. 1975) (“as a 

general rule, even constitutional claims can be waived if an appellant does 

not conform to certain procedural rules”). Appellant’s first two issues are 

therefore waived due to his failure to raise them before the trial court.
J-A10021-17

- 4 -

Appellant advances no argument on his third issue. See Appellant’s 

Brief at 5-6. We have previously held:

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. Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 

869, 873 (Pa.Super.2006). The brief must support the claims 

with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with 

citations to legal authorities. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b), (c). 

Citations to authorities must articulate the principles for which 

they are cited. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). 

This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments 

on behalf of an appellant. Gould, 912 A.2d at 873. Moreover, 

when 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. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal 

denied, 940 A.2d 362 (Pa. 2008). Without any direction or discussion on 

this issue by Appellant, we are unable to review his final, undeveloped claim.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/25/2017