J-A05026-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THOMAS EUGENE BEEBE, II 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 247 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 31, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-25-CR-0000880-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 14, 2019

Appellant, Thomas Eugene Beebe, II, appeals pro se from the judgment 

of sentence entered on January 31, 2018, in the Erie County Court of Common 

Pleas. We affirm.

The relevant facts in this matter were set forth by the trial court as 

follows:

On December 3rd, 2016, Kristen Ross and Amanda 

Hutchings were at the Tamarack bar in Corry, Pennsylvania. (See

Notes of Testimony, Jury Trial, Day 2, Dec. 19, 2017, pg. 64:16-

23). Sometime during the evening, Appellant, who had an “on and 

off” romantic relationship with Ms. Ross, entered the bar, spoke 

with Ms. Ross, and Appellant and Ms. Ross exited the bar. (Id. at 

65:14-19; 66:7-9; 89:8-13). Appellant and Ms. Ross talked for “a 

while” outside “down a little ways up the road.” (Id. at 66:14-21; 

70:24-71:1). Ms. Hutchings left the bar to check on Ms. Ross and 

Appellant, who were standing three to four feet apart from each 

other, and [Ms. Hutchings] observed Appellant remove a firearm 

from inside his coat and discharge[] a single round away from the

bar. (Id. at 66:10-16; 71:4-72-4; 72:13-25). Ms. Hutchings then 

entered the bar and notified the bartender, Sandra Vantassel, who 
J-A05026-19

- 2 -

locked down the bar for the safety of the patrons and called the

police (Id. at 72:16-17; 73:9-14; 73:24-74:1; 89:10-23; 90:17-

91:-6). Ms. Vantassel stated she heard a “pop” before Ms. 

Hutchings reentered the bar. (Id. at 89:20-23; 90:12-16).

After Ms. Vantassel called the police, Officer Richard 

Bayhurst of the Corry City Police Department arrived at the bar in 

response to information regarding “shots fired outside the location 

of the Tamarack Bar.” (Id. at 115:16-19). Officer Bayhurst arrived 

at the bar and made contact with Ms. Ross and obtained a 

statement from Ms. Ross, which was recorded with Officer

Bayhurst’s body camera. (Id. at 116:7-16). Officer Bayhurst 

attempted to locate Appellant, but when unable to do so, he began 

searching the area for evidence and recovered pieces of a

magazine for a Smith and Wesson [firearm] as well as a .380 

caliber shell casing. (Id. at 117:5-18; 121:8-14; 125:4-9; 

125:20-22). Officer Bayhurst later made contact with Steve 

Holton, the owner of the Smith and Wesson, who reported the 

same Smith and Wesson missing on November 8th, 2016. (Id. at 

127:8-20; 132:8-12; 133:9-18). Ultimately, [on December 5th, 

2016,] Deputy U.S. Marshall Brent Novak apprehended Appellant 

in [Buffalo, New York. When the Marshall apprehended Appellant, 

Appellant had the Smith and Wesson firearm and the firearm’s 

magazine concealed on his person]. (Id. at 109:3-111:4; 132:18-

133:8).

On April 19th, 2017, the District Attorney’s Office filed a 

Criminal Information, charging Appellant with: (1) Terroristic 

Threats Causing Serious Public Inconvenience, in violation of 18

Pa.C.S. § 2706([a])(3); (2) Terroristic Threats With Intent to 

Terrorize Another in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706([a])(1); (3) 

Recklessly Endangering Another Person in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.

§ 2705; (4) Harassment in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709([a])(2); 

(5) Discharging of a Firearm Inside City Limits in violation of [Local 

Ordinance] 750(1); (6) Receiving Stolen Property in violation of 

18 Pa.C.S. § 3925([a]); and (7) Firearms Not to Be Carried 

Without a License in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106([a])(1).

On December 18th, 2017, a jury trial was held; however, 

this [t]rial [c]ourt declared a mistrial shortly after the trial began. 

Specifically, the Commonwealth called [Ms.] Ross as a witness to 

testify, but the Commonwealth’s direct examination of Ms. Ross 

prompted Appellant’s counsel to object and move for a mistrial

[because Ms. Ross stated that, at the time of the incident,
J-A05026-19

- 3 -

Appellant was on probation and not permitted to be at the bar.] ... 

[The trial court granted Appellant’s motion for a] mistrial and a 

new jury trial was rescheduled for the next day on December 19, 

2017.

On December 19th, 2017, a new jury was selected and a 

second jury trial [began]. During the Commonwealth’s case-inchief, Assistant District Attorney Grant T. Miller called Ms. Ross, 

who testified that when she provided a statement to Officer 

Bayhurst on December 3rd, 2016, she “did not tell the police the 

truth” and specifically testified that she “told the police that

[Appellant] had a gun, but [she] . . . did not see a gun.” (See

Notes of Testimony, Jury Trial, Day 2, Dec. 19, 2017, pg. 32:4-

11). In order to impeach Ms. Ross’ testimony, ADA Miller played 

to the jury the body camera video footage capturing Ms. Ross’

statements to Officer Bayhurst recorded on December 3rd, 2016. 

After a portion of the body camera footage was played to the jury, 

this [t]rial [c]ourt excused the jury. [Appellant’s trial counsel,] 

Attorney [John M.] Bonanti then objected to the display of the 

body camera footage and orally moved for a mistrial. (Id. at 33:8-

22). In essence, Attorney Bonanti articulated his objection as 

follows:

Officer Bayhurst was trying to figure out where 

Appellant lived and Officer Bayhurst is talking about 

other drug criminals in Corry and Officer Bayhurst said 

Appellant lives in an area where there’s a trade—drug 

trade, and Appellant is making lots of money off the 

trade. And there’s no relevance and it’s certainly not 

unforeseeable that the jury takes that and makes an 

inference—a nasty inference from it.

(Id. at 38:22-39:4). After a lengthy discussion outside the 

presence of the jury on the record among Attorney Bonanti, ADA 

Miller, and the undersigned judge, and after this [t]rial [c]ourt

reviewed the remainder of the video outside of the presence of 

the jury, this [t]rial [c]ourt permitted ADA Miller to display the 

remainder of the video footage to the jury for the limited purpose 

of impeaching Ms. Ross with the aid of a carefully worded and 

helpful curative instruction. (Id. at 47:14; 33:8-55:19; 58:11-

13). Specifically, this [t]rial [c]ourt issued the following curative 

instruction to the jury before the remainder of the footage was 

displayed:
J-A05026-19

- 4 -

Hello, again, jurors. I have to give you a very 

important cautionary instruction. And I’m going to 

direct you to disregard anything on the tape said by 

Patrol Officer Bayhurst. You are to totally disregard 

anything Officer Bayhurst said on the tape. Officer 

Bayhurst tried to infer things that are definitely untrue 

and prejudicial and not relevant to this case. His 

statements are not evidence of anything. You may 

proceed.

(Id. at 55:22-56:5).[1] Again, Attorney Bonanti objected to the 

curative instruction arguing the evidence was irrelevant and 

“caused an improper taint or prejudice” despite this [t]rial [c]ourt

issuing a[] proper curative instruction. (Id. at 56:10-18). 

Appellant was ultimately convicted of all criminal charges and on 

January 31

st, 2018, this [t]rial [c]ourt entered the following 

Sentencing Order:

 Count 1 - Terroristic Threats Cause Serious Public 

Inconvenience - To be confined for a minimum period 

of 2 Year(s) and a maximum period of 5 Year(s) at PA 

Dept. of Corrections in the standard range.

 Count 2 - Terroristic Threats With Intent To Terrorize 

Another - To be confined for a minimum period of 1 

Year(s) and a maximum period of 2 Year(s) at PA

Dept. of Corrections in the standard range and 

consecutive to Count 1.

 Count 3 - Recklessly Endangering Another Person - To 

be confined for a minimum period of 6 Month(s) and 

a maximum period of 2 Year(s) at PA Dept. of

Corrections in the standard range and consecutive to 

Count 2.

 Count 4 - Harassment - Follow In Public Place -A 

determination of guilty without further penalty.

 Count 5 - Discharge Any Firearm Within The City 

Limits - A determination of guilty without further 

penalty.

____________________________________________

1 Errant left-margin indentation omitted.
J-A05026-19

- 5 -

 Count 6 - Receiving Stolen Property - To be confined 

for a minimum period of 18 Month(s) and a maximum 

period of 4 Year(s) at PA Dept. of Corrections in the

standard range and consecutive to Count 3.

 Count 7 - Firearms Not To Be Carried Without a 

License - To be confined for a minimum period of 3 

Year(s) and a maximum period of 6 Year(s) at PA 

Dept. of Corrections in the standard range and 

consecutive to Count 6.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/17/18, at 2-5 (emphasis omitted).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 16, 2018. On 

February 20, 2018, the trial court ordered Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) and file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Appellant filed a counseled Rule 1925(b) statement on March 2, 2018.

On March 5, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se petition to waive his right to 

counsel. On March 21, 2018, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw 

from representing Appellant and requested a hearing pursuant to 

Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). On April 4, 2018, the 

trial court held a Grazier hearing, concluded that Appellant knowingly, 

intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and permitted 

Appellant to proceed on appeal pro se. Order, 4/4/18. The trial court also 

granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. On April 17, 2018, the trial court 

filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

At the outset, we are constrained to point out the myriad deficiencies in 

Appellant’s pro se brief. Appellant’s brief is merely an eight-page argument 
J-A05026-19

- 6 -

in narrative form with the trial court’s opinion appended. Appellant has 

violated nearly every briefing requirement set forth in our Rules of Appellate 

Procedure as he failed to include in his brief: a statement of jurisdiction

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2114; the order in question pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2115; 

a statement of the scope and standard of review pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a); a statement of the questions involved pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2116;

a statement of the case pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2117; a summary of the 

argument pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2118; and a copy of his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2111(d). We note that it is within our 

discretion to quash this appeal due to these violations. See Commonwealth 

v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“This Court may quash or 

dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set 

forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). However, our 

further review reveals an additional error that precludes appellate review.

As noted above, Appellant filed a counseled Rule 1925(b) statement of 

errors complained of on appeal on March 2, 2018. In that statement, 

Appellant’s counsel raised the following issue: “The lower court erred in 

admitting testimony by [Ms. Ross] indicating that [the] responding Police 

Officer was in the area because he was looking for [Appellant] who was maybe 

on probation and not allowed to be at the bar (scene of the offense).” 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 3/2/18. However, in his pro se brief on appeal, 

Appellant presents and argues a markedly different issue; he asserts the trial 
J-A05026-19

- 7 -

court erred in allowing into evidence the video and audio recording from the 

arresting officer’s body camera. Appellant’s Brief at unnumbered 4-6.2

By failing to raise this issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant 

deprived the trial court of the opportunity to address Appellant’s claim of 

error; it is well settled that issues not presented in a court-ordered Rule 

1925(b) statement are waived on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 

888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 

309 (Pa. 1998)) (“Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will 

be deemed waived.”). Because Appellant failed to preserve any issue for 

appellate review, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.3

____________________________________________

2 “Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se

litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.” 

Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1037 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself 

in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of 

expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id. 

3 Were we to reach this issue, we would conclude that Appellant is entitled to 

no relief. As noted by the trial court in its opinion, following the introduction 

of the audio and video from Officer Bayhurst’s body camera, Appellant’s 

counsel objected, and the trial court allowed the evidence only insofar as it 

impeached Ms. Ross’s statement that she did not see a gun. Trial Court 

Opinion, 4/17/18, at 4-5 (citing N.T. 12/19/17, at 38). The trial court then 

gave a curative instruction and told the jury it was to disregard any statements 

made by Officer Bayhurst on the body camera recording that was made during 

his interaction with Ms. Ross. Id. at 5 (citing N.T. 12/19/17, at 55-56). The 

admission of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and such 

a decision shall be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court abused 

its discretion. Commonwealth v. Storey, 167 A.3d 750, 758 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (citation omitted). In determining what evidence should be admitted, 

the trial court must weigh the relevant and probative value of the evidence 
J-A05026-19

- 8 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/14/2019

____________________________________________

against any prejudicial impact. Id. Where the trial judge gives a curative 

instruction, it is presumed that the jury will follow the instructions of the court. 

Id. Because the audio and video from the body camera was used solely for 

impeachment purposes, and because the trial court gave a curative instruction 

as to how this evidence was to be considered, if we were to reach this issue, 

we would discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary ruling.