J-A16044-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DENNIS BERNARD WALLER, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2168 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 13, 2021

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

No(s): CP-23-CR-0005033-2019

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JUNE 23, 2022

Dennis Bernard Waller, Jr. (Waller) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial 

court) after his bench conviction of firearms not to be carried without a license 

and persons not to possess a firearm.1 On appeal, he challenges the 

sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the evidence at the non-jury trial as follows:

At trial, the Commonwealth first presented the testimony of 

Officer German Sabillon. (N.T., 3/10/21. p. 21). Officer Sabillon 

is a sixteen year veteran of the City of Chester Police Department. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, p. 21). On February 1, 2019, Officer Sabillon was 

on duty in the City of Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania and 

assigned to the Highway Unit. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 22). The 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106(a)(1), 6105(a)(1).
J-A16044-22

- 2 -

weather conditions for February 1, 2019 included a light falling 

snow that made driving difficult. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 56). At 11:56 

a.m. on February 1, 2019, Officer Sabillon received a radio 

dispatch of an attempted robbery involving a firearm. (N.T., 

3/10/21, p. 22). The alleged perpetrators were identified as three 

black males operating a dark red pickup truck with tinted 

windows. (N.T., 3/10/21. p. 22).

Officer Sabillon was canvassing the City of Chester in his 

marked police unit when he observed a vehicle matching the 

description of the subject vehicle parked and facing eastbound 

near 3rd Street and Central Avenue. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 23). 

Three black males were approaching the vehicle and appeared to 

be preparing to enter the stationary motor vehicle. (N.T.,

3/10/21, p. 23). As Officer Sabillon was traveling westbound on 

3rd Street and snow was falling, he was required to travel farther 

down 3rd Street prior to making a U-turn to initiate a vehicle stop. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, p. 23).

By the time Officer Sabillon executed the U-turn maneuver, 

the red pickup truck had traveled to the corner of 3rd Street & 

Central Avenue and was making a left turn onto Central Avenue. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, p. 23). Officer Sabillon also turned onto Central 

Avenue in pursuit, but a vehicle was now between his marked 

police unit and the dark red pickup. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 23 & 26). 

Although the vehicles were traveling slowly given the snow and 

the uphill grade of that portion of Central Avenue, Officer Sabillon 

was eventually able to pull directly behind the dark red pickup. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, p. 27). At or near the intersection of Central 

Avenue and 9th Street, Officer Sabillon activated the lights and 

sirens of his marked unit to conduct a traffic stop; however, the 

dark red pickup failed to yield. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 29). The dark 

red pickup turned right onto 9th Street with Officer Sabillon still 

in pursuit. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 29).

At 7th Street and Tillman Street, the dark red pickup

stopped, two black male passengers exited and attempted to flee 

the scene on foot. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 29-30). The operator of 

the red pickup did not flee the vehicle and was detained by Officer 

Sabillon. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 30-31). At trial, Officer Sabillon 

identified Appellant Waller as one [of] the two men who exited the 

dark red pickup truck and attempted to flee from police. (N.T., 

3/10/21, p. 35). When Appellant Waller attempted to flee the 

scene, he was observed by Officer Sabillon holding the waistband 
J-A16044-22

- 3 -

of his pants when he began to run. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 48). Based 

on his training and experience, Officer Sabillon believed Defendant 

Waller to be concealing some object in his waistband. (N.T., 

3/10/21, p. 48). Appellant Waller was ultimately taken into 

custody that day when he was located at or near 7th Street and 

Central Avenue in the Senior Village retirement community. (N.T., 

3/10/21, p. 50).

After Officer Sabillon restrained the driver of the red pickup 

truck, Officer Sabillon joined by Officer Shiller, canvassed the area 

where Appellant Waller had fled and was ultimately apprehended. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, p. 31). Officer Sabillon tracked a single set of 

footprints left in the snow to a barbeque grill located outside one 

of the residential units. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 31, 64, & 73). Officer 

Shiller opened the grill and the officers observed and secured a 

firearm that was stored inside. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 31, Exh. C-3). 

The footprints in the snow created by the fleeing offender 

appeared to be made by a Timberland boot. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp.

36 & 75, Exhs. C-4, C-5). When Appellant Waller was taken into 

custody, he was wearing Timberland boots and those boots were 

photographed by police. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 36 & 75; Exh. C-6). 

The tread on the sole of Defendant Waller’s boots matched the 

footprints left in the fresh snow near the grill where the handgun 

was located. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 75, Exhs. C-5 & C-6). This Court 

found the testimony of Officer Sabillon to be competent, candid, 

and credible.

The Commonwealth next presented the testimony of Police 

Officer Robert Ticknor. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 96). Officer Ticknor is 

an eight-year veteran of the City. of Chester Police Department. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, p. 97). On February 1, 2019, Officer Ticknor was 

on patrol in the City of Chester dressed in full police uniform and 

operating a marked patrol vehicle. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 97). At or 

near 7th Street and Tilghman Street, Officer Ticknor observed a

suspect matching the description of a reported suspect who fled a 

traffic stop. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 97). Officer Ticknor pursued this 

individual and later observed him moving from home-to-home 

attempting to force entry through the rear doors of those units. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 99-100 & 106). Officer Ticknor identified 

himself as a police officer and instructed the individual to halt but 

the suspect failed to comply. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 103). At trial, 

Officer Ticknor identified Appellant Waller as the suspect he 

pursued on February 1, 2019. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 99-100). 

Officer Ticknor radioed in Appellant Waller’s position to his fellow 
J-A16044-22

- 4 -

officers, as Officer Ticknor was unsuccessful in apprehending

Appellant Waller. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 101-102). This Court found 

the testimony of Officer Ticknor to be competent, candid, and 

credible.

The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of Officer 

Mark Crawford. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 108). Officer Crawford is a 

twenty-year veteran of the City of Chester Police Department. 

(N.T., 3/10/21, p. 109). On February 1, 2019, Officer Crawford 

was on patrol in the City of Chester dressed in full police uniform 

and operating a marked patrol vehicle. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 109). 

Officer Crawford responded to a radio call issued at 11:54 a.m. 

regarding a robbery at 6th Street and Penn Street, Chester, 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 110). Officer 

Crawford entered the scene on the 700 block of Tillman Street and 

was informed two suspects had fled on foot from a stopped dark 

red pickup. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 110).

Officer Crawford canvassed that locale and observed an 

individual matching the description of a robbery suspect exit the 

area of a residential unit near a parking lot off Tillman Street. 

(N.T., 9/23/20, p. 71). Officer Crawford directed that individual 

to stop but the suspect continued to run south on Central Avenue. 

(N.T., 3/10/21; p. 110). Officer Crawford pursued and observed 

the fleeing suspect turn into the rear of the 600 block of Tilghman 

Street. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 11). Officer Crawford then observed 

this individual at the backdoor of a residence and it appeared to 

Officer Crawford the suspect was attempting to force entry into 

the home. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 112).

The suspect then fled towards Central Avenue approaching 

Logans Way where he entered a waiting vehicle. (N.T., 3/10/21, 

p. 113). This vehicle then traveled one block down Logans Way 

towards Edwards Street when the suspect exited the vehicle and 

fled in the direction of Chatham Estates also referred to as the 

Senior Village. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 113). Still in pursuit, Officer 

Crawford approached the suspect, drew his firearm and directed 

the suspect to stop. The suspect ultimately complied and was 

taken into police custody. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 113). At trial, Officer 

Crawford identified Appellant Waller as the fleeing suspect he 

apprehended on February 1, 2019. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 114). This 

Court found the testimony of Officer Crawford to be competent, 

candid, and credible.
J-A16044-22

- 5 -

The parties agreed to certain relevant stipulations. The 

report of Detective Louis Grandizio of the Forensic Science Unit 

Ballistics Section of the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office 

Criminal Investigation Division was marked and admitted as 

exhibit G-10. (N.T., 3/10/21, pp. 127-128). Detective Grandizio 

determined the firearm secured by law enforcement on February 

1, 2019 (Exh. C-9) was operational. (N.T., 3/1.0/21, pp. 128 & 

Exh. C-10). Exhibit C-12 is Pennsylvania State Police Certificate 

confirming Appellant Waller did not possess a valid license to carry 

a firearm pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 nor did Appellant Waller 

possess a Sportsman Firearm Permit issued under the provisions 

of the 18 Pa.C.S. § 61069(c). (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 129, Exh. C-12). 

Finally, exhibit C-13 is a certified record form the office of Clerk of 

Courts, Chester County, Pennsylvania and confirms on July 9, 

1998 Appellant Waller was sentenced for the following crimes: (1)

Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder with a sentence of thirteen to 

twenty-six years and (2) Robbery of a Motor Vehicle with a 

sentence of ten to twenty years. (N.T., 3/10/21, p. 130, Exh. C13).

Trial Court Opinion, 12/17/21, at 2-9 (footnotes omitted).

At the end of trial, the trial court found Waller guilty of the two abovementioned firearm offenses and later sentenced him to serve an aggregate 

five to ten years’ imprisonment. Waller filed a post-sentence motion for 

judgment of acquittal or new trial, which the trial court denied. After new 

counsel was appointed, Waller filed this appeal challenging both convictions.

Waller first challenges the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence 

to establish the possession element for both of his firearm convictions because 

it had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had possessed or had 
J-A16044-22

- 6 -

knowledge of the handgun found inside the grill.2 He argues that the 

Commonwealth’s case relied primarily on a set of footprints from the

Timberland boot leading to the grill where the police found the firearm. While 

he also wore Timberland boots, Waller notes that the Commonwealth 

presented no evidence that the police took any measurements of the 

footprints to match them to his boots. He also observes no evidence was 

presented that the other male who fled was not wearing Timberland boots. 

Moreover, Waller highlights that the Commonwealth presented no witnesses 

who saw him with the firearm or place it inside the grill. To that end, he notes 

that there was no forensic evidence matching him to the firearm.

However, the Commonwealth did present sufficient evidence to 

establish that Waller possessed the firearm and discarded it just moments 

before he was apprehended. First, Officer Sabillon testified that he stopped 

the red pickup truck and saw Waller flee while holding the waistband of his 

pants. Based on his training and experience, Officer Sabillon testified this 

____________________________________________

2 “We review claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by considering 

whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable 

to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to 

find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation 

omitted). “Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial 

evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility of the witnesses 

and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence. In conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh the 

evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.” Id.
J-A16044-22

- 7 -

matched someone concealing some object in his waistband, which the trial 

court credited.

Second, as the trial court summarized above, the Commonwealth 

presented three police officers who all testified to seeing Waller flee into the 

same area where the grill was located. This, coupled with Officer Sabillon’s 

observation of Waller holding his waistband while fleeing, would be enough to 

establish the possession element for Waller’s offenses. See Commonwealth 

v. Hewlett, 189 A.3d 1004, 1010 (Pa. Super. 2018) (finding evidence 

sufficient to establish possession where police saw defendant flee a vehicle 

clutching his waistband and saw him crouch behind parked vehicles where 

they later recovered a firearm).

Finally, when the officers canvassed the area where Waller was seen 

fleeing, the officers found footprints in the fresh snow that led directly to the 

grill. These footprints were made by a Timberland boot—the same brand of 

boot as those worn by Waller when he was arrested. Viewing this evidence in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, the 

Commonwealth presented more than enough evidence to establish that Waller 

discarded the firearm that was found inside the grill just after the pursuit.

In Waller’s second issue, he contends that his convictions were against 

the weight of the evidence as to whether he had possession—actual or 
J-A16044-22

- 8 -

constructive—of the handgun.3 In his argument, Waller merely rehashes the 

same points that he raised in his sufficiency argument, highlighting the 

perceived deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s evidence that he possessed the 

firearm in the grill while being chased. Again, while the Commonwealth did 

not apprehend Waller in possession of the firearm, there was ample 

circumstantial proof that Waller possessed the firearm: (1) Officer Sabillon 

saw Waller flee while holding his waistband; (2) the officers saw Waller flee 

into the same area where the firearm was found in the grill; (3) the officers 

found footprints in the fresh snow leading directly to the grill in which the 

firearm was found; and (4) the footprints were made by a Timberland boot 

that were similar to those worn by Waller when he was arrested. When 

____________________________________________

3 The standard applied to a weight of the evidence claim is as follows:

The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based upon 

a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is 

within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, “the function 

of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court’s 

exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather 

than to consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of 

the evidence.” An appellate court may not overturn the trial 

court’s decision unless the trial court “palpably abused its 

discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Further, in reviewing a 

challenge to the weight of the evidence, a verdict will be 

overturned only if it is “so contrary to the evidence as to shock 

one’s sense of justice.”

Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 312 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 1270 (Pa. 2016) (internal citations 

omitted)).
J-A16044-22

- 9 -

considered together, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Waller’s post-trial motion for new trial.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/23/2022