J-S65010-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

EDWIN ARIEL FRANCO-CACERAS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 379 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 16, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0000650-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2020

In this appeal, Appellant, Edwin Ariel Franco-Caceras, raises the singular 

claim that his conviction for burglary was against the weight of the evidence. 

We disagree and affirm his judgment of sentence.

The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:

Testimony at the bench trial revealed that on Monday, 

December 11, 2017, Ronald Schubauer, Jr. (“Schubauer”) 

arrived at his office at the West Hanover Township Building 

and noticed that a window had been broken. Schubauer left 

his office on Friday, December 8, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. and did 

not return until Monday at 6:00 a.m. When he returned 

Monday morning, he discovered that a white desk fan was 

missing. Schubauer was able to describe the fan, the 

controls, the switches, and the general configuration of the 

fan. Pennsylvania State Trooper Jared Troutman responded 

to the incident on December 11, 2017 and noticed that there 

was a broken window outside of Schubauer’s office. Trooper 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S65010-19

- 2 -

Troutman testified that there was a piece of gravel rock that 

was found inside the window pane.

Amanda Price (“Price”) [is] the chief operating officer at the 

community corrections center [named Keystone 

Correctional Facility, which houses state parolees and sits 

next door to the West Hanover Township Building]. Price 

indicated that there are surveillance cameras and a work 

release tracking system that keeps track of when the 

offenders enter and leave the [Keystone Correctional 

Facility]. Through Price, the Commonwealth introduced 

different surveillance footage that showed [Appellant, a 

resident at Keystone Correctional Facility,] wearing dark 

clothing and riding a bike and pulling a white fan out of his 

bag. The Commonwealth introduced the time log that 

indicated that [Appellant] signed out on December 10, 2018 

at 10:15 a.m. and re-entered the facility at 2:45 p.m. Price 

was also shown the fan ... and indicated that it was the same 

fan that was confiscated from [Appellant].

[Appellant] testified on his own behalf and indicated that 

while he was heading to Target to do some shopping, he 

saw the white fan sitting outside a Community Aide 

container. On his way back, he stopped and picked up the 

fan.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/11/19, at 2-3 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).

The trial court found Appellant guilty of burglary, criminal trespass and 

theft by unlawful taking. For purposes of sentencing, the court merged the 

criminal trespass and theft by unlawful taking counts into the burglary count 

and sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment of eighteen to thirty-six

months. The court also gave Appellant a credit of eleven months and six days

for time served. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion alleging that his
J-S65010-19

- 3 -

conviction for burglary was against the weight of the evidence, which the trial 

court denied. Appellant now claims the court erred by denying that motion.

1

“The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is 

free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the 

credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666, 672 

(Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). When considering a motion that a verdict was 

against the weight of the evidence, a “trial court should award a new trial on 

this ground only when the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock 

one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381, 396 

(Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).

In rejecting Appellant’s weight claim below, the trial court, which sat as 

the factfinder at Appellant’s trial, stated that the verdict clearly did not shock 

its sense of justice. The court explained:

[This court] ha[s] had the opportunity to hear and see 

the evidence presented, including the credible 

testimony presented by the officer and witnesses in 

this case. The Commonwealth presented testimony 

that when Schubauer left work on Friday his office did 

____________________________________________

1 Although Appellant makes a more generic claim in this appeal that his 

“verdict” was against the weight of the evidence, his post-sentence motion 

and his 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal specifically 

challenged only his burglary conviction as being against the weight of the 

evidence. As such, the trial court properly addressed Appellant’s weight claim 

as challenging only his burglary conviction, and we will do the same. See

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (holding that issues

not raised in 1925(b) Statement are waived). Appellant was convicted 

pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A § 3502(a)(4), which provides that a person commits 

burglary if “with the intent to commit a crime therein, the person: ... enters a 

building ... in which at the time of the offense no person is present.” 
J-S65010-19

- 4 -

not have a broken window but when he returned to 

work on Monday, there was a broken window and a 

desk fan was missing. The Commonwealth also 

established a time line that showed [Appellant] 

leaving the corrections center on December 10, 2018 

at 10:15 a.m. and returning on December 10, 2018 at 

2:45 p.m. [Appellant] was depicted wearing dark 

clothing and riding a bike. Finally, we note that the 

fan was located on [Appellant] and that the [fan] was 

eventually confiscated from [Appellant]. As such, in 

factoring in questions of credibility, questions of 

timing, and the overall physical evidence presented in 

this case, we found [Appellant] guilty of burglary.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/11/19, at 4.

Appellant now claims the trial court erred in reaching this conclusion 

because his verdict was, in fact, against the weight of the evidence. According 

to Appellant, this is so because the circumstantial evidence presented by the 

Commonwealth failed to prove that he broke the window of the West Hanover 

Township Building and stole the fan.2 This claim offers no basis for relief.

In essence, Appellant is asking this Court to revisit his underlying weight 

claim and find that his verdict, contrary to what the trial court found, was 

against the weight of the evidence. By doing so, Appellant misconstrues our 

standard of review as an appellate court tasked with the responsibility of 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant claims, in particular, that the verdict was against the weight of the 

evidence because there was no evidence showing him near the broken window 

and no physical evidence linking him to the broken window. In support of that

claim, Appellant cites to a string of cases addressing an appellant’s challenge 

to the sufficiency of the evidence, not the weight of the evidence. However, 

Appellant has not raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, as his

statement of the question involved, summary of the argument and argument 

section all plainly put forth a weight of the evidence claim. See 

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751-52 (Pa. 2000).
J-S65010-19

- 5 -

reviewing a trial court’s decision regarding a weight of the evidence claim. Our 

Supreme Court has clearly stated that appellate review of a weight claim ruled 

on by the trial court below is not a reevaluation of the underlying question of 

whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. See 

Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003). Rather, our 

standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court palpably

abused its discretion in concluding that the verdict was or was not against the 

weight of the evidence. See id. We have stated:

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 [or is not] against the weight of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Clay, 643 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).

This does not mean, of course, that the trial court’s discretion is 

unfettered. See Clay, 642 A.3d at 1055. We will find an abuse of discretion if 

the trial court misapplied the law, reached a manifestly unreasonable 

judgment or based its decision on partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. See id.

Here, we discern no such abuse of discretion on the part of the trial 

court. As quoted above, see supra at 3-4, the trial court outlined its findings 

on which it based its conclusion that Appellant’s verdict was not against the 

weight of the evidence. Those findings - which included the fact that an office 

window was discovered broken, a fan was missing from a nearby desk and 
J-S65010-19

- 6 -

Appellant was found in possession of the missing fan - are all supported by 

the record. See id. at 1056 (stating that where record adequately supports 

the trial court’s conclusion that the verdict is not against the weight of the 

evidence, the trial court has acted within its discretion).

The trial court, which served as the factfinder at Appellant’s trial, also 

cited to its credibility determinations as a factor in reaching its decision that 

Appellant’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. “In assessing 

a claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, this Court will 

not substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder, which is free to assess 

the credibility of the witnesses and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence 

presented.” Commonwealth v. Fortson, 165 A.3d 10, 16 (Pa. Super. 2017) 

(citations omitted).

Based on the above, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion in finding that Appellant’s conviction for burglary was not contrary 

to the weight of the evidence. Again, while Appellant continues to offer 

arguments to this Court as to why he believes his verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence, it is not for this Court “to step[] into the shoes of the 

trial judge and revisit[] the underlying question of whether the verdict was 

against the weight of the evidence.” Clay, 64 A.3d at 1056. 

Judgment of Sentence Affirmed.
J-S65010-19

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/11/2019