J-S11035-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROLAND GRAHAM 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2316 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000634-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2023

Appellant, Roland Graham, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury 

trial convictions for attempted murder, aggravated assault, carrying a firearm 

without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, and 

possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”).

1

 We affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows:

On March 6, 2016 at approximately 5:00 p.m., [Appellant]

was eating at Church’s Chicken on North Broad Street and 

West Erie Avenue in North Philadelphia. Lemuel Meyers and 

his brother, Josiah Meyers, were working at Church’s 

Chicken that evening. Lemuel went into the dining room to 

clean tables. As he was spraying a table near [Appellant], 

mist from the cleaning solution wafted towards [Appellant]. 

[Appellant] became upset and told Lemuel that he should 

not be cleaning tables around people who were eating. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2502, 2702, 6106, 6108, and 907, respectively. 
J-S11035-23

- 2 -

Lemuel apologized, but [Appellant] cursed at him and an 

argument ensued. [Appellant] left the restaurant but was 

still arguing with Lemuel from outside. Lemuel took his 

uniform shirt off and prepared to exit the store to fight 

[Appellant], but he was stopped by a customer. At that 

point, Josiah, who was working in the kitchen, became 

aware of the altercation between Lemuel and [Appellant]. 

Josiah ran into the dining room and assisted the customer 

in restraining Lemuel. [Appellant] continued to yell at 

Lemuel and told him to “come outside,” but Lemuel put his 

hands up and began to walk away. [Appellant] then 

reentered the store with a gun and, apparently mistaking 

Josiah for Lemuel, shot Josiah twice. [Appellant] then 

paused, called Josiah a “mother-fucker,” and shot him twice 

more as he was on the ground. Josiah was struck in the 

neck, shoulder, arm, and chest. [Appellant] grabbed his 

food and calmly exited the restaurant. 

Upon their arrival at the scene, detectives collected video 

surveillance footage from the restaurant, which showed the 

incident in its entirety. Police made a compilation of the 

surveillance footage and sent it to local news stations to 

obtain tips on the suspect’s identity. Police immediately 

began receiving tips from the public and, based on those 

tips, prepared a photo array. The photo array was shown 

to both Josiah and Lemuel. They both identified [Appellant]

as the shooter. 

On the morning of March 10, 2016, SEPTA police officers 

Michael Arlen and Thomas Messer, responding to a radio 

call, found and arrested [Appellant] in the back of a SEPTA 

bus. [Appellant] first identified himself to the officers as 

Roland Brown before identifying himself as Roland Graham. 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/16/22, at 2-3) (internal footnote and record 

citations omitted). 

The court scheduled trial for June 2022. At the time, the Philadelphia 

County Sheriff’s Department would not transport prisoners to court without a 

negative COVID-19 test. (See N.T. Trial, 6/22/22, at 3). Pursuant to this 
J-S11035-23

- 3 -

policy, prisoners who refused testing would not receive transportation. The 

court was aware of the policy and determined that it would proceed to trial

without Appellant if he refused to take a COVID-19 test on the date scheduled 

for trial.

2

 (See Court Exhibit 1, Letter, dated 6/10/22). To confirm that 

Appellant was aware of the consequences of a refusal, defense counsel sent a 

letter to Appellant at the county jail on June 10, 2022. (See id.) 

At the direction of the court, counsel also attempted to visit Appellant 

at the county jail on June 21, 2022. (See N.T. Trial, 6/22/22, at 4). Appellant, 

however, refused the visit.3 (Id. at 5). In response, counsel asked a 

corrections officer to telephone Appellant’s unit, speak with Appellant, and 

inform him that “this case would proceed if he refused the COVID test.” (Id.) 

With counsel present, the officer telephoned Appellant and informed him “that 

this trial would be proceeding without him should he refuse the COVID test 

tomorrow[.]” (Id.) 

Trial commenced on June 22, 2022, but Appellant refused to take the

COVID-19 test that morning and failed to appear. At the start of the 

proceedings, the court made a specific finding that Appellant’s “refusal to take 

____________________________________________

2 The court subsequently noted that Appellant refused COVID-19 testing prior 

to the last three pretrial listings where the Sheriff’s Department had been 

scheduled to transport Appellant to court. (See N.T. Trial, 6/22/22, at 3). 

3 Counsel informed the court that he had “been up to see [Appellant] before,” 

and Appellant had “never refused” counsel’s visits. (See N.T. Trial, 6/22/22, 

at 3). 
J-S11035-23

- 4 -

the test and not be brought down was an intentional act to voluntarily absent 

himself from this trial.” (Id. at 6). The court also directed defense counsel 

to communicate with Appellant and notify him that trial had begun, and 

Appellant would lose the opportunity to testify if he did not appear. (Id. at 

8). To comply with this directive, counsel sent another letter to Appellant. 

(See Court Exhibit 2, Letter, dated 6/22/22). The letter reiterated that 

Appellant would need to comply with the COVID-19 testing policy if he wished

to participate in the trial. (Id.) 

Despite these warnings, Appellant failed to appear for any of the trial. 

(See N.T. Trial, 6/23/22, at 3; N.T. Trial, 6/24/22 at 3). The jury convicted 

Appellant of all counts on June 24, 2022. On September 7, 2022, the court 

imposed an aggregate sentence of twenty-three and one-half (231⁄2) to fortyseven (47) years’ incarceration. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 8, 2022. On 

September 9, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant timely filed 

his Rule 1925(b) statement on September 13, 2022.

Appellant now raises the following issues for this Court’s review:

Whether the trial court erred in conducting [Appellant’s] trial 

in absentia while he was being held in custody? 

A. [Appellant’s] refusal to submit to a COVID test 

prior to trial should not be deemed a willfully 

failed to appear. 

B. [Appellant’s] constitutional right to confront 
J-S11035-23

- 5 -

witnesses against him at trial was violated 

under both the United States Constitution and 

Pennsylvania Constitution. 

C. [Appellant] was unable to present evidence of 

self-defense at trial. 

Whether the evidence introduced at trial and all reasonable 

inferences derived from the evidentiary record, viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict 

winner, is insufficient to establish all elements of criminal 

attempt—murder ... beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Whether the evidence introduced at trial and all reasonable 

inferences derived from the evidentiary record, viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict 

winner, is insufficient to establish all elements of aggravated 

assault ... beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Whether the evidence introduced at trial and all reasonable 

inferences derived from the evidentiary record, viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict 

winner, is insufficient to establish all elements of firearms 

not to be carried w/o license ... beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Whether the evidence introduced at trial and all reasonable 

inferences derived from the evidentiary record, viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict 

winner, is insufficient to establish all elements of carry 

firearms public in Phila ... beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Whether the evidence introduced at trial and all reasonable 

inferences derived from the evidentiary record, viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict 

winner, is insufficient to establish all elements of [PIC] ... 

beyond a reasonable doubt? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 7-8). 

In his first issue, Appellant contends that the court erred in conducting 

a trial in absentia while he was being held at the county jail. Appellant alleges 

that his refusal to submit to COVID-19 testing was not an intentional act 
J-S11035-23

- 6 -

designed to keep him from appearing at trial. Appellant insists that a trial 

may proceed in absentia only when a defendant “voluntarily, knowingly, and 

without justification failed to be present at the designated time and place [.]” 

(Id. at 14). Appellant maintains that his trial should not have proceeded in 

absentia where his absence was not voluntary. Further, Appellant maintains

that the court erred by depriving him of his: 1) right to confront the witnesses 

against him; and 2) his right to present evidence of self-defense. Appellant 

concludes that a new trial is warranted. We disagree. 

“A defendant has an absolute right to be present at his trial. It is a 

right, however, which may be waived. It may be waived expressly, or waiver 

may be implied by a defendant’s actions.” Commonwealth v. Sullens, 533 

Pa. 99, 102, 619 A.2d 1349, 1351 (1992). “[W]hen a defendant is absent 

without cause at the time his trial is scheduled to begin, he may be tried in 

absentia[.]” Id. at 104, 619 A.2d at 1352. See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 602(A) 

(stating: “The defendant’s absence without cause at the time scheduled for 

the start of trial or during trial shall not preclude proceeding with the trial, 

including the return of the verdict and the imposition of sentence”). 

Unless the defendant is prevented from attending the 

proceedings for reasons beyond his or her control, the 

defendant is expected to be present at all stages of trial. A 

defendant owes the court an affirmative duty to advise it if 

he or she will be absent. If a defendant has a valid reason 

for failing to appear, for example, if he or she has a medical 

emergency or is called to leave because of a family 

emergency, then the defendant can alert the court 

personally or through counsel of the problem. When, 

however, the defendant leaves the trial abruptly, without an 
J-S11035-23

- 7 -

explanation to either his lawyer or the court, this may be 

regarded as an absence without cause. 

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 551 Pa. 593, 600, 712 A.2d 735, 738 (1998)

(internal citations omitted). 

Instantly, Appellant received notice of the consequences of a failure to 

comply with the Sheriff’s Department’s COVID-19 testing policy. The June 10, 

2022 letter from counsel to Appellant stated: “[S]hould you refuse the covid

test, the case will proceed in your absence.” (Court Exhibit 1, Letter, dated 

6/10/22). On June 21, 2022, counsel went to the jail to communicate this

requirement in person. Appellant refused the visit, and counsel used a

corrections officer to notify Appellant that trial would start without him if he 

failed to comply with the COVID-19 testing policy. (See N.T. Trial, 6/22/22,

at 5). After trial commenced, counsel delivered a second letter to Appellant

explaining that the trial would proceed in absentia if Appellant did not submit 

to a COVID-19 test.

4 (See Court Exhibit 2, Letter, dated 6/22/22). 

Thereafter, the Sheriff’s Department offered COVID-19 testing to Appellant on 

each day of the trial, but Appellant refused testing and did not appear. 

The court evaluated these circumstances and determined that Appellant 

knowingly failed to appear. (See Trial Court Opinion at 5). Our review of the 

record supports this determination. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the

____________________________________________

4 Regarding Appellant’s ability to receive this letter, counsel stated, “He’ll get 

it. There’s no reason he wouldn’t get it unless he refuses the envelope.” (N.T. 

Trial, 6/23/22, at 3). 
J-S11035-23

- 8 -

court and counsel worked to inform Appellant of the consequences of his 

failure to submit to a COVID-19 test. Therefore, it was reasonable for the 

court to conclude that Appellant was absent from trial without cause, and 

Appellant voluntarily waived his right to be present. See Wilson, supra; 

Sullens, supra.

In his remaining issues, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting his convictions. For each issue, Appellant baldly asserts 

that the “evidence in this case compels one to conclude that no probability of 

fact can be drawn in favor of meeting the elements of this crime.” (Appellant’s 

Brief at 22, 23, 24-25, 26). Appellant, however, fails to provide any additional 

argument discussing the elements of each offense at issue. Absent more, 

Appellant’s sufficiency challenges are waived.

5

 See Commonwealth v. 

Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 590-91 (Pa.Super. 2022) (reiterating that failure to 

develop adequate argument in appellate brief may result in waiver of claim 

under Pa.R.A.P. 2119). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

5 The trial court also found these issues waived, albeit due to the lack of 

specificity in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement. (See Trial Court Opinion at 

6). 
J-S11035-23

- 9 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/2023