J-S36034-15 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee 

 v. 

CRAIG DARREL BUCKNER, 

Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

No. 1964 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 27, 2013 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-25-CR-0002282-2010 

BEFORE: PANELLA, JENKINS, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2015 

Craig Darrel Buckner (Appellant) appeals from a judgment of sentence 

of an aggregate term of 162 to 324 months’ incarceration after being 

convicted by a jury of rape, unlawful restraint, terroristic threats, possessing 

instruments of crime, and simple assault. We affirm. 

 The trial court summarized the background underlying this matter as 

follows. 

[The Victim met Appellant during the summer of 2010, when she 

was seventeen years old.] Over time, they developed a 

relationship, which included sexual activity. On June 19, 2010, 

she learned that she was pregnant.... [S]he eventually appeared 

at [Appellant’s] residence on June 28, 2010.... At that time, he 

called her a “whore”, “a dirty bitch” and accused her of sleeping 

with other men.... At some point during this encounter, he stood 

in front of the doorway blocking her exit. He told her that she 

“f----d up his night so he was going to mess up her night”. He 

then threatened to beat and kill her. 
J-S36034-15 

- 2 - 

[A]ppellant closed and locked the door and told the [V]ictim to 

get into bed. Afraid, she complied. He pushed her and pulled 

her hair and told her to remove her clothes. In fear, she 

complied. He then pulled down her shorts and told her to take 

off her underwear. She did so. Terrified and naked, she 

attempted to make a cellphone call for help. [A]ppellant 

grabbed it and threw it across the room. He then grabbed a belt 

and hit the [V]ictim multiple times on her legs and rear. He 

punched her in the face causing a bloody nose. During this 

attack, he repeatedly threatened to kill her and her family. He 

told her that he had a gun and a knife and that he would cut a 

hole in her stomach. At one point, he dragged her to the attic to 

find the knife. He then dragged her back to his bedroom and 

attempted to force her to perform oral sex upon him, pulling her 

head toward his penis. She resisted. In fear, she complied with 

his request to mount him, during which she asked him to stop. 

He then got on top of her and penetrated her with his penis. In 

spite of her protestations, he did not stop the assault. 

Eventually, [A]ppellant fell to sleep and the victim was able to 

escape.... She was taken to St. Vincent Health Center for 

performance of a rape examination. At trial, she described her 

various injuries which were corroborated by the physical 

evidence. 

*** 

Forensic (DNA) evidence established that [A]ppellant’s sperm 

was found in the fluid sample taken from the [V]ictim’s vagina. 

[Appellant] admitted striking the [V]ictim with a belt when he 

learned that she was pregnant.... The sex, he said, was 

consensual, and denied that he ever threatened her, nor 

restrained her from leaving his apartment. The jury rejected his 

account. 

Trial Court Opinion, 12/29/2014, at 3-6 (citations to transcript 

omitted). 

The jury found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned offenses on 

July 23, 2013. Id. at 2. No direct appeal was taken. On September 
J-S36034-15 

- 3 - 

2, 2014, Appellant, pro se, filed a Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)1

petition, and counsel was appointed. On November 6, 2014, the PCRA 

court reinstated Appellant’s appellate rights nunc pro tunc. Counsel 

timely filed a notice of appeal on December 2, 2014, and both 

Appellant and trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On appeal, 

Appellant asks us to consider the following questions: 

I. Whether the lower court committed legal error and abused its 

discretion in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal as to 

the criminal charges for rape, unlawful restraint and terroristic 

threats given that there was insufficient evidence to support 

guilty verdicts as to those respective criminal charges? 

II. Whether the lower court committed legal error and abused its 

discretion as to the treatment of the photographs of the physical 

injuries sustained by the victim admitted into evidence by the 

Commonwealth? 

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his 

motion for judgment of acquittal.2 Appellant’s Brief at 5. However, it is 

unclear whether the Appellant is ultimately presenting a challenge to the 

weight of the evidence or to the sufficiency of the evidence, as he confuses 

 

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9545. 

2

 After the Commonwealth rested—when the trial court asked whether there 

were any motions for consideration—Appellant’s counsel responded, “Oh 

well, motion for judgment of acquittal.” N.T., 7/23/2013, at 62. The court 

denied the motion, noting there was “sufficient evidence to go to the jury on 

the charges.” Id. 
J-S36034-15 

- 4 - 

the requirements of each.3 Notably, he argues there was “minimal 

extraneous evidence” to establish any of the crimes, and in the next breath 

argues that the “alleged victim’s account was replete with factual 

inaccuracies.” Appellant’s Brief at 5. 

 Either way, the claim is waived. To the extent that Appellant’s first 

issue raises a claim that he is entitled to a new trial because the jury’s 

verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, we conclude that the issue 

is waived. In order to preserve a weight of the evidence claim for appellate 

review, Appellant was required to present such a claim to the trial court in a 

motion for a new trial orally before sentencing, by written motion before 

sentencing, or in a post-sentence motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). Appellant 

did not file a post-sentence motion or a written motion before sentencing. 

While he did make an oral pre-sentence motion, he did not request a new 

trial in making that motion and, perhaps more importantly, made the motion 

prior to the verdict. Thus, when he made that motion, any claim that the 

verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence was premature. 

 To the extent that Appellant’s first issue pertains to the sufficiency of 

the evidence to support his convictions, we note that an appellant making a 

sufficiency claim must “specifically discuss the elements of the crime and 

 

3

In a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the defendant contends that the 

Commonwealth failed to establish “each material element of the crime 

charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000) 

(footnote and citations omitted). Conversely, in a weight of the evidence 

claim, the claimant necessarily concedes there is sufficient evidence to 

sustain the verdict. Id. 
J-S36034-15 

- 5 - 

identify those [elements] which he alleges the Commonwealth failed to 

prove.” See Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1005 (Pa. Super. 

2014) (citations omitted). 

Appellant specifically enumerates three of the five crimes he believes 

the Commonwealth failed to prove he committed, namely, rape, unlawful 

restraint, and terroristic threats. Appellant’s Brief at 5. However, because 

Appellant has not indicated which elements of the crimes he believes the 

Commonwealth failed to establish,4 he has waived any challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence. For these reasons, Appellant is not entitled to 

relief on his first issue. 

 We now turn to Appellant’s second issue, where he asserts that the 

trial court erred as to “its treatment of the photographic evidence of the 

alleged victim’s injuries.” Appellant’s Brief at 5. To the extent Appellant’s 

second issue pertains to the admissibility of the photographs, we note 

Appellant did not object to the admission of the photographs at trial. N.T., 

7/22/2013, at 98. In order to preserve a claim for review, the defendant 

must make a timely and specific objection to the introduction of the 

challenged evidence at trial. Commonwealth v. Gray, 867 A.2d 560, 574 

(Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted). Thus, Appellant has waived this 

issue. 

 To the extent that Appellant is challenging the trial court’s denial of his 

 

4

 Appellant does not tie any of his discussion to specific elements. 

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5. 
J-S36034-15 

- 6 - 

request for a cautionary instruction to accompany the admission of the 

photographs, the issue is moot. Although the trial court stated it would not 

give an explicit cautionary instruction with respect to the photographs, it 

ultimately did.5 Accordingly, to the extent Appellant is claiming the trial 

court erred by denying his request for a special jury instruction, that issue is 

moot. 

 Having concluded that all of Appellant’s arguments are either waived 

or moot, we affirm his judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/20/2015 

 

5

 N.T., 7/23/2013, at 43 (noting that an inflammatory instruction might be 

modified) and 161 (instructing the jury that “[t]he photographs from this 

case are not relevant or are not admitted to excite your passions nor to 

make you sympathetic”).