J. S18038/18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JOEL MANSELL, : No. 1589 WDA 2017

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 25, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County

Criminal Division at No. CP-32-CR-0001231-2016

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MUSMANNO, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 1, 2018

Joel Mansell appeals from the September 25, 2017 judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County following 

his conviction in a waiver trial of two counts of aggravated assault, one 

count of discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure, and three counts 

of recklessly endangering another person.1 The trial court imposed an 

aggregate sentence of 21⁄2 to 5 years of imprisonment. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the following:

[Appellant’s convictions stem from] an incident that 

took place on September 8, 2016, in White 

Township, Indiana County, Pennsylvania. The 

Commonwealth contended that [appellant] entered 

the leasing office of the Westgate Apartment 

Complex and discharged a firearm into the enclosed 

office area. The Commonwealth further contended 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(4), 2707.1(a), and 2705, respectively.
J. S18038/18

- 2 -

that at the time [appellant] discharged the rifle into 

the office, there were two office employees in the 

building, and one individual in the apartment directly 

above the office.

The Court held a non-jury trial on July 3, 2017. . . . 

The Commonwealth called Trooper Jeremy Leasure 

of the Pennsylvania State Police as its first witness. 

Trooper Leasure is in the Criminal Investigative Unit 

and is stationed at the Indiana Barracks. Through 

Trooper Leasure, the Commonwealth introduced a 

surveillance video from two separate surveillance 

cameras; one camera was located inside the leasing 

office and one camera was located just outside the 

door leading into the leasing office. The 

Commonwealth established that the time stamp on 

the video surveillance was one hour behind the 

actual time of the events.

The Commonwealth played relevant portions of 

surveillance video from both surveillance cameras. 

The video clips were admitted as Commonwealth’s 

Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. The Court 

watched the video clips and observed the following:

▪ A brown Hyundai Santa Fe pulled into a 

parking space outside of the 

office.[Footnote 1]

[Footnote 1] [Appellant]

admitted that he owns a 

bronze Santa Fe.

▪ [Appellant] exited the vehicle, pulled a 

rifle out of the back seat area of the 

vehicle, and walked toward the door of the 

office.[Footnote 2]

[Footnote 2] [Appellant] was 

well known to the office 

workers, Shannon Jackson and 

Shawna Weston, as 

[appellant] was a resident of 

Westgate Apartments, and 
J. S18038/18

- 3 -

was a frequent visitor to the 

leasing office. In fact, 

[appellant] visited the leasing 

office in the morning hours on 

the day of the incident. 

Finally, the office employees 

made in-court identifications of 

[appellant].

▪ [Appellant] opened the door to the leasing 

office and partially entered the 

office.[Footnote 3] [Appellant] then raised 

the gun over the desks in the office and 

discharged the weapon. A portion of the 

ceiling fell where the round entered the 

ceiling.

[Footnote 3] Shannon Jackson 

testified that [appellant] yelled 

“(I’ll show or I’ll teach you or 

I’ll show you to turn off my f’n 

electric,” when he partially 

entered the office.

▪ The office employees, Shannon Jackson 

and Shawna Weston, were in the office at 

the time the shot was fired. Shawna 

Weston was at a desk near the door, and 

Shannon Jackson was in an adjoining 

office.

▪ [Appellant] exited the office, entered the 

driver’s side of the Sante Fe, and drove 

the vehicle from the parking space.

The Commonwealth also presented testimony from 

Trooper Nicholas Iera. Trooper Iera is a member of 

the Pennsylvania State Police Forensic Services Unit, 

and is stationed in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. 

Trooper Iera processed the entire scene, and he 

concluded that the bullet fired from the weapon 

traveled through the ceiling of the leasing office and 

through the floor of Apartment #4, however, he was 

unable to recover the bullet. Testimony was 
J. S18038/18

- 4 -

presented that the apartment above the leasing 

office, Apartment #4, was occupied on the date of 

the incident.

The Court notes that [appellant] was interviewed by 

Trooper Leasure on the date of the incident. 

[Appellant] admitted that he fired the rifle into the 

office, but he contended that he fired a “blank.” 

Trooper Leasure confronted [appellant] with the fact 

that the bullet made a hole in the ceiling, and then 

asked him “if he knew at the time that he shot[,] the 

bullet was going to come out of the end of the gun 

and he replied . . . . I guess.” Finally, the 

Pennsylvania State Police executed a search warrant 

on [appellant’s] residence; they recovered a rifle 

similar to [the] rifle in the video surveillance footage, 

ammunition, and a shell casing.

Trial court opinion, 12/12/17 at 1-5 (record citations and citation to notes of 

testimony omitted).

The record reflects that appellant did not file post-sentence motions. 

The record further reflects that appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The 

trial court then ordered appellant to file a statement of errors complained of 

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied. 

Thereafter, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Were the verdicts 

against the weight of the evidence?” (Appellant’s brief at 5.)

A defendant must preserve a challenge to the weight of the evidence 

orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; by written motion at 

any time before sentencing; or in a post-sentence motion. 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 
J. S18038/18

- 5 -

(Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted). “Failure to properly preserve the claim 

will result in waiver, even if the trial court addresses the issue in its opinion.”

Lofton, 57 A.3d at 1273 (citation omitted).

Here, the record reflects that appellant did not preserve his weight 

claim orally, on the record, prior to sentencing; by written motion at any 

time before sentence; or in a post-sentence motion.2 Therefore, appellant 

waives this claim on appeal.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/1/2018

 

2 We note that a reading of appellant’s brief indicates that appellant’s 

complaint with respect to his aggravated assault convictions goes to the 

sufficiency of the evidence, as opposed to the weight of the evidence, 

because appellant claims that the Commonwealth did not sustain its burden 

of proving that appellant acted with the requisite mental state. (Appellant’s 

brief at 13.) Appellant has waived any and all challenges to the sufficiency 

of the evidence to sustain his convictions because appellant failed to specify 

the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient in his 

Rule 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 

281 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 3 A.3d 670 (Pa. 2010) (reiterating 

that in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on 
J. S18038/18

- 6 -

 

appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement must specify the element or 

elements upon which the evidence was insufficient).