J-S48005-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

FRANK BOOKER

Appellant No. 862 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 26, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008338-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DONOHUE, J., and WECHT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 26, 2015

Appellant, Frank Booker, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered after a jury convicted him of, among others, third degree murder of 

Calvonne Rollins. Booker argues that the trial court erred in failing to 

instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense. After careful review, conclude 

that Booker’s challenges to the trial court’s jury instructions are waived and 

affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court summarized the evidence presented at trial as follows.

On May 11, 2012, [Rollins] picked up his girlfriend, Tamira 

Scheuermann, at work and drove to the Get Go gas station 

located in Penn Hills where they were to meet some other 

people. Rollins was driving and Scheuermann was the front seat 

passenger and the one-year-old son that she had with Rollins 

was in a car seat in the middle of the back seat. At the Get Go 

station they met up with James Ingram whom they knew and 

Frank Booker, whom they had never met before. Ingram asked 

Rollins to give him a ride back to his house so that he could get 
J-S48005-15

- 2 -

his phone charger and he got into Rollins’ vehicle. Since they 

did not know Booker, they left him at the Get Go gas station.

Rollins drove Ingram to his house and they agreed to meet a 

little while later so all of them could smoke some marijuana. 

Later that day they met up with Gerald Brown and they smoked 

the marijuana. Rollins decided to go back to the Get Go station 

and was travelling along Coal Hollow Road when they ran into 

Ingram who was leaving his girlfriend’s house who asked them 

to give Booker a ride and he would pay for it. They met up with 

Booker a short time later and he agreed to pay for the ride to go 

to Blackadore Street. Booker was seated directly behind Rollins 

in the left rear passenger seat. When they approached the 

intersection of Blackadore and Ravina, Rollins stopped the car. 

Scheuermann, who was on the phone, thought that Booker was 

going to pay Rollins for the jitney ride since he was fiddling with 

something inside of his hoodie. Booker then pulled a silver gun 

and put it to Rollins head and told him to “give it up.” When 

Brown saw the gun, he opened the right rear passenger door 

and ran from the car. Rollins attempted to swat the gun away 

from Booker and Scheuermann grabbed his wrist in an effort to 

get it away from Booker. Rollins then attempted to push Booker 

toward the open right rear door when Booker started to fire 

anywhere between five and six shots at Rollins. Booker then 

fled from the scene. The Escalade started to drift back down 

Blackadore until it hit another car and came to rest. Rollins then 

opened the driver’s door and rolled out of the car and was lying 

on the ground. Scheuermann called 911 and requested the 

police and paramedics who arrived within ten minutes of that 

call. It is obvious that Rollins was in critical condition as a result 

of the life-threatening wounds that he received. When he was 

transported by the paramedics to Presbyterian-University 

Hospital, he had no pulse and was subsequently declared dead 

by the physicians who initially treated him at the hospital. No 

weapon was found on Rollins by the paramedics or the 

emergency room personnel who attempted to treat Rollins.

In processing the Escalade, two bullet fragments were found, 

one in the driver’s door and the other one in the driver’s 

footwell. It was determined that the bullet fragments were the 

same caliber and although they had similar markings, the 

criminalist who examined these fragments was unable to 

determine if they had been fired from the same weapon because 

one of the fragments was so small.
J-S48005-15

- 3 -

Brown and Scheuermann were interviewed that evening and told 

the Allegheny County Police that Booker was the shooter. The 

police prepared photo arrays for both Brown and Scheuermann 

and both of these individuals identified Booker as the individual 

who shot Rollins. An arrest warrant was issued for Booker and 

several weeks later, he was arrested in Williamsport, 

Pennsylvania.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/2/15, at 3-5.

On appeal, Booker seeks to raise two challenges to the jury 

instructions provided by the trial court.1 Both issues are premised upon 

Booker’s theory of the case that Rollins and Scheuermann attempted to rob 

him in the Escalade, and that he shot Rollins believing that his life was in 

danger. However, prior to addressing this issue, we must determine 

whether it has been properly preserved.

“No portions of the charge or omissions from the charge may be 

assigned as error, unless specific objections are made thereto before the 

jury retires to deliberate.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(B). Furthermore, the Supreme 

Court of Pennsylvania has held that “the mere submission and subsequent 

denial of proposed points for charge that are ... omitted from the instructions 

____________________________________________

1 We note that counsel for Booker failed, in contravention of Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a), to include a separate section in his appellate brief setting forth a 

statement of questions involved. Since counsel provided detailed 

statements of the issues in his statement of the scope and standard of 

review, and provides a thorough argument section, this failure does not 

impact our ability to review Booker’s claims. We highlight this error merely 

to alert counsel to this technical non-compliance with the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.
J-S48005-15

- 4 -

actually given will not suffice to preserve an issue, absent a specific 

objection or exception to the charge or the trial court’s ruling respecting the 

points.” Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220, 225 (Pa. 2005). 

Even if an appellant objects to an instruction during the charging conference, 

this Court has found the issue waived if there is no objection after the actual 

instructions have been given. See Commonwealth v. Parker, 104 A.3d 

17, 29 (Pa. Super. 2014).

In the instant matter, defense counsel asked the trial court “[a]re you 

going to charge on self-defense at all?” N.T., Trial, 8/20-22/13, at 251. 

After the trial court indicated that it would not, defense counsel argued that 

self-defense was an issue for the jury to decide. See id., at 251-252. After 

hearing counsel’s argument, the trial court again declined to instruct the jury 

on self-defense, to which defense counsel responded, “[o]kay, then if you 

would give me a few minutes, I need to take that information out of my 

closing.” Id., at 252. After the trial court read its instruction to the jury, it 

asked for any additions or corrections from the parties. Defense counsel 

responded, “[n]othing on behalf of the defense, Your Honor.” Id., at 295.

Thus, while defense counsel requested that the trial court instruct the 

jury on the issue of self-defense, she did not object after the actual 

instruction did not include this issue. Under Pressley and Parker, this 

failure results in waiver of Booker’s challenges to the jury instructions.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S48005-15

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/26/2015