J-S06003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

REBECCA WATKINS-LAUBER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 143 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 19, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0006906-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 28, 2024

Appellant, Rebecca Watkins-Lauber, appeals from the December 19, 

2022 judgment of 71⁄2 to 15 years of incarceration entered in the Philadelphia 

County Court of Common Pleas following her conviction by a jury of 

Aggravated Assault and Conspiracy.1 Appellant challenges the weight and 

sufficiency of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of her sentence. 

After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On January 

27, 2019, Nicole Jameson (the “Victim”) was at an after-hours club with some 

friends when Appellant approached her. Appellant and the Victim proceeded 

to have an argument about Appellant’s husband, Albert Lauber, who was also 

the Victim’s paramour and the father of the Victim’s child. A short while later, 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a) and 903, respectively.
J-S06003-24

- 2 -

the Victim and her friends were outside the club when Appellant exited the 

club and began speaking to the Victim. Each time the Victim attempted to 

leave, Appellant reengaged the Victim, prolonging the conversation. During 

this entire period, Appellant had her cell phone to her ear. 

Ultimately, the Victim and her friends got into a car to leave the club. 

The Victim sat in the front passenger seat of the car and then became aware 

of a man, later identified as Joseph Ackerman, leaning on the back of the car, 

refusing to move. One of the Victim’s friends exited the vehicle to ask Mr. 

Ackerman to move. As the friend was getting back in the car, Mr. Ackerman

shot the Victim, who was still sitting in the front passenger seat, in the back 

of the head. 

The police investigation into the shooting revealed that Appellant had 

been on the phone with Mr. Ackerman before, during, and after the shooting. 

Video surveillance recordings from the club established that, at some point 

after the phone calls between Appellant and Mr. Ackerman began, Mr. 

Ackerman arrived at the club and placed a gun in the driver’s side wheel well 

of a parked car. Upon entering the club, Mr. Ackerman sat next to Appellant 

at the bar and the two spoke for several minutes. Then Appellant got up from 

the bar, followed closely by Mr. Ackerman, and spoke briefly with the Victim 

as the Victim was leaving the club. Mr. Ackerman remained in the club when 

the Victim and Appellant initially exited it; however, Appellant was on the 

phone with Mr. Ackerman while Appellant spoke with the Victim outside of the 

club. 
J-S06003-24

- 3 -

After some time, the video depicted Appellant return inside the club, 

retrieve Mr. Ackerman and whisper something to him as she ushered him out. 

The video then captured Mr. Ackerman return to the parked car where he had 

secreted his firearm and retrieve it, while on the phone with Appellant. Mr. 

Ackerman then leaned on the trunk of the car in which the Victim was seated. 

After the car’s passenger asked Mr. Ackerman to move, Mr. Ackerman walked 

up to the front passenger side of the car and fired his gun through the window 

before running off, his phone still at his ear. Call log evidence established that 

Appellant had been on the phone with Mr. Ackerman before, during, and after 

the shooting on a call lasting 10 minutes and 46 seconds.

Appellant and Mr. Ackerman proceeded to a jury trial where, on October 

21, 2022, the jury convicted Appellant of Aggravated Assault and Conspiracy.2 

The trial court deferred sentencing pending preparation of pre-sentence 

investigation (“PSI”) and mental health evaluation reports.

On December 19, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two 

concurrent terms of 71⁄2 to 15 years of incarceration. Appellant filed a timely 

post-sentence motion in which she challenged, inter alia, the weight of the 

evidence and the discretionary aspects of her sentence.

On December 30, 2022, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence 

motion. 

____________________________________________

2 The jury convicted Mr. Ackerman of Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, 

and Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License and acquitted Appellant of 

Attempted Murder and Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License.
J-S06003-24

- 4 -

This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court have 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether [] Appellant’s conviction of Aggravated Assault and 

Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Assault are against the 

weight of the evidence and shocking to one’s sense of justice

where:

a. The jury’s verdict was based upon speculation and 

unwarranted assumptions that [] Appellant intended to 

harm the [V]ictim where there was credible visual 

evidence from surveillance video that [] Appellant was 

calm, civil, cordial[,] and respectful toward the victim 

and where there was evidence that child fathered by [] 

Appellant’s husband had been left in [] Appellant’s care 

by the [V]ictim;

b. The jury’s verdict that [] Appellant conspired to harm the 

[V]ictim was based upon speculation and unwarranted 

assumptions where there was no evidence of what was 

said between [] Appellant over the phone to her alleged 

conspirator;

c. The jury’s verdict was based upon speculation and 

unwarranted assumptions that [] Appellant intended to 

harm the victim where the Commonwealth failed to call 

two eyewitnesses to the conversations [] Appellant was 

having with the [V]ictim prior to the assault;

d. The jury’s verdict was based upon speculation and 

unwarranted assumptions that [] Appellant intended to 

harm the [V]ictim where contrary to the 

Commonwealth’s assertion there was no video proof that 

there had been a confrontational incident inside of the 

bar prior to the assault of the [V]ictim;

e. The jury’s verdict was based upon speculation and 

unwarranted assumptions where there was no evidence 

that [] Appellant knew that the co-defendant was armed 

with a hand gun [sic] and that he intended to use it on 

the [V]ictim; and
J-S06003-24

- 5 -

f. The jury’s verdict failed to give proper weight to [] 

Appellant’s good character for being a law abiding, 

peaceful[,] and nonviolent citizen?

2. Whether [] Appellant’s conviction for Aggravated Assault and 

Conspiracy are based upon insufficient evidence where the 

Commonwealth did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt 

that [] Appellant conspired to harm the victim:

a. Where there was no evidence introduced about what [] 

Appellant said to the co-defendant;

b. Where there was no evidence that the conversation 

between the [V]ictim and [] Appellant was threatening 

and anything other than cordial and respectful; and 

c. Where there was not a scintilla of evidence that [] 

Appellant knew or should have known that the codefendant was armed with a hand gun [sic] and intended 

to use it?

3. Whether the [c]ourt abused its discretion in sentencing when 

it sentenced [] Appellant to a significant upward departure from 

the suggested guideline sentence without stating sufficient and 

credible reasons on the record and where the sentence 

imposed is excessive and contrary to the norms underlying the 

Sentencing Code and therefore presents a substantial question 

that the sentence is appropriate?

4. Whether the [c]ourt abused its discretion at sentencing where 

it failed to give the proper weight to the mitigating factors 

consisting most notably of:

a. That [] Appellant had never been convicted of any crime;

b. That [] Appellant’s crimes were situational in nature and 

the result of the peculiar circumstances of the case;

c. That there was an absence of a significant psychiatric 

disorder that predicted future violent propensities;

d. That [] Appellant was a product of a relatively stable 

upbringing;

e. That [] Appellant had raised children and was in the 

process of raising a 10[-]year[-]old child; 
J-S06003-24

- 6 -

f. That [] Appellant had been gainfully employed and was 

a responsible law[-]abiding citizen; and

g. That the aforesaid presents a substantial question that 

the sentence is inappropriate because it is contrary to the 

norms underlying the Sentencing Code?

Appellant’s Brief at 6-8.

A.

In her first issue, Appellant challenges the weight the jury afforded the 

Commonwealth’s evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 16-19. Before we address the 

merits of this claim, we consider whether Appellant has preserved it for our 

review.

It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be 

developed with citation to and discussion of relevant authority and to the 

record. Pa.R.A.P 2119(a)-(c). “[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present 

arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must 

support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and 

with citations to legal authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 

771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citation omitted). “This Court will not act as 

counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Id. If a 

deficient brief hinders this Court’s ability to address any issue on review, we 

shall consider the issue waived. Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 

873 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that appellant waived issue on appeal where 

he failed to support claim with relevant citations to case law and record). See 

also In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012) (finding that, where the 

argument portion of an appellant’s brief lacked meaningful discussion of, or 
J-S06003-24

- 7 -

citation to, relevant legal authority regarding an issue generally or specifically, 

the appellant’s issue was waived because appellant’s lack of analysis 

precluded meaningful appellate review).

“We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour 

the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189 

A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018). To do so would place this Court “in the 

conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter.” Commonwealth v. 

Williams, 782 A.2d 517, 532 (Pa. 2001) (Castille, J., concurring). Therefore, 

when an appellant fails to develop his issue in an argument, the issue is 

waived. Sephakis v. Pa. State Police Bureau of Records and Id., 214

A.3d 680, 686-87 (Pa. Super. 2019).

The argument Appellant has presented in support of this claim is 

woefully underdeveloped. Although Appellant has provided citation to 

boilerplate authority pertaining to weight of the evidence claims, she has not 

cited to the notes of testimony nor to any relevant authority in support of her 

specific allegation of error. Appellant’s failure to include this information in 

her Brief has impeded our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. To 

undertake review of Appellant’s issue would require us to scour the record and 

craft an argument on her behalf, which we will not do. This issue is, therefore, 

waived.

B.

In her second issue, Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth 

presented insufficient evidence to sustain her convictions. Appellant’s Brief at 
J-S06003-24

- 8 -

20-21. Following our review, we observe that Appellant has again failed to 

cite to the notes of testimony, any authority beyond one pertaining to this 

Court’s standard of review applicable to sufficiency of the evidence challenges, 

has not included the text of the offenses of which the jury convicted her, and 

has not specified which of the elements of those offenses she alleges the 

Commonwealth did not prove. These substantial defects have impeded our 

ability to conduct meaningful appellate review of Appellant’s sufficiency 

challenge. She has, therefore, waived it.

C.

Appellant presents her final two issues—challenges to the discretionary 

aspects of her sentence—in one argument section of her Brief. Appellant’s 

Brief at 21-23. Like the prior issues raised, Appellant’s claim that her sentence 

is excessive is woefully undeveloped. Appellant has once again not cited to 

any pertinent authority to which she has applied the facts of this case. 

Moreover, and critically, although she asserts that the court failed to 

sufficiently justify the upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines, id.

at 22, and made “unwarranted assumptions,” id. at 23, she has not cited to 

the notes of testimony from the sentencing hearing where the trial court 

explained its reasons for imposing her sentence. To undertake review of 

Appellant’s issue would require us to scour the record and craft an argument 

on her behalf, which we will not do. This issue is, therefore, waived.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judges McLaughlin and Sullivan concur in result.
J-S06003-24

- 9 -

Date: 3/28/2024