Court Opinion

ID: 9381732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 16:08:12.554969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.265169
License: Public Domain

J-S33045-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JIHAD LEWIS                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2276 EDA 2021

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 12, 2021
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001470-2020

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                             FILED MARCH 23, 2023

        Jihad Lewis (“Lewis”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following his conviction for murder of the first degree, criminal conspiracy,

robbery with infliction of serious bodily injury, and firearms offenses.1 We

affirm.

        In August 2021, a jury convicted Lewis of the above-referenced crimes.

On October 12, 2021, the trial court sentenced Lewis to life in prison without

the possibility of parole on the murder conviction with concurrent sentences

on the remaining convictions. Lewis filed a timely notice of appeal and both

he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

        Lewis raises the following issue for our review: “Was there sufficient

evidence at trial to support the finding of guilt to the charge of murder in the

____________________________________________

1   See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903(c), 3701(a)(i), 6106(a)(1), 6108.
J-S33045-22

first degree, criminal conspiracy, and [sections] 6106 [and] 6108?” Lewis’s

Brief at 3.

      Initially, we must determine whether Lewis preserved his issue for our

review. It is well-established that, if an appellant is directed to file a concise

statement of errors to be raised on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), “[a]ny

issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998); see also Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(3)(vii) (stating that “issues not included in the Statement . . . are

waived”). Further, an appellant’s concise statement must identify the errors

with sufficient specificity for the trial court to identify and address the issues

the appellant wishes to raise on appeal.          See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii)

(requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement to “concisely identify each ruling or error

that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all

pertinent issues for the judge”); see also Riley v. Foley, 783 A.2d 807, 813

(Pa. Super. 2001) (explaining that Rule 1925 is a crucial component of the

appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify and focus on

those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal).      A Rule 1925(b) concise

statement that is too vague can result in waiver of issues on appeal. See

Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-687 (Pa. Super. 2001)

(holding that “a concise statement which is too vague to allow the court to

identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no concise

statement at all”).

                                      -2-
J-S33045-22

      Importantly, if an appellant wishes to preserve a claim that the evidence

was insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement must specify the element or

elements of each conviction upon which the evidence was insufficient. See

Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020); see

also Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa Super. 2013)

(holding that in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity

the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence

was insufficient). This Court can then analyze the element or elements on

appeal. See Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 1106. Where a Rule 1925(b) statement

does not specify the allegedly unproven elements, the sufficiency issue is

waived on appeal. Id.

      Here, the trial court directed Lewis to file a concise statement of errors

to be raised on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b). However, in his concise

statement, Lewis did not identify any element of any of the crimes for which

he was convicted which allegedly went unproven at trial. Instead, Lewis raised

nearly the same vague sufficiency claim as he raises in his appellate brief, i.e.,

“[t]he evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to find

[Lewis] guilty of murder of the first degree, conspiracy, robbery[,] and

violations of the uniform firearms act (VUFA).” Concise Statement, 11/23/21,

at unnumbered 2.

                                      -3-
J-S33045-22

      The trial court determined that Lewis’s sufficiency challenge was waived

because his concise statement failed to state with specificity the element or

elements upon which he alleges the evidence was insufficient for his various

convictions, and “only generally alleges that there was insufficient evidence to

support the verdicts.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/9/21, at 5.

      Our review confirms that, in asserting his sufficiency claim in his concise

statement, Lewis sought to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting five separate convictions, each of which has more than one

element. See Concise Statement, 11/23/21, at unnumbered 2; see also 18

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903(c), 3701(a)(i), 6106(a)(1), 6108. However, Lewis

failed to identify the element or elements of each of those five convictions that

the Commonwealth allegedly failed to prove at trial. See Concise Statement,

11/23/21, at unnumbered 2. Such specificity is of particular importance in

cases where, as here, Lewis was convicted of multiple crimes, each of which

contains elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009).

Accordingly, we conclude that due to the complete lack of specificity, Lewis

failed to preserve his sufficiency challenge for our review.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -4-
J-S33045-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/23/2023

                          -5-