Court Opinion

ID: 9892366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 17:12:02.399367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:26.997678
License: Public Domain

J-S21026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KORY LUCAS FITZGERALD                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1292 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 16, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-01-CR-0000849-2021

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                          FILED: OCTOBER 23, 2023

       Appellant Kory Lucas Fitzgerald appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude a police

officer1 (fleeing) and related summary offenses.        Appellant raises multiple

evidentiary claims and challenges the weight of the evidence. We affirm.

       The trial court summarized the underlying facts and procedural history

of this case as follows:

       On April 23, 2021, Ranger James Sleighter (hereinafter “Ranger
       Sleighter”), Law Enforcement Ranger for the Department of
       Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry
       (hereinafter “DCNR”), assigned to Michaux State Forest, was on
       patrol with Ranger Scott Greevy (hereinafter “Ranger Greevy”).
       Ranger Greevy was the driver, and they were in their law
       enforcement vehicle, a Ford[ F-250] pickup truck equipped with
       emergency lights and siren.      The Rangers were traveling
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa. C.S. § 3733(a).
J-S21026-23

     northbound on Wenksville Road in Menallen Township, Adams
     County, Pennsylvania, and observed a white sedan turn in front of
     their vehicle from Slatersville Road onto Wenksville Road and
     travel northbound on Wenksville Road. Ranger Sleighter testified
     the white sedan drove erratically, drifting and weaving across the
     center line and the right shoulder line. The white sedan travelled
     from Wenksville Road to Coon Road and continued to drive
     erratically. As the Rangers crossed the boundary to Michaux State
     Forest, Ranger Greevy activated the vehicle’s emergency lights.
     The white sedan did not stop and accelerated rapidly. After the
     white sedan failed to stop[,] Ranger Greevy initiated his siren.
     Ranger Sleighter utilized his cellular telephone and took a video
     of the white sedan while it accelerated rapidly. The Rangers
     followed the white sedan from Coon Road to Back Road. The
     Rangers approached an intersection and stop sign at West Point
     Road. Ranger Sleighter lost sight of the white sedan because it
     had accelerated rapidly. A gentleman off the roadway (Chris
     Cover) pointed to the right on West Point Road. Ranger Greevy
     turned right on West Point Road, travelled up the hill, and at the
     crest of the hill, Ranger Sleighter observed the white sedan in the
     distance. Ranger Sleighter observed a school bus with flashing
     red lights travelling in the same direction as the white sedan.
     Concerned about their safety and the safety of other vehicles on
     the roadway, the Rangers discontinued their pursuit of the white
     sedan.

     The Rangers returned to Piney Apple Golf Course located off
     Slatersville Road. The Rangers observed surveillance cameras in
     the area of the clubhouse at Piney Apple Golf Course. The Rangers
     spoke with the owner, Marguerite Buch and her son, Cory Buch.
     Cory Buch showed the Rangers videos from earlier that day, and
     they observed an individual Ranger Sleighter identified as
     Appellant in golf cart #2 in the parking lot of Piney Apple Golf
     Course. A second video depicted Appellant walking towards a
     white sedan and entering the white sedan. A third video depicted
     the white sedan travelling on Slatersville Road from the parking
     lot of Piney Apple Golf Course and turning left on Wenksville Road
     directly in front of the Rangers’ F-250 pickup truck.

     Ranger Sleighter obtained a copy of the debit card receipt utilized
     by the individual in the video. The debit card was registered to
     Appellant. The debit card receipt displayed a debit sale on April
     23, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. at Piney Apple Golf Course for $20.00 for
     golf cart #2.

                                    -2-
J-S21026-23

     Ranger Sleighter obtained a JNET photograph of Appellant, who
     was the same individual depicted in the video from Piney Apple
     Golf Course.

     Ranger Sleighter eventually obtained an arrest warrant for
     Appellant and arrested Appellant on June 26, 2021, at Melissa
     Maben’s residence in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Ranger Sleighter
     observed the white sedan depicted in the videos parked at this
     location.

                                *     *     *

     On June 26, 2021, Appellant was arrested in Carlisle, Pennsylvania
     and charged with fleeing or attempting to elude police officer,
     recklessly endangering another person, and several summary
     vehicle violations. . . .

                                *     *     *

     On June 10, 2022, Attorney Harper filed [Appellant’s] motion in
     limine seeking to prevent use of the three video recordings
     obtained from the surveillance footage from Piney Apple Golf
     Course. On June 14, 2022, this court denied [Appellant’s] motion
     in limine and ruled that the videos were admissible in accordance
     with Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 1003. The videos were
     properly authenticated prior to their admission.

     Following jury trial on June 14, 2022, the jury could not reach a
     decision on the fleeing or attempting to elude police officer charge
     and found Appellant not guilty of recklessly endangering another
     person. This [c]ourt granted a mistrial concerning the fleeing or
     attempting to elude police officer charge.

                                *     *     *

     On Wednesday, July 27, 2022, this court received a request for
     transcript for the June 14, 2022 jury trial. This court denied
     Appellant’s request for transcript because jury selection was
     scheduled for Monday, August 1, 2022, and the stenographer did
     not have sufficient time to prepare the transcript.

     [Appellant appeared] for jury selection on August 1, 2022. On
     August 2, 2022, Attorney Harper filed [Appellant’s] motion in
     limine seeking to preclude the anticipated testimony of Melissa

                                    -3-
J-S21026-23

      Maben in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403, based
      on Appellant’s “volatile relationship between this witness and
      [Appellant] in that they share a child together and are in the midst
      of a dispute over custody and child support.” Hearing on
      [Appellant’s] motion in limine was held before this court on August
      3, 2022, and Appellant’s motion in limine was denied. Such
      identification testimony was allowed in accordance with
      Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 701. This court also ruled that any
      innate, unfair prejudice to defendant stemming from the volatile
      relationship between Ms. Maben and the defendant goes to the
      weight of the evidence, not admissibility, and such unfair
      prejudice is not outweighed by the probative value of the
      testimony.

Trial Ct. Op. at 1-7.

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

      Chris Cover, who lives at the intersection of West Point Road,
      testified that late afternoon on April 23, 2021, he was outside his
      house and heard a siren. Mr. Cover observed a vehicle come
      around the corner at a high rate of speed and run the stop sign at
      West Point Road. Mr. Cover observed the DCNR pickup truck
      shortly thereafter, with lights and siren activated. Mr. Cover
      pointed in the direction of the other vehicle and the DCNR pickup
      truck travelled in that direction.

      Marguerite Buch testified that she knows Appellant as Kory, who
      played golf at Piney Apple. On April 23, 2021, Appellant played
      Golf at Piney Apple Golf Course, and rented golf cart #2, which
      was depicted in one of the videos offered into evidence by the
      Commonwealth.

      Ranger Greevy testified concerning the events of April 23, 2021.
      Ranger Greevy’s testimony was consistent with Ranger Sleighter’s
      testimony. Ranger Greevy testified that after he initially activated
      his vehicle’s emergency lights, the white sedan quickly. Ranger
      Greevy subsequently initiated the vehicle’s siren, increased his
      speed from 40 MPH to over 70 MPH and still lost sight of the white
      sedan for a period of time. After Ranger Greevy turned onto West
      Point Road and travelled up a hill, he observed the white sedan
      travelling in the distance near a school bus with its flashing red
      lights on. Shortly thereafter, Ranger Greevy decreased his speed
      and stopped the chase for safety reasons. Ranger Greevy testified

                                     -4-
J-S21026-23

      that the white sedan never tapped its brake lights when it was
      near the school bus.

      Ranger Greevy testified that after returning to Piney Apple Golf
      Course, he reviewed video surveillance with Cory Buch. Ranger
      Greevy utilized his cell phone and took three separate videos from
      the video surveillance footage at Piney Apple Golf Course. Ranger
      Greevy identified the white sedan in the videos, which had a
      temporary tag in the top left corner of the rear window. The same
      white sedan was observed in the cellphone video recorded during
      the high-speed chase by Ranger Sleighter and the temporary tag
      was located in the top left corner of the rear window. Other
      distinguishing marks were observed on the white sedan in the
      videos obtained from Piney Apple Golf Course and the white sedan
      observed during the high-speed chase recorded by Ranger
      Sleighter. Ranger Greevy testified that he observed the same
      white sedan when Appellant was arrested in Carlisle during June
      2021.

      Melissa Maben, who was involved in a relationship with Appellant
      for ten years, and with whom Appellant has a daughter, testified
      for the Commonwealth. During April 2021, Ms. Maben was living
      in Carlisle. Appellant was staying at her house occasionally. Ms.
      Maben identified the vehicle in Ranger Sleighter’s video taken
      during the high-speed chase as Appellant’s vehicle.             She
      recognized the temporary tag in the left corner of the rear window.
      Ms. Maben also identified Appellant as the individual in several
      videos and screenshots taken while Appellant was in the parking
      lot of Piney Apple Golf Course and identified the white sedan as
      Appellant’s vehicle. Ms. Maben testified the same white sedan
      was at her residence in Carlisle when Appellant was arrested.

Id. at 3-5.

      Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant guilty of fleeing or attempting

to elude a police officer, graded as a second-degree felony, and two summary

traffic violations. On August 16, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to

                                      -5-
J-S21026-23

partial confinement of 115 to 234 days at the Adams County Correctional

Facility.2

       Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing

Appellant’s claims.

       On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for review:

       1. The trial court committed an error of law or abused its
          discretion in denying [Appellant’s] motion in limine and
          allowing bias[ed] testimony of Melissa Maben.

       2. The trial court committed an error of law or abused its
          discretion in allowing the introduction of a video recording
          which was recorded on a cell phone and admitted in violation
          of the best evidence rule.

       3. The trial court abused its discretion in denying trial counsel’s
          request for the June 14, 2022 trial transcript (which ended in
          a mistrial) in anticipation and preparation of the second trial
          held August 4, 2022.

       4. The guilty verdict of fleeing and eluding (M2) and related
          summary offenses was against the weight of the evidence
          when: The Rangers could not identify [Appellant] as the driver
          of the vehicle; the vehicle in question was never pulled over or
          otherwise directly tied to defendant; [Appellant] made no
          admissions; [t]he eyewitness provided contradicting testimony
          in the second trial.

Appellant’s Brief at 8-9.3

____________________________________________

2 The record reflects that Appellant was given 234 days of credit for time
served and immediately released following sentencing.

3 Although Appellant includes an additional issue in his statement of questions,

Appellant notes that he has withdrawn that claim on appeal. See Appellant’s
Brief at 9.

                                           -6-
J-S21026-23

                                Melissa Maben

      In his first claim, Appellant argues that the trial court “abused its

discretion and committed an error of law in allowing the lay witness testimony

of Melissa Maben to establish Appellant as the driver of the white sedan on

the day of the incident.” Id. at 28. In support, Appellant notes that “[Ms.]

Maben was not present at the golf course on the date in question” and “did

not testify to having any direct contact or communication with Appellant on

[that date] to know what he was doing, where he was, what vehicle he was

driving, or what he was wearing.” Id. at 31. Appellant claims that although

Ms. Maben was a lay witness, she gave “opinion testimony . . . which was

used for the sole purpose of identifying Appellant as the driver of the white

sedan, a material and necessary element.” Id. at 30. Appellant asserts that

Ms. Maben’s “testimony that she was familiar with Appellant’s appearance at

or near the time of the alleged incident” was inadmissible “absent evidence

that his appearance [] changed prior to trial.”            Id. at 32 (citing

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 2014 WL 10787879 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 19,

2014) (unpublished mem.). Therefore, Appellant concludes that the trial court

erred in allowing Ms. Maben to testify at trial.

      In reviewing a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, our standard

of review is as follows:

      Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the
      sound discretion of the trial court and we will not reverse a trial
      court’s decision concerning admissibility of evidence absent an
      abuse of the trial court’s discretion. An abuse of discretion is not
      merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or

                                      -7-
J-S21026-23

      misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is
      manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or
      partiality, as shown by the evidence of record. If in reaching a
      conclusion the trial court overrides or misapplies the law,
      discretion is then abused and it is the duty of the appellate court
      to correct the error.

Commonwealth v. Belknap, 105 A.3d 7, 9-10 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations

omitted and formatting altered).

      “Relevance      is   the   threshold   for   admissibility   of   evidence.”

Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc)

(citation omitted).

      Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact
      in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable,
      or tends to support a reasonable inference or proposition
      regarding a material fact. Relevant evidence may nevertheless be
      excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of
      unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,
      or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
      presentation of cumulative evidence.

Commonwealth v. Danzey, 210 A.3d 333, 342 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation

and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 219 A.3d 597 (Pa. 2019).

      Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 701 states that in cases where a witness

is not testifying as an expert, his or her opinion testimony must be limited to

what is: “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly

understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and

(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within

the scope of Rule 701.” Pa.R.E. 701.

                                       -8-
J-S21026-23

      “Generally, lay witnesses may express personal opinions related to their

observations on a range of subject areas based on their personal experiences

that are helpful to the factfinder.” Commonwealth v. Berry, 172 A.3d 1, 3-

4 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted). “Fact testimony may include opinion

or inferences so long as those opinions or inferences are rationally based on

the witness’s perceptions and helpful to a clear understanding of his or her

testimony.” Commonwealth v. T.B., 232 A.3d 915, 919 (Pa. Super. 2020),

appeal denied, 240 A.3d 98 (Pa. 2020) (citations omitted, some formatting

altered).

      Here, the trial court addressed Appellant’s claim as follows:

      Melissa Maben was involved in a relationship with Appellant for
      approximately ten years and was familiar with Appellant’s vehicle
      during the time period in question (April 2021). Lay opinion
      identification testimony may be helpful to the jury if it is rationally
      based on the perception of the witness and is helpful to the
      determination of a fact in issue. Ms. Maben provided a proper
      foundation to support this lay identification testimony. The prior
      relationship between Appellant and Ms. Maben was not grounds
      to preclude her testimony. Defense counsel was granted the
      opportunity to question Ms. Maben concerning her prior
      relationship with Appellant, including pending litigation concerning
      the custody of their child. Such evidence went to the weight, not
      the admissibility, of Ms. Maben’s testimony.

Trial Ct. Op. at 11.

      Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by

the trial court. See Belknap, 105 A.3d at 9-10. The record reflects that Ms.

Maben’s testimony was based on her own perceptions of the video footage

and   her   personal   knowledge    concerning    Appellant’s   vehicle   and   his

                                       -9-
J-S21026-23

appearance around the time of the incident.          See T.B., 232 A.3d at 919.

Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.4

                                   Video Recording

       Appellant argues that the trial court “abused its discretion and

committed an error of law in admitting the security footage from the Piney

Apple Golf Course when the recordings served as the foundation of the

Commonwealth’s entire case against the best evidence rule.” Appellant’s Brief

at 23.    In support, Appellant notes that the footage used at trial was a

recording of the surveillance footage which “was secured using the Ranger’s

cell phone and does not include one continuous recording wherein other,

potentially exculpatory evidence, including the movement of a second white

sedan, would have been available.” Id. at 25. Further, Appellant argues that

____________________________________________

4 As noted previously, Appellant relies on this Court’s decision Thomas to
conclude that Ms. Maben’s testimony was inadmissible at trial in light of
federal case law that imposes additional requirements for lay witnesses who
identify individuals from surveillance evidence. See Thomas, 2014 WL
10787879. However, Thomas is an unpublished decision by this Court that
was filed prior to May 1, 2019. Therefore, the case is not only non-
precedential, but may not be cited or relied upon for its persuasive value.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 249 A.3d 903, 910 n.9 (Pa. 2021);
Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

In any event, more recent case law reflects that lay witnesses may provide
identification testimony based on footage played at trial.        See e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Connelly, 1004 MDA 2022, 2023 WL 5274028 at *9 (Pa.
Super. filed Aug. 16, 2023) (unpublished mem.) (rejecting an appellant’s
claim that lay witnesses cannot testify regarding the identity of a person
depicted in a surveillance video that is also shown to the jury); see also
Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1)-(2) (stating that unpublished, non-precedential decisions
of this Court that are filed after May 1, 2019, “may be cited for their
persuasive value”).

                                          - 10 -
J-S21026-23

“[t]he record is devoid of any evidence that the Rangers requested the consent

of Piney Apple Golf Course to download or otherwise procure an original from

their security system or that the Rangers requested a warrant or subpoena

for the same.” Id. Therefore, Appellant concludes that the trial court erred

in allowing the Commonwealth to use the video footage at trial.

      Pursuant to Rule 1002, known as the “best evidence rule” under
      common law, “[a]n original writing, recording, or photograph is
      required in order to prove its content unless these rules, other
      rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, or a statute provides
      otherwise.” Pa.R.E. 1002. Although the best evidence rule is
      traditionally applied only to writings, “[s]urveillance videotapes
      ‘present the same type of circumstances which the best evidence
      rule was designed to guard against,’ namely testimony about the
      content of a videotape when the original tape has not been
      produced or admitted.” Commonwealth v. Green, 162 A.3d
      509, 518 (Pa. Super. 2017).

Commonwealth v. Abrams, 2022 WL 164560 at *3 (Pa. Super. filed Jan.

19, 2022) (unpublished mem.) (footnote omitted).

      While testimony to prove content is inadmissible if neither an original

nor a duplicate is introduced, “[a] duplicate is admissible[,] to the same extent

as the original[,] unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s

authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.”

Pa.R.E. 1003 (emphasis added). Duplicates are defined as “cop[ies] produced

by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent

process or technique that accurately reproduces [an] original.” Pa.R.E.

1001(e). “In those cases where the opposing party raises a genuine question

as to the authenticity or fairness of using a duplicate, the trial court may

                                     - 11 -
J-S21026-23

require the production of the original under this rule.”         Pa.R.E. 1003,

Comment. However, “[a]n original is not required and other evidence of the

content of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if . . . all the

originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith.”

Pa.R.E. 1004(a).    Further, evidence may be authenticated through the

testimony of a witness with knowledge that an item is what it is claimed to

be. Pa.R.E. 901(b)(1), (11)(A).

      Here, the trial court addressed Appellant’s claim as follows:

      Appellant also contends that the trial court committed an error of
      law or abused its discretion in allowing the introduction and
      playing of video evidence which was recorded on a cell phone in
      violation of the best evidence rule. Appellant contends that this
      court erred in allowing the admission of the videos and still
      photographs taken from the surveillance video from Piney Apple
      Golf Course by Ranger Greevy utilizing his cell phone. Appellant’s
      contention has no merit.

      [Appellant] filed [a] motion in limine on June 10, 2022 and this
      court reserved ruling on [the motion] pending testimony from
      witnesses at trial concerning authentication of the videos. Cory
      Buch testified during the June 14, 2022 jury trial that he is an
      employee of Piney Apple Golf Course and is in charge of the video
      surveillance at Piney Apple. On April 23, 2021 Cory Buch showed
      video surveillance from the original surveillance tape to Ranger
      Sleighter and Ranger Greevy. The surveillance tapes were on a
      permanent loop, and the surveillance system automatically
      recycled the original videotape. Piney Apple Golf Course did not
      have a back-up surveillance system. If the Rangers attempted to
      seize the original videotape on April 23, 2021, Piney Apple Golf
      Course could not use their video surveillance system. Cory Buch,
      Ranger Sleighter and Ranger Greevy properly authenticated the
      videos Ranger Greevy had recorded from the original surveillance
      tape. As such, the videos were properly authenticated and
      admitted. . . . The original videotape was not destroyed as a result
      of bad faith on the Commonwealth’s part. Since the original
      videotape was unavailable at trial, the best evidence rule did not

                                     - 12 -
J-S21026-23

      apply. Based on denial of [Appellant’s] motion in limine on June
      14, 2022, such videos were properly admitted at jury trial on
      August 4, 2022.

      The three video recordings taken from the original video
      recordings were also admissible at trial in accordance with [Rule
      1003]. The duplicate videos were taken directly from the original
      surveillance videotape and truly depicted what was on the original
      videotape. Their admission was not prejudicial to Appellant.

Trial Ct. Op. at 12-13.

      Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by

the trial court. See Belknap, 105 A.3d at 9-10. Although Appellant claims

that the videos “do[] not include one continuous recording wherein other,

potentially exculpatory evidence, would have been available,” see Appellant’s

Brief at 23, Appellant does not explain how the format “raises a genuine

question as to authenticity or the fairness of using a duplicate.” See Pa.R.E.

1003; see also Pa.R.E. 1003 Comment (noting that since the best evidence

rule was enacted, “[t]he extension [of admitting] all accurate copies seems

justified in light of modern practice” where copies are “made by techniques

that are more likely to produce accurate copies”). Therefore, the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence at trial. Accordingly,

Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.

                                Trial Transcript

      Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his

request for the transcript from the jury trial that ended in a mistrial.

Appellant’s Brief at 33. Appellant argues that because the trial court denied

his request for the transcript, “defense counsel could not cross reference the

                                      - 13 -
J-S21026-23

testimony witnesses leaving him no opportunity to impeach their credibility or

test their reliability.” Id. at 33-34. Further, Appellant contends that “[t]he

trial court erroneously determined that defense counsel filed an untimely

request for transcripts on July 27, 2022,” but that “[i]n reality, the request for

transcripts was docketed on July 11, 2022, only weeks after the first trial and

almost four weeks prior to the commencement of the second trial [on] August

4, 2022.” Id. at 34.

       Initially, we note that the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure

unequivocally require that an appellant support each question he or she raises

with discussion and analysis of pertinent authority. See Commonwealth v.

Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

“Where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation

to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful

fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.” Johnson, 985 A.2d at 924.

       Here, Appellant has failed to cite any relevant authority in support of his

claim.5 Accordingly, this issue is waived. See id.

____________________________________________

5  Although, generally, defendants may use previous sworn testimony to
impeach a witness, we have been unable to identify any authority stating that
a defendant is entitled to use the transcript from a mistrial in all situations.
Indeed, this Court has declined to hold that “a trial judge must always order
a transcript of a mistrial and make the transcript available to the parties for
introduction into evidence at the new trial” and explained that “[t]o so hold
would frequently frustrate the purpose for which a mistrial is granted because
testimony which necessitated the mistrial would be introduced again at the
second trial.” Commonwealth v. Cooper, 407 A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. 1979)
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 14 -
J-S21026-23

                              Weight of the Evidence

       In his remaining claim, Appellant argues that his conviction for fleeing

was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 35-38.

       Before addressing this claim, we must determine whether Appellant

properly preserved it for review.         It is well settled that “[a] weight of the

evidence claim must be preserved either in a post-sentence motion, by a

written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.          Failure to

properly preserve the claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court

addresses the issue in its opinion.” See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d

482, 497 (Pa. Super. 2020); Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). (citations omitted).

       Here, our review of the record confirms that Appellant did not file a post-

sentence motion. Therefore, because Appellant failed to properly preserve a

weight claim, it is waived. See Rivera, 238 A.3d at 497. Accordingly, we

affirm.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

(noting that “[i]t is fair and logical to say that the ordering of a transcript of a
previous mistrial is part of the trial court’s broad discretion to order a new
trial”).

                                          - 15 -
J-S21026-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/23/2023

                           - 16 -