Court Opinion

ID: 9955522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:14:20.230406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:04.597523
License: Public Domain

J-S06003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
                                                :
  REBECCA WATKINS-LAUBER                        :
                                                :
                       Appellant                :   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 7½ 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

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.

                                      -2-
J-S06003-24

       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 7½ 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.

                                           -3-
J-S06003-24

     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

                                    -4-
J-S06003-24

        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 co-
           defendant 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;

                                    -5-
J-S06003-24

          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

                                      -6-
J-S06003-24

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

                                       -7-
J-S06003-24

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.

                                      -8-
J-S06003-24

Date: 3/28/2024

                  -9-