Court Opinion

ID: 9952047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 16:15:16.403857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:44.843570
License: Public Domain

J-S45019-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JAYSHAWN MALIK JOHNSON                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 63 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 4, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-40-CR-0001846-2021

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                             FILED: MARCH 19, 2024

       Jayshawn Malik Johnson appeals from the judgment of sentence,

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, following his

convictions of two counts of homicide,1 and one count each of aggravated

assault,2 aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,3 criminal attempt—

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).

2 Id. at § 2702(a)(1).

3 Id. at § 2702(a)(4).
J-S45019-23

homicide,4 and firearms not to be carried without a license.5 After careful

review, we affirm.

       On January 30, 2021, Johnson shot Damien Thomas, Maurice Chapman,

and Alquan Cade outside of Bo’s on Main, a bar located at 215 South Main

Street in Wilkes-Barre. Police were dispatched for reports of gunshots and

multiple injuries. When police arrived, Thomas, Chapman, and Cade had all

suffered gunshot injuries.       Thomas and Chapman died as a result of their

wounds.

       Police recovered surveillance footage from 15 cameras6 located

throughout the interior and exterior of Bo’s on Main.       Additionally, police

obtained video surveillance from two cameras from a neighboring business,

Ali Baba Lounge. Police reviewed the January 30, 2021 video surveillance at

timestamps of 7:50 p.m. to 11:33 p.m.7 At 7:50 p.m., the video depicted a
____________________________________________

4 Id. at § 901(a).

5 Id. at § 6106(a)(1).

6 Lieutenant Joseph Mangan of the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department
testified that Bo’s on Main had 16 cameras, but that one was inoperable on
the night of the shooting. See N.T. Jury Trial (Day 1), 10/31/22, at 285-87.
Additionally, Lt. Mangan was admitted as an expert in video analysis. See id.
at 282-84. Lieutenant Mangan explained that some of Bo’s on Main’s exterior
cameras utilized night vision. See id. at 292-93.

7 Lieutenant Mangan testified that this time period encapsulates Johnson’s first

arrival to Bo’s on Main, second arrival, and his departure after the shootings.
See id. at 287-90. Lieutenant Mangan further testified that Bo’s on Main’s
surveillance footage was “approximate to actual time,” which he explained as
meaning the timestamps on the surveillance video were accurate. See id. at
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S45019-23

black sedan arrive and park across the street from Bo’s on Main, and shows

three people exit the vehicle and enter the bar. One of the individuals was

identified as Johnson, a second individual was identified as Tamara Dixon, and

the third individual was not identified.

       A short time later, Johnson, dressed in dark clothing, left the bar with

the unidentified individual. At 8:42 p.m., the video depicted Johnson, now

wearing a dark jacket with stripes on the sleeve and the word “White” written

across the back, as he returned to Bo’s on Main with the unidentified individual

in a dark vehicle. This excerpt depicted Johnson wearing the same sneakers

as he was wearing earlier in the evening.

       At 10:17 p.m., Thomas entered Bo’s on Main. At this point, Johnson

was wearing a plain black jacket. The unidentified individual exited Bo’s on

Main, walked to the vehicle, retrieved a backpack, and reentered Bo’s on Main

without interacting with the bar security personnel positioned at the entrance.

Moments later, Johnson is seen on video taking the backpack from the

unidentified individual and covering the backpack with the dark jacket with

the word “White” on the back.

       Shortly thereafter, Johnson entered the bathroom with the backpack.

Johnson, now wearing a different jacket, returned to his seat, placed the dark

____________________________________________

289-90 (Lieutenant Mangan explaining Bo’s on Main’s timestamps were
accurate, in contrast to other surveillance systems which may not account for
Daylight Savings Time). Lieutenant Mangan additionally testified that Ali
Baba’s Lounge’s surveillance system was 21 minutes faster than actual time.
See id. at 315.

                                           -3-
J-S45019-23

jacket with the word “White” onto Dixon, and adjusted a large bulge in his

waistline. At this point, Dixon gave her face mask to Johnson, who put it on.8

Johnson and the unidentified individual proceeded to the bar. Thomas walked

past the two, and Johnson tapped the unidentified individual. Thomas and

Cade exited Bo’s on Main and Johnson and the unidentified individual followed

him.   The unidentified individual entered the vehicle he and Johnson had

arrived in and turned it on. At the same time, Johnson continued after Thomas

and Cade, pulled a firearm from the right side of his waistband, and shot

Thomas three times.9 Johnson then shot Cade.10 As a result of the gunfire,

Chapman,      who    was    already    outside,   attempted   to   flee   the   scene.

Unfortunately, Chapman inadvertently ran towards Johnson, who turned,

____________________________________________

8 This incident occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, almost
nobody in Bo’s on Main, including Johnson, was wearing a facemask. See id.
at 303 (Lieutenant Mangan testifying that there were very few people masked
in Bo’s on Main’s surveillance video). Dixon was one of the few people wearing
a mask. See id. at 294.

9 Thomas suffered five bullet wounds caused by three bullets.  See N.T. Jury
Trial (Day 2), 11/1/22, at 487-88 (Doctor Charles Siebert testifying he
performed autopsies and located five wounds caused by three bullets). Doctor
Siebert testified that one of the bullets perforated Thomas’s left arm and
penetrated his chest. Id. at 488. Doctor Siebert testified that Thomas was
also shot in his back, and in his shoulder. See id. at 490-91.

10 Cade was shot once in the head and several times in his shoulder.  See N.T.
Jury Trial (Day 2), 11/1/22, at 477-78. Cade survived the shooting, but as a
result of his injuries, has permanently lost one of his eyes, has constant pain
in his face, head, and shoulder, has significant issues with memory recall, and
had brain fluid leaking into his stomach. See id. at 477-80.

                                           -4-
J-S45019-23

aimed the firearm at Chapman, and fired, striking Chapman and killing him.11

The surveillance footage then depicted Johnson enter the dark vehicle, and

leave the area with the unidentified individual. After the car left the scene,

Dixon is seen on camera wearing the dark jacket with “White” written on it

and fleeing on foot. Shortly thereafter, police arrived on scene. Cade was

transported to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital.

       As it is related to Johnson’s claims on appeal, we additionally summarize

the relevant factual history relating to the police investigation.    Detective

James Conmy assisted in the investigation.12        See N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing,

8/4/22, at 5-49 (Detective Conmy testifying he investigated shooter’s

identity).   Detective Conmy viewed the surveillance footage and identified

Johnson as the shooter.         See id. at 14-18.   Detective Conmy confirmed

Johnson’s identity by checking the Facebook page of a person known to

Detective Conmy as “Times Too,” and by checking Johnson’s personal

Facebook page. See id. at 15-16 (Detective Conmy testifying about “Times

Too’s” Facebook page); see id. at 40-41 (Detective Conmy testifying, on re-

direct, about Johnson’s personal Facebook page); see also id. at 40-42

(Detective Conmy testifying that both “Times Too’s” and Johnson’s personal

____________________________________________

11 Doctor Siebert testified that Chapman was shot once, in the back, and that

the bullet went through Chapman’s heart. See id. at 492-93.

12 At the beginning stages of the investigation, Detective Conmy was Officer

Conmy. However, during the course of the investigation, Officer Conmy was
promoted to detective. Thus, for the purposes of this memorandum, we refer
to him as “Detective Conmy” throughout.

                                           -5-
J-S45019-23

Facebook pages contain multiple photos of Johnson).                Detective Conmy

believed “Times Too” and Johnson to be the same person. See id. at 14-15.

Detective Conmy compared stills from the above-recovered videos with photos

of “Times Too” from Facebook, as well as photos of Johnson on his personal

Facebook page, JNET, and CPIN. See id. at 14-16, 40-41. Detective Conmy

was familiar with Johnson based on two previous encounters with him.13 See

id. at 10-14.

       While Detective Conmy reviewed “Times Too’s” Facebook page, he

noted mention of a female named “Diamond Cashington.” See id. at 16-17.

Detective Conmy was able to determine that “Diamond Cashington” was, in

fact, Dixon.    See id. at 16-18.        Detective Conmy testified that “Diamond

Cashington’s” Facebook page URL listed “Tamara Dixon.”              See id. at 16.

Detective Conmy cross-referenced still images taken from the surveillance

footage, with images of “Tamara Dixon” in the police department’s database.

See id. at 16-17. Utilizing this method, Detective Conmy learned that Dixon

had a last known address of 324 Parkview Circle, apartment 705, at the

Sherman Hills Apartment complex.               See id. at 17-18.   Detective Conmy

retrieved video from the Sherman Hills Apartment complex for January 30,

2021, and January 31, 2021. See id. at 17. On the video, police saw Johnson

and Dixon leave prior to the shooting on January 30, 2021, and return around
____________________________________________

13 Detective Conmy testified, at the August 4, 2022, pre-trial hearing, that he

was familiar with Johnson from prior investigations at Sherman Hills
Apartment complex and “Peter’s Deli,” respectively. See id. at 10-14.

                                           -6-
J-S45019-23

3:30 and 4:00 a.m., respectively, on January 31, 2021. See id. at 17-18.

The video depicted Johnson wearing the same clothing and sneakers as seen

in the videos from Bo’s on Main and Ali Baba Lounge. See id. at 18, 20-21.

The video depicted Dixon wearing the dark jacket with the word “White” on

the back. See id. at 21-22. Detective Conmy testified that video surveillance

depicted Johnson leaving Sherman Hills Apartments between 10 and 11 a.m.

on January 31, 2021. Id. at 49.

      Based upon the foregoing, police sought and obtained a search warrant

for Dixon’s apartment in order to find the dark jacket with the word “White”

on it, as well as a “dark colored baseball style hat, dark colored pants, dark

and light colored Nike sneakers that [] Johnson was wearing on January 30,

2021, firearms, ammunition[,] and any paperwork identifying or belonging to

[] Johnson, cellular telephone or any digital storage media that would depict

[] Johnson’s locations or contacts on the night of the homicide.” Id. at 22-

23. During the search, police recovered the dark jacket with the word “White”

on it. See id. at 23-24. Police did not recover any of the other items sought

in the warrant. See id.

      Subsequently, police obtained an arrest warrant for Johnson, alleging

inter alia, homicide. Police were unable to obtain any additional information

from the “Times Too” Facebook page, because the page had been deleted

                                    -7-
J-S45019-23

during the investigation.14        See id. at 41-42.   Ultimately, Johnson was

apprehended by the United States Marshals in Miami, Florida.

       The dark jacket with “White” written on the back was sent for DNA

testing to the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Laboratory and then to Bode

Labs in Virginia for further DNA testing. Bode Labs concluded that Johnson

could not be ruled out as a contributor of DNA on the cuff of the jacket. In

particular, Bode Labs’ results indicated that there was a mixture of DNA

present on the cuffs and neckline of the jacket. See id. at 411-60 (Lyndsey

Sanney, Commonwealth’s DNA expert, testifying regarding DNA mixture and

presence of Johnson’s DNA).

       Upon Johnson’s return to Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth filed

Criminal Information against him, charging him with the above-mentioned

offenses. On June 17, 2022, Johnson filed a suppression motion challenging

various statements he made before and after being administered his

Miranda15 warnings.16 Additionally, on June 30, 2022, Johnson filed a second

suppression motion challenging the search warrant.        In his June 30, 2022

____________________________________________

14 We observe that, after the pre-trial hearing, and prior to the jury trial, Ali

Abualburak, the general manager of Ali Baba’s Lounge, provided images that
he had downloaded from the “Times Too” Facebook page. See N.T. Jury Trial
(Day 2), 11/1/22, at 467-69. Abualburak testified that he had downloaded
the images shortly after the shooting because he had heard that “Times Too”
was the shooter. Id.

15 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

16 On July 5, 2022, the trial court granted this suppression motion.

                                           -8-
J-S45019-23

suppression motion, Johnson argued that the search warrant was based upon

a misstatement of fact in violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154

(1978).17 Additionally, Johnson challenged the search warrant as overbroad,

and challenged the search warrant’s purported lack of probable cause.

       On August 4, 2022, the trial court conducted a pre-trial hearing, at which

the Commonwealth presented testimony of Detective Conmy, described

supra, as well as evidence of his investigation to support the search warrant.

At the end of the pre-trial hearing, the trial court ordered Johnson to file a

brief in support of his suppression motion and afforded the Commonwealth

fifteen days to respond. Both parties complied, and, on October 26, 2022, the

trial court issued an order and opinion denying Johnson’s June 30, 2022

suppression motion.

       On October 31, 2022, Johnson proceeded to a four-day jury trial, after

which he was convicted of the above-mentioned offenses.          The trial court

deferred sentencing and ordered the              preparation of a pre-sentence

investigation report. Johnson filed a post-trial motion arguing that the verdict

was against the weight of the evidence, which the trial court denied.
____________________________________________

17 In Franks, the United States Supreme Court held that,

       [w]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing
       that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with
       reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the
       warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary
       to the findings of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires
       that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request.

Id. at 154.

                                           -9-
J-S45019-23

      On January 4, 2023, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. The

trial court sentenced Johnson to two terms of life without parole (LWOP) for

his homicide convictions. On the remaining offenses, the trial court sentenced

Johnson to an aggregate term of 270 to 540 months in prison. All of Johnson’s

sentences were imposed consecutively. Johnson did not file a post-sentence

motion.

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

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Johnson now

raises the following claims for our review:

      1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Johnson’s motion
      to suppress.

      2. Whether the trial court abused it discretion in issuing a flight
      charge to the jury.

      3. Whether the trial court erred in not granting a new trial.

Brief for Appellant, at 1 (cleaned up).

      In his first claim, Johnson raises three sub-issues challenging the search

warrant, which we address separately.

      Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a denial of a

suppression motion is well settled:

      [This Court] is limited to determining whether the suppression
      court’s factual findings are supported by the record and whether
      the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because
      the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we
      may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so
      much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted
      when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the
      suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record,

                                      - 10 -
J-S45019-23

      [this Court] is bound by [those] findings and may reverse only if
      the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation

omitted). Moreover, “[i]t is within the suppression court’s sole province as

fact finder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given

their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 946 A.2d 691, 693 (Pa. 2008)

(citation omitted).

      Instantly, each of Johnson’s suppression claims challenges the search

warrant, which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

      On January 30, 2021 at 23:33 hours Luzerne County 911 received
      a report of a shooting at “Bo’s on Main” located at 215 South Main
      Street in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Responding patrol units arrived on-
      scene and observed three male gunshot victims.

      Detectives from Wilkes-Barre City Police and the Luzerne County
      District Attorney’s Office determined that two males were
      deceased, and one male was listed in critical condition. All males
      were transported from the scene to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital.
      Victim #1 Damian Odiel Thomas, and Victim #2 Maurice Chapman
      were both pronounced dead from apparent gunshot wounds at
      Wilkes-Barre General Hospital by Luzerne County Deputy coroner
      Kailyn Keating. Victim #3 AlQuan Cade Jr. was admitted into the
      Intensive Care Unit in critical condition suffering from a gunshot
      wound to his head. Victim #3 has lost sight in his left eye from
      the injury he sustained.

      Video surveillance cameras from the area captured the incident
      and depict a group of patrons standing outside Bo’s on Main. An
      unknown male is standing on the sidewalk nearby and is seen
      walking towards Victim #1 Thomas before firing a gun at him and
      several persons then fleeing on foot through a parking lot across
      from the business. Victim #2 and Victim #3 were also struck by
      the gunfire.

      Surveillance cameras from the area also captured video from
      before the shooting incident occurred. This footage captures the
      suspect inside the business. He is seen wearing dark colored

                                    - 11 -
J-S45019-23

     clothing and Air Jordan sneakers. This clothing was observed to
     be worn by the suspect on previous surveillance video. All footage
     has been secured as evidence.

     As the suspect is seen walking inside Bo’s on Main, a clear image
     of his face is captured. Law enforcement was able to positively
     identify the suspect as Jayshawn Johnson AKA Times Too and is
     known to law enforcement from past police contacts and from
     comparison of known images of Johnson.

                                    ***

     On January 31st at 15:00 hours Det. Stash and Ofc. Conmy
     discovered that Johnson has a girlfriend who resides in Sherman
     Hills at 324 Parkview Cr apt #705. They reviewed video from the
     area of this address and observed Johnson arriving at the
     apartment at 03:30 hours. He is seen wearing the same clothing
     from the shooting incident. He is also carrying two garbage bags
     of clothing and other unknown items which may have evidentiary
     value relevant to this investigation. Additionally, it was discovered
     that Johnson deleted his Facebook account on this date which is
     commonly done when attempting to avoid law enforcement
     tracking and apprehension. It has also been my experience that
     cellular smartphones are commonly used to access social media
     platforms including Facebook.

     Lastly, that smartphones are capable of storing locations, GPS,
     and related data. Johnson arrived at Bo’s on Main. Afterwards a
     vehicle arrives prior to the shooting and was parked close to the
     scene. Johnson was observed talking to the unknown male who
     was driving this vehicle. Moments before the shooting, the
     unknown male appears to be showing Johnson where the vehicle
     is parked. Johnson is seen running and entering this vehicle
     immediately after the incident. The vehicle was already occupied
     by the unknown accomplice and running in preparation to flee the
     area. It appears that Johnson conspired with the unknown male
     to arrange to flee the scene. Johnson’s call logs and location data
     are likely stored on his smartphone and have evidentiary value
     and relevance to this investigation.

     Investigators have reasonable belief that Johnson is currently
     staying at the listed address and are requesting a search warrant
     be approved to seize the mentioned items that will further this
     criminal investigation.

                                    - 12 -
J-S45019-23

N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing, 8/4/22, Commonwealth’s Exhibit 6 (Search Warrant).

Further, the search warrant listed several items including, but not limited to,

a “dark colored jacket with the word ‘WHITE’ in light-colored lettering, and

light-colored stripes on the back and sleeves of the jacket.” See id.

      In his first sub-issue, Johnson argues that the search warrant must be

found to be invalid because it was based upon a “misstatement of fact” in

violation of Franks. See Brief for Appellant, at 4-7. Johnson contends that

the Commonwealth based its entire identification of Johnson based upon

Detective Conmy’s identification of Johnson, which, in turn, was based upon

a video that depicts the shooter wearing a hat and sunglasses obscuring the

shooter’s eyes.   See id. at 6-7. Johnson posits that the Commonwealth’s

representation that this still image was “clear” is an impermissible

misstatement of fact where the images show the actor’s face obscured by

either glasses or a hat. See id.

      In addressing a Franks claim, courts of this Commonwealth have held

that “misstatements of fact will invalidate a search warrant and require

suppression of the fruits of the search only if the misstatements of fact

are deliberate and material.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006,

1017 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted, emphasis added). Additionally,

      [w]hile we have recognized that the veracity of facts establishing
      probable cause recited in an affidavit supporting a search warrant
      may be challenged and examined, . . . we have not suggested that
      every inaccuracy will justify an exclusion of evidence obtained as
      a result of the search.

                                    - 13 -
J-S45019-23

Commonwealth v. Monte, 329 A.2d 836, 842-43 (Pa. 1974) (citations and

footnote omitted). The factual determination of whether a misstatement was

deliberately made is within the sole province of the suppression court sitting

as fact finder, who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. See

Baker, 24 A.3d at 1017.

      The trial court, in its opinion, addressed Johnson’s Franks claim as

follows:

      In in the instant case, [Johnson] filed a motion to suppress on
      June 30, 2022, and a suppression hearing was held on August 4,
      2022. To meet its burden of proving that the challenged evidence
      was not obtained in violation of [Johnson]’s rights, the
      Commonwealth presented the testimony of [] Detective [] Conmy,
      and introduced surveillance video and photos, a JNET photo, and
      a search warrant (including the affidavit of probable cause in
      support thereof).

                                    ***

      In asserting that the affidavit contained a material misstatement
      of fact, [Johnson]’s suppression motion took issue with the
      affidavit’s statement “[a]s the suspect is seen walking inside Bo’s
      on Main, a clear image of his face is captured.” The motion
      suggested that the “clear image” referenced by the affidavit was
      a screen capture from an overhead surveillance camera, admitted,
      according to [Johnson], as Commonwealth Exhibit 11 at a June
      10, 2021 preliminary hearing, and attached as Exhibit B to
      [Johnson]’s suppression motion. [Johnson]’s suppression motion
      further asserted that “this was the image officers used to identify
      Johnson as the shooter.” The motion averred that it was a
      material misstatement to describe Exhibit B as a clear image
      because it was not clear, and further, that without the
      misstatement, the affidavit did not formulate probable cause that
      [Johnson] was the shooter, or articulate a nexus between the
      apartment and the crime.

      At the suppression hearing, [] Detective Conmy testified that, as
      stated in the affidavit, investigators identified [Johnson] as the

                                    - 14 -
J-S45019-23

      shooter from the surveillance video, based on Detective
      Conmy’s prior contact with [Johnson], and by comparison
      of the video to known photographs of [Johnson].

      In addressing [Johnson]’s [claim], [the trial c]ourt concluded that
      it was apparent from the credible testimony and evidence
      presented that Detective Conmy identified [Johnson] from
      the surveillance video as a whole, which the [c]ourt
      specifically found was much clearer than Exhibit B. Thus,
      the [c]ourt determined that the affidavit did not contain a
      misstatement, much less a material misstatement, that would
      undermine the existence of probable cause.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/19/23, at 3-5 (citations omitted, emphasis added).

      After review of the record, we agree with the well-reasoned opinion of

the trial court and affirm on that basis. See id. Indeed, the testimony at the

suppression hearing clearly reflects that Detective Conmy viewed multiple still

images, as well as the surveillance video in its entirety, before comparing the

individual to other known images of Johnson.        See N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing,

8/4/22, at 5-49. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err, and

Johnson’s claim is meritless. See Jones, supra.

      In his second sub-issue, Johnson argues that the search warrant was

not supported by probable cause to search for the dark jacket with “White”

written on the back and his cellphone data. See Brief for Appellant, at 7-8.

In particular, Johnson contends that the search warrant fails to mention what

jacket the shooter was wearing, or that a cell phone had been employed during

the shooting in this case.     See id.       Johnson asserts that without this

information, the search warrant lacks probable cause. See id.

                                    - 15 -
J-S45019-23

      “Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and

Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee an individual’s

freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.”         Commonwealth v.

Bostick, 958 A.2d 543, 550 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

      Under the federal and state constitutional prohibitions of
      unreasonable searches and seizures, both the United States
      Supreme Court and [the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] have
      consistently held that, subject to certain exceptions, a search is
      constitutionally invalid unless it is conducted pursuant to a
      warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and
      supported by probable cause. Probable cause exists where, based
      upon a totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit [of]
      probable cause, including the reliability and veracity of hearsay
      statements included therein, there is a fair probability that . . .
      evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. In
      reviewing an issuing authority’s decision to issue a warrant, a
      suppression court must affirm unless the issuing authority had no
      substantial basis for its decision. On appeal, [appellate courts
      must] affirm[] the decision of the suppression court unless it
      commits an error of law or makes a factual finding without record
      support.

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1063-64 (Pa. 2013) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted).

      In Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2019), this

Court “emphasize[d] that ‘the totality of the circumstances’ set forth in the

affidavit must be considered when examining whether probable cause

supports the issuance of the search warrant.” Id. at 505. The Harlan Court

noted:

      [T]he question of whether probable cause exists for the issuance
      of a search warrant must be answered according to the totality of

                                     - 16 -
J-S45019-23

      the circumstances test articulated in Commonwealth v. Gray,
      [503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985)], and its progeny, which incorporates
      the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v.
      Gates, [462 U.S. 213 (1983)]. . . . The task of the magistrate
      acting as the issuing authority is to make a practical, common[-
      ]sense assessment of whether, given all the circumstances set
      forth in the affidavit, a fair probability exists that contraband or
      evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. A search
      warrant is defective if the issuing authority has not been supplied
      with the necessary information. The chronology established by
      the affidavit of probable cause must be evaluated according to a
      common[-]sense determination.

      Further, probable cause is based on a finding of the probability,
      not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity, and deference is to
      be accorded [to] a magistrate’s finding of probable cause. We
      must limit our inquiry to the information within the four corners of
      the affidavit submitted in support of probable cause when
      determining whether the warrant was issued upon probable cause.

Harlan, 208 A.3d at 505 (some citations omitted).

      In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated as follows:

      Here, . . . the affidavit indicated that video surveillance footage
      captured the inside and outside of Bo’s on Main, before, during,
      and after the shooting; the footage showed the suspect wearing
      dark colored clothing; as the suspect was seen walking inside Bo’s
      on Main, a clear image of his face was captured; law enforcement
      was able to positively identify the suspect as [Johnson], an
      individual known to law enforcement from past police contacts and
      from comparison of know[n] images; investigators discovered the
      existence of [Johnson’s girlfriend, Dixon,] who resided in Sherman
      Hills at 324 Parkview Cr apt #705; video from the area of this
      address showed [Johnson] arriving at the apartment wearing the
      same clothing from the shooting incident.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/19/23, at 8 (citations omitted).

      After our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s

determinations are supported by the record and, consequently, we do not

disturb them. See Jones, supra. It is clear from the record that the police

                                     - 17 -
J-S45019-23

identified Johnson as the shooter, were able to identify Johnson a short time

later arriving at Dixon’s apartment, and, consequently, had probable cause to

secure a search warrant to search Dixon’s apartment for Johnson and items

he carried/wore during the shooting. See id. Moreover, as we noted supra,

Johnson is shown wearing the same jacket in multiple different videos, and

that jacket was specifically sought in the search warrant. See N.T. Pre-Trial

Hearing, 8/4/22, Commonwealth’s Exhibit 6. Furthermore, the police sought

Johnson’s phone because he was identified, in part, based upon his Facebook

page and the “Times Too” Facebook page. Therefore, considering the totality

of the circumstances, the search warrant was supported by probable cause,

and Johnson’s claim is meritless. See Harlan, supra.

      In his third sub-issue, Johnson argues that the search warrant “should

have been suppressed because [the] warrant []lacked particularity and [was]

overbroad.” Brief for Appellant, at 9. Johnson asserts that the warrant “lists

the items to be searched for and seized . . . but [] fails to mention the items

or does not connect them to [Johnson.]” Id. at 10. In further support of this

claim, Johnson again challenges Detective Conmy’s identification of Johnson

as the shooter. See id.

      As noted above, both the Federal and Pennsylvania constitutions protect

citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring search

warrants. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 8. The Fourth

Amendment requires warrants to be issued “particularly describing the place

to be searched and the person or things to be seized.” Commonwealth v.

                                    - 18 -
J-S45019-23

Turpin, 216 A.3d 1055, 1063-64 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted). Similarly, the

Pennsylvania Constitution requires that a search warrant describe things to be

seized “as nearly as may be” to prevent general, exploratory searches and

“the   seizure   of   one   thing   under      a   warrant   describing   another.”

Commonwealth v. Waltson, 724 A.2d 289, 291 (Pa. 1998) (citation

omitted). “As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the

officers executing the warrant.” Commonwealth v. Moser, 282 A.3d 850,

856 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

       However, search warrants should “be read in a common[-]sense fashion

and should not be invalidated by hypertechnical interpretations.          This may

mean, for instance, that when an exact description of a particular item is not

possible, a generic description will suffice.” Commonwealth v. Green, 265

A.3d 541, 550-51 (Pa. 2021) (citation omitted). “It is permissible to seize

things other than those described in the search warrant if they have a

reasonable relation to the purpose of the search.”            Commonwealth v.

Gannon, 454 A.2d 561, 565 (Pa. Super. 1982).

       In its opinion, the trial court addressed this claim as follows:

       Here, the warrant authorized a search for a “dark[-]colored jacket
       with the word ‘WHITE’ in light-colored lettering, and light-colored
       stripes on the back and sleeves of the jacket.” As such, the search
       warrant did not authorize a search in terms so ambiguous as to
       allow the executing officers to pick and choose among an
       individual’s possessions to find which items to seize, nor did it
       authorize the seizure of an entire set of items which would prove
       unrelated to the crime under investigation. Thus, the [c]ourt did
       not deem the warrant to violate the particularity requirement, and
       did not grant suppression of the jacket on these grounds.

                                      - 19 -
J-S45019-23

Trial Court Opinion, 4/19/23, at 9 (citations omitted).

      Our review reveals that the trial court’s determinations and conclusions

are supported by the record. See Jones, supra. Indeed, the search warrant

describes the “dark[-]colored jacket with the word ‘WHITE’ in light-colored

lettering and light-colored stripes on the back and sleeves of the jacket,” “as

nearly as may be” based upon the video surveillance and investigation. See

Trial Court Opinion, 4/19/23, at 9; see also Waltson, supra. Further, the

warrant listed with as much particularity as possible, all of the items which

the police intended to seize.   See Trial Court Opinion, 4/19/23, at 3-5, 9

(summarizing search warrant list of items to be seized). We are prohibited

from reading the search warrant in the hypertechnical way as Johnson

requests. See Green, supra. Rather, it is clear from the common[-]sense

context of the warrant that the police had seen Johnson wearing the requested

items, using a firearm, and a cell phone, and were, therefore, seeking to seize

those items. See id. Therefore, Johnson’s claim is meritless.

      In his second claim, Johnson claims that the trial court abused its

discretion in issuing a flight charge in the jury instructions.   See Brief for

Appellant, at 11-12.

      We conclude that Johnson has waived this claim. Johnson’s argument

on this claim amounts to a mere one-and-one-half pages and contains only

boilerplate citations to our standard of review and bald assertions, with no

citations to the record. Accordingly, we conclude that Johnson has waived

this claim.   See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing appellant’s argument shall

                                    - 20 -
J-S45019-23

include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”);

see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009)

(“where an appellate brief fails to . . . develop the issue in any [] meaningful

fashion capable of review, that claim is waived”); Commonwealth v. Hardy,

918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explaining appellant’s briefing

requirements and duties to “present arguments that are sufficiently developed

for our review. . . . This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop

arguments on behalf of an appellant.”).

      In his third claim, Johnson presents three challenges to the weight of

the evidence. See Brief for Appellant, at 13-15. First, Johnson argues that

he is 5’6” and the surveillance video depicts the shooter as the same height

as a nearby parking meter, which was measured at 4’9”.          See id. at 13.

Second, Johnson asserts that the Commonwealth’s DNA expert, Sanney,

presented unreliable testimony, where she “could not verify whether PSP

followed testing or chain of custody/contamination protocol which could have

affected DNA findings.” Id. at 15. Johnson contends that his own DNA expert,

Arthur Young, rebuffed Sanney’s testimony by explaining “DNA analysis

cannot prove when DNA is deposited on an object.” Id. Third, Johnson posits

that Detective Conmy’s identification is inherently unreliable because no other

detective was able to identify Johnson until after Detective Conmy had

identified him, and because the images Detective Conmy used to identify the

shooter had obscured the shooter’s eyes. See id. at 14.

                                     - 21 -
J-S45019-23

      Preliminarily, we conclude that Johnson’s second and third challenges to

the weight of the evidence are waived for failure to include them in a timely

oral or written post-trial or post-sentence motion.            See Pa.R.Crim.P.

607(A)(1)-(3) (claims challenging weight of evidence “shall be raised with the

trial judge in a motion for a new trial: (1) orally, on the record, at any time

before sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or

(3) in a post-sentence motion”); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d

478, 491 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to preserve weight claim under Rule 607

results in waiver). Instantly, Johnson made an oral post-trial motion at his

sentencing hearing. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/4/23, at 2-3. However,

in this oral motion, Johnson only challenged the weight of the evidence based

upon the height of the nearby parking meter. See id. Johnson did not file a

post-sentence motion. Consequently, Johnson’s challenges to the weight of

the evidence of the Commonwealth’s DNA expert and Detective Conmy’s

identification are waived for appellate review.        See Thompson, supra;

Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3).

      Turning to Johnson’s preserved weight claim, we adhere to the following

standard of review:

      The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact[,]
      who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to
      determine the credibility of witnesses. An appellate court cannot
      substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we
      may only reverse the . . . verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence
      as to shock one’s sense of justice.

                                      - 22 -
J-S45019-23

Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666, 672-73 (Pa. 1999). Additionally,

where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim, an appellate court’s role

is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the

weight of the evidence; rather, our appellate review is limited to whether the

trial   court   abused   its   discretion   in   ruling   on   the   weight   claim.

Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003). The issue is

whether the trial court’s decision that the verdicts did not shock its conscience;

overrode the law; was manifestly unreasonable; or the result of bias,

prejudice, or ill will. See id. As this Court has often reminded appellants, our

“standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is

distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court.          Appellate

review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not the

underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the

evidence.” Commonwealth v. Winslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa. Super.

2017); see also Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 545 (Pa. Super.

2015) (to allow an appellant “to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the

evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague[,] and uncertain that the

verdict shocks the conscience of the [trial] court”).

        At the sentencing hearing, but prior to sentencing, the trial court

addressed Johnson’s claim as follows:

        At this time, the defense motion will be denied[.] And just make
        note from the [trial c]ourt’s perspective that the video of
        [Johnson] at the scene in his relation to the parking meter does
        not give an indication as to his exact height given the angle

                                       - 23 -
J-S45019-23

      involved and the cameras . . . including the review of the entire
      record, the defense motion is denied.

N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/4/23, at 4. Additionally, in its opinion, the trial

court noted that it expressly disagreed with Johnson’s “characterization that

the video evidence showed the shooter to be at, or near, the same height as

the parking meter.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/19/23, at 20 n.7.

      After our review of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court

abused its discretion in ruling against Johnson on his weight claim.       See

Champney, supra. Consequently, Johnson is afforded no relief on this claim.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/19/2024

                                    - 24 -