Com. v. Gillis, P.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 1847 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S32008-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : PETER JONATHAN GILLIS : : Appellant : No. 1847 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 28, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0000693-2021

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

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: DECEMBER 11, 2025

Peter Jonathan Gillis appeals from his judgment of sentence, entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, after a jury convicted him of

one count each of first-degree murder and recklessly endangering another

person (“REAP”). After review, we affirm.

We need not provide a recitation of the underlying facts of this case

because we find all of Gillis’ claims waived for failure to comply with our rules

of appellate procedure. Here, Gillis’ Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal is woefully inadequate to preserve his

arguments.

A Rule 1925(b) concise statement that is too vague can result in the

waiver of issues on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Arnold, 284 A.3d 1262, ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S32008-25

1279 (Pa. Super. 2022). We consider each of the five errors raised by Gillis

in his concise statement, and then again reframed in his statement of the

questions involved, to be too vague for appellate review. Gillis’ statements

contain mere boilerplate and conclusory language and do not provide sufficient

detail such that the trial court would have been able to properly identify the

pertinent issues.1 Therefore, Gillis’ five claims are all waived.2 See

Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 333 A.3d 417, 432 (Pa. Super. 2025)

(challenge to sufficiency of evidence waived when Rule 1925(b) statement

does not identify specific elements appellant claims Commonwealth did not

prove); Commonwealth v. Schofield, 312 A.3d 921, 927 (Pa. Super. 2024)

(challenge to weight of evidence waived when Rule 1925(b) statement is too

____________________________________________

1 For example: “The Court should have granted Mr. Gillis’s pre-trial Motions regarding expert witnesses. The Court erred in denying such evidence to be presented at trial, and the resulting verdict should be overturned and/or a new trial should be ordered.” Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 1/8/25. Also,

The verdict of guilty of Criminal Homicide, Murder of the First Degree following trial was against the weight of the evidence. The evidence presented at trial was so tenuous, vague, and uncertain, that the verdict shocks the conscience and should not stand. As the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, the Court erred in entering the verdict, and the verdict should be overturned and/or a new trial should be ordered. Id.

2 Even if Gillis had properly raised his claims in his concise statement, they

would still be waived due to his failure to properly develop his argument with “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); see also Commonwealth v. Armolt, 294 A.3d 364, 377 (Pa. 2023).

-2- J-S32008-25

vague for trial court to identify why verdicts were contrary to weight of

evidence). Accordingly, we affirm Gillis’ judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/11/2025

-3-