Com. v. Gomez, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 9, 2023
• Docket: 401 EDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S07015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SANTO GOMEZ : : Appellant : No. 401 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 7, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009910-2017

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

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 9, 2023

Appellant, Santo Gomez,1 appeals from the February 7, 2019 Judgment

of Sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

following his conviction of Unlawful Contact with a Minor, Endangering the

Welfare of a Child, Corruption of a Minor, and Indecent Assault of a Person

Less than 13 Years of Age.2 After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are, briefly, as follows. On

October 18, 2017, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with the above

crimes after the granddaughter of Appellant’s paramour reported to a social

worker that Appellant had been sexually assaulting her. Appellant waived his ____________________________________________

1 We have amended the case caption to reflect that the proper spelling of Appellant’s name is “Santo” and not “Santos” as listed on the notice of appeal filed by Appellant’s counsel.

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6318(a)(1), 4304(a)(1), 6301(a)(1)(ii), and 3126(a)(7), respectively. J-S07015-23

right to a jury trial, and on December 7, 2018, the trial court convicted

Appellant of each of the charged offenses.

On February 7, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate term of 16 to 32 months of incarceration followed by 6 years of

probation. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion or timely appeal from

his judgment of sentence.

On January 12, 2022, the trial court reinstated Appellant’s direct appeal

rights nunc pro tunc and this appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Did the Trial Court fail to consider the speculative and contradictory nature testimony sufficiently in handing deal his determination of guilt.

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (verbatim).

In his three-paragraph argument to this Court, Appellant recounts the

victim’s trial testimony and asserts that, because the victim’s testimony was

uncorroborated with any other testimony or physical evidence, it was

insufficient to convict Appellant “of the sexual assault charges in this matter.”

Id. at 9. Appellant concedes that “one can be found guilty in these matters

on the value of the alleged victim[’]s uncorroborated testimony alone.” Id.

at 10. (citing Commonwealth v. Cramer, 195 A.3d 594 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Nevertheless, he concludes that “there should be more than mere statements,

but solid indicia that the incidents happen[ed].” Id.

-2- J-S07015-23

It is axiomatic that appellate briefs must conform to the Pennsylvania

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Rule 2119 requires that the

argument section “be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be

argued” and include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed

pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). When discussing record evidence, the Rules

require an appellant to set forth a “reference to the place in the record where

the matter referred to appears.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). “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.” Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super.

2011) (citation omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10

A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted).

Here, the court convicted Appellant of four offenses and Appellant

challenges them together, in one section of his brief, in contravention of our

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Moreover, he has not set forth the statutes

defining the elements of the crimes of which he was convicted, nor has he

argued with specificity which of the elements of each of the crimes the

Commonwealth purportedly failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, although Appellant refers summarily to trial evidence, he has

failed to provide any citations to the record or to apply the facts of this case

-3- J-S07015-23

to relevant authority.3 Because of these significant defects, we are unable to

conduct meaningful appellate review. Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence is, thus, waived, and we affirm Appellant’s convictions.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/9/2023

____________________________________________

3 We acknowledge that Appellant provided citation to two cases pertaining to this Court’s standard of review of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and cited to Commonwealth v. Bennett, 303 A.2d 220 (Pa. Super. 1973) (finding inconsistent testimony by the Commonwealth’s main witness created a situation where the jury could do nothing but speculate about the defendant’s guilt). He has not, however, applied the holding in Bennett to the facts of this case or explained how the court violated Bennett in convicting him of the charged offenses.

-4-