Com. v. Hale, T.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 1476 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S29030-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TUESDAY LYNN HALE : : Appellant : No. 1476 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 17, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000510-2023

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: October 7, 2025

Tuesday Lynn Hale (“Hale”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following her jury convictions for one count each of attempted

criminal use of a communication facility, criminal solicitation to commit

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”), conspiracy

to commit terroristic threats, and acquisition or obtaining possession of a

controlled substance by misrepresentation.1 On appeal, Hale challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence underlying her conviction for criminal solicitation

to commit PWID. However, because Hale waived her claim, we dismiss the

appeal.

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7512(a), 901(a); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 902(a), 35 P.S. § 780-

113(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2706(a), 903; 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(12). J-S29030-25

Because of our disposition in this matter, we briefly note the following

factual and procedural history. In August 2023, Hale and her friends,

Elizabeth Tucker (“Tucker”) and Star Belcher (“Belcher”), carried out a plan to

obtain money, cocaine, and methamphetamines from Tucker’s boyfriend

Martin Baskerville (“Baskerville”) by pretending Tucker had been kidnapped.

However, upon receiving a ransom request accompanied by a photograph of

a slumped-over and apparently sedated Tucker, Baskerville contacted the

police. Upon investigation by the police, the conspiracy quickly dissolved.

At the conclusion of an August 2024 trial, the jury convicted Hale of the

above-captioned offenses. In October 2024, the trial court sentenced Hale to

an aggregate sentence of three to six years in prison. This appeal followed.2

Hale raises a single issue3 for our review:

[] Whether the trial court erred in convicting [Hale] of criminal solicitation to [PWID] where the evidence, even if fully credited, would not have supported a conviction for [PWID] under Pennsylvania law[?]

Hale’s Brief at 7.

To preserve a sufficiency claim, “the Rule 1925(b) statement must

specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient.”

Commonwealth v. Widger, 237 A.3d 1151, 1156 (Pa. Super. 2020)

2 Hale and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

3 On appeal, Hale withdrew the remaining issues raised in her 1925(b) statement. See Hale’s Brief at 7.

-2- J-S29030-25

(emphasis added). If the appellant does not specify such elements, the

sufficiency claim is deemed waived. Commonwealth v. Roche, 153 A.3d

1063, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2017).

In her Rule 1925(b) statement, Hale presented a boilerplate challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying her conviction for criminal

solicitation to commit PWID; she failed to specify which elements of the crime

she was challenging or explain why the evidence was insufficient. See Concise

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 12/16/24, at 2 (unnumbered)

(stating, as the entire basis for sufficiency relief, “The Commonwealth failed

to show sufficient evidence existed to prove [Hale] guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt of 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 902(a) ─ [c]riminal [s]olicitation [PWD].”). The trial

court found Hale waived her sufficiency claim because of the vagueness of her

Rule 1925 and did not address the merits of her claim. See Trial Court

Opinion, 12/30/24, at 1-2. We agree and conclude Hale waived her challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Appeal dismissed.

10/7/2025

-3- J-S29030-25

-4-