Com. v. Stribling-Jackson, T.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 2, 2026
• Docket: 487 WDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Neuman

Opinion

J-S11020-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TREVAUGHN STRIBLING-JACKSON : : Appellant : No. 487 WDA 2025 :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 31, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000077-2024

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and NEUMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NEUMAN, J.: FILED: June 2, 2026

Appellant, Trevaughn Stribling-Jackson, appeals from the aggregate

judgment of sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole,

followed by a consecutive term of 16 to 32 years’ incarceration, imposed after

a jury convicted him of first-degree murder (18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a)),

aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(9)), abuse of a corpse (18 Pa.C.S.

§ 5510), and related offenses. On appeal, Appellant challenges the

discretionary aspects of his sentence, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence

to sustain his convictions. We affirm.

The trial court briefly summarized the facts and procedural history of

Appellant’s case, as follows:

This matter arises out of the death of KM (“victim”), a two (2) year-old male. On December 20, 2023, Caleigh Gladfelter, the victim’s mother, reported the child-victim missing to the Oil City Police Department. Gladfelter reported the child was last seen J-S11020-26

alive on December 18, 2023. In the subsequent search for the child, Oil City police officers conducted a search of the victim’s residence … in Oil City, Pennsylvania. The victim had been living in the basement of the residence for approximately one month with Gladfelter, Gladfelter’s boyfriend ([Appellant]), [the victim’s] brother, and another family (Devonte Riedel, Misty Unangst, and her four (4) children). The victim was found deceased without any clothes in an air mattress bag located in the basement of the [residence]. An autopsy performed by the Erie County Medical Examiner’s Office determined the manner of death was homicide and the cause of his death was hemorrhagic shock from repeated blunt force trauma to the head, neck, face, abdomen, and extremities.

On March 4, 2024, [Appellant] was charged by formal information with seven (7) counts of criminal conduct. On January 14, 2025, [Appellant] filed a motion to sever count 4, flight to avoid apprehension, from the other counts of criminal conduct. On January 23, 2025, the court granted the motion and severed count 4 from the remaining counts and ordered it to be tried separately. On February 3, 2025, a jury was selected and a three (3) day jury trial began on February 10, 2025.

On February 13, 2025, the jury returned a verdict finding [Appellant] guilty on count 1, first[-]degree murder…; count 2, aggravated assault of a victim less than 13 years old and the defendant 18 years old or older…; count 3, concealment of the whereabouts of a child, … in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2909(a); count 5, abuse of a corpse, … in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 5510; count 6, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, … in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 4910(1); and count 7, false identity to law enforcement, … in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 4914(a).

On March 31, 2025, [Appellant] was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment followed by a consecutive period of incarceration [of] a minimum sixteen (16) years to a maximum thirty-two (32) years. [Appellant] was given time served credit for four-hundred and sixty-seven (467) days for time previously served in jail. Also on March 31, 2025, the Commonwealth filed a motion for nolle prosequi of count 4, flight to avoid apprehension[,] which was granted by an order of court that same day. On April 9, 2025, [Appellant] filed a timely post-sentence motion. On April 16, 2025, the court denied the post[-]sentence motion.

-2- J-S11020-26

[Appellant] filed his notice of appeal on April 16, 2025[,] and Tina Fryling, Esquire, entered her appearance on behalf on [Appellant]. On April 21, 2025, the court ordered [Appellant to] file a concise statement of issues complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On May 12, 2025, [Appellant] filed a concise statement.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 7/15/25, at 1-3 (footnote and unnecessary

capitalization omitted; some formatting altered). The trial court filed its Rule

1925(a) opinion on July 15, 2025.

Herein, Appellant states two issues for our review:

[I.] The trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence in regard[] to its length, consecutiveness, departing from the sentencing guidelines, and failing to consider relevant mitigating factors.

[II.] The evidence presented by the Commonwealth in this case was not sufficient for a jury to return a verdict of guilty for any of the charges.

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (footnote and emphasis omitted).1

In Appellant’s first issue, he challenges the discretionary aspects of his

sentence, claiming

the sentences given were unreasonable and an abuse of discretion based on the fact … they were run in terms that … were ordered to be served consecutive to each other rather than concurrent to each other. He further argues that since the various crimes were all related and run from the same incident, the [court] should have made the sentences concurrent.

Id. at 11.

In Appellant’s second issue, he contends the evidence was insufficient

to support the jury’s verdict for any of his offenses because: (1) no direct ____________________________________________

1 Appellant indicates his first issue “does not include the false identity to law

enforcement charge for which [he] was also convicted.” Appellant’s Brief at 2 n.1 (unnecessary capitalization and internal quotation marks omitted).

-3- J-S11020-26

evidence identified him as the perpetrator, id. at 15; (2) “[o]nly Devonte

Reidel indicated to the police that he saw [Appellant] go into the basement on

the day that the victim’s life was taken, but he then indicated that he couldn’t

actually remember whether it was Sunday or Monday[,] id.; and (3) a light

colored hair was found on the victim, but Appellant has dark hair. Id.; see

also id. at 13-23 (Appellant’s repeating these same arguments in challenging

the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain each of his offenses).

In assessing Appellant’s issues, we have reviewed the certified record,

the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have

examined the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Matthew T. Kirtland,

President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County. We

conclude Judge Kirtland’s comprehensive opinion accurately disposes of the

issues presented by Appellant.2 Accordingly, we adopt Judge Kirtland’s

____________________________________________

2 We note that, although Judge Kirtland acknowledges it is necessary for Appellant to “raise a substantial question regarding the appropriateness of his sentence under the Sentencing Code” to invoke our jurisdiction to review Appellant’s sentencing claim, Judge Kirtland does not explicitly state whether Appellant satisfied this requirement. See TCO at 7 (citing Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 467 (Pa. Super. 2018)). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) (“An appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter shall set forth in a separate section of the brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence.”). In Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement, he contends the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences where his crimes all arose from the same incident. See Appellant’s Brief at 11. This Court has declared: [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-4- J-S11020-26

opinion as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the

reasons set forth therein.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

6/2/2026

involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question. Commonwealth v. Diehl, 140 A.3d 34, 45 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Because here, Appellant raises more than a bald claim of excessiveness, we conclude he has raised a substantial question for our review. Notwithstanding, we agree with Judge Kirtland’s thoughtful and detailed discussion of why Appellant’s sentencing challenge is substantively meritless. TCO at 7-16.

-5- Circulated 05/14/2026 09:49 AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF VENANGO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA d

v. : C.R. No, 77-2024

TREVAUGHN STRIBLING-JACKSON, ; + H Defendant/Appellant

1925(b) OPINION AND NQW, this Be of July, 2025, this Court enters its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P,

1925(b) in response to the Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed on April 16, 2025. Defendant

appeals from the Order of Sentence entered 31, 2025. On the onMarch April 9, 2025,

Defendant filed a Post-Sentence Motion which was denied by an Order of Court on April 16,

"2025, On May 12, 2025, the Defendant filed the instant concise statement,

’ FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 This matter arises out of the death of K.M, (“victim”), a two (2) year-old male, On

December 20, 2023, Caleigh Gladfelter, the victim's mother, reported the child-victim missing

child alive December to the Oil City Police Department, Gladfelter reported the was last seen on

18, 2023. In the subsequent search for the child, Oil City police officers conducted a search of

The victim had been in the victims residence, in Oil City, Pennsylvania. living

the basement of the residence for approximately one month with Gladfelter, Gladfelter’s

his brother, and another family (Devonte. Misty Unangst, and boyfriend (the Defendant), Riedel, her four (4) children). The victim was found deceased without any clothes in an air mattress bag

located in the basement of the An autopsy performed by the Erie County

Office determined of homivide and the cause of his Medical Examiner's the marmer deathwas

1 death was hemorrhagic shock fiotji. repeated blunt force trauma to the head, neck, face,

abdomen, and extremities,

On March 4, 2024, Defendant was charged by Formal Information with seven (7) counts of

criminal conduct. On January 14, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion to sever Count 4, Flight to

Avoid Apprehension, from the other counts of criminal conduct. On January 23, 2025, the court

granted the motion and severed Count 4 from the remaining counts and ordered it to be tried

separately. On February 3, 2025, a juty was selected and a three (3) day jury trial began on

February 10, 2025.

On February 13, 2025, the jury returned a verdict finding the Defendant guilty on Count 1,

First Degree Murder, a Homicide 1, in violation 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2502(a); Count 2, Aggravated

Assault of a victim less than 13 years old and the Defendant 18 years old or older, a felony 1, in

violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2702(a)(9); Count 3, Concealment of the Whereabouts of a Child, a

felony 3, in violation of 18 Pa. C;S.A. § 2909(a); Count 5, Abuse of a Corpse, Misdemeanor 2,

in violation of 1 8 Pa, C.S.A. § 5510; Count 6, Tampering with or Fabricating Physical

Evidence, a misdemeanor 2, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4910(1); and Count 7, False Identity

to Law enforcement, a misdemeanor 3, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4914(a).

On March 31, 2025, the Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of life

imprisonment followed by a consecutive period of incarceration a minimum sixteen (16) years

to a maximum thirty-two (32) years. The Defendant was given time served credit for four-

hundred and sixty-seven (467) days for time previously served in jail. Also on March 31, 2025,

the Commonwealth filed a motion for nolle prosequi of Count 4, Flight to Avoid Apprehension

2* which was granted by an order of court that same. day. On April 9, 2025, the Defendant filed a

timely Post-Sentence Motion. 1On April 16, 2025, the Court denied the Post Sentence Motion.

The Defendant filed his notice of appeal on. April 16, 2025 and Tina Fryling, Esquire,

entered her appearance on behalf on the Defendant. On April 21, 2025,. the Court ordered the

Defendant file a Concise Statement of Issues Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P.

1925(b). On May 12, 2025, the Defendant filed a concise statement. In his Concise Statement,

Defendant raises the following matters on appeal:

1. The defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by giving him an excessive sentence both in length and in its consecutiveness. The sentences at Count 2, Count 3,' Count 5, Count 6, and Count 7 were rum consecutive to Count 1 rattier than concurrent. Further, the sentences included a guideline departure up to tile highest minimum despite the fact that all of the counts stemmed from the same incident/incidents. Furthermore, the court failed to properly consider comments made by trial counsel regarding the defendant’s background-and family history which could have mitigated the sentence in this case.

2. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth in this case was not sufficient to convict the Defendant of Criminal Homicide First Degree Murder 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501, 2502(a): A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. No direct evidence was presented at time of trial that specifically identified the defendant as the person who perpetrated this crime.

The only alleged evidence the defendant was the person who committed this crime was the testimony of Devonte Riedel, Devonte Riedel, who testified the defendant was last seen late in the evening of Monday December 18, 2023 with the decedent, descending stairs into the basement. However, on cross examination, Riedel admitted he was unsure what exact date he in feet observed the defendant and the decedent descending the stairs. Furthermore, defense presented evidence that a blondeZlight colored hair (the defendant being a black male with black hair) was found stuck on a wooden object next to the location where the decedent's body was found,

1In his Post Sentence Motion, the Defendant raised the following issues: (1 ) the sentence imposed was excessive

and constituted an abuse of discretion, and (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the conviction. In his second issue, foe Defendant asserts an insufficiency of the evidence claim for all six (6) counts of criminal conduct.

3 but Appellant is a Hack male with black hair. No DNA testing was completed on the. said hair to identify its owner.

3. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth in this case was not sufficient to convict the Defendant of Aggravated Assault — Victim less than 13 and Defendant 18 or older, 18 Pa.C.S.A.§ 2702(a)(9): A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury to a child less than 13 years of age, by a person 18 years of age or older. No direct' evidence was . presented at time of trial that specifically identified the Appellant as the person who perpetrated this crime. No eye witnesses to this crime, no video evidence, and no admission by Appellant was presented at trial.

The only alleged evidence the defendant was the person who committed this crime was the testimony of Devonte Riedel, Devonte Riedel, who testified the defendant was last seen late in the evening of Monday December 18, 2023 with the decedent, descending stairs into the basement. However, on cross examination, Riedel admitted he was unsure what exact date he in fact observed the defendant and the decedent descending the stairs. Furthermore, defense presented evidence that ablonde/light colored hair (the defendant being a black male with black hair) was found stuck on a wooden obj ect next to the location where the decedent's body was found, but Appellant is a black male with black hair. No DNA testing was completed on the said hair to identify its owner.

' 4, The evidence presented by the Commonwealth in this case was not sufficient to convict the Defendant of Concealment of Whereabouts of Child, 18 Pa,C,S,A.§2909: A person who removes a child from the child's known place of residence with the intent to conceal the child's whereabouts from the child's parent or guardian, unless concealment is authorized by court order.

The only alleged evidence the defendant was the person who committed this crime was the testimony of Devonte Riedel, Devonte Riedel, who testified the defendant was last seen late in the evening of Monday December 1 8, 2023 with the decedent, descending stairs into the basement. However, on cross examination, Riedel admitted he was unsure what exact date he in fact observed the defendant and the decedent descending the stairs, Furthermore, defense presented evidence that a blonde/light colored hair (the defendant being a black male with black hair) was found stuck on a wooden object next to the location where the decedent's body was found, but Appellant is a Hack male with black hair. No DNA testing was completed on the said hair to identify its owner.

4 5. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth in this case was not sufficient to convict the Defendant of Abuse of Corpse, 18 Pa.C.S.A.§ 5510: Except as authorized by law, a person who treats a corpse in a way that he knows would outrage ordinary family sensibilities commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.

No direct evidence was presented at time of trial that specifically identified the defendant as the person who perpetrated this crime— No eye witnesses to this crime, no video evidence, no admission by the defendant was presented at trial. The only alleged evidence the defendant was the. person who committed this crime was the testimony of Devonte Riedel, Devonte Riedel, who testified the defendant was last seen late in the evening of Monday December 18, 2023 with the decedent, descending stairs into the basement. However, on cross examination, Riedel admitted he was unsure what exact date he in fact observed the defendant and the decedent descending the stairs. Furthermore, defense presented evidence that a blonde/light colored hair (the defendant being a block male with black hair) was found stuck on a wooden object next to the location where the decedent's body was found,, but Appellant is a black male with black hair. No DNA testing was completed on the said hair to identify its owner.

6. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth in this case was not sufficient to convict the Defendant of Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, 18 Pa.C.S,A,§4910(l): A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he: (1) alters, destroys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation.

No direct evidence was presented at time of trial that specifically identified the defendant as the person who perpetrated this crime. No eye witnesses to this crime, no video evidence, no admission by the defendant was presented at trial. The only alleged evidence the defendant was the person who committed this crime was the testimony of Devonte Riedel, Devonte Riedel, who testified the defendant was last seen late in the evening of Monday December 18, 2023 with the decedent, descending stairs into the basement. However, on cross examination, Riedel admitted he was unsure what exact date he in fact observed the defendant and the decedent descending the stairs. Furthermore, defense presented evidence that a blonde/light colored hair (the defendant being a black male with black hair) was found stuck on a wooden object next to the location where the

5 decedent's body was found, but Appellant is a black male with black hair. No DNA testing was completed on the said hair to identify its owner. See Defendant’s Concise Statement, 01/24/2025, p.2

II. DISCUSSION

Upon review of the Defendant’s concise statement, the language posited for issues 2

through 6 is substantially identical for each raised issue. Appellant counsel does not concisely

State the issues on appeal with specificity and particularity and this results in the court providing * redundant arguments. The Court, will address the Defendant’s six (6) issues separately and in

the order presented.

1. ' Challenge to the Sentence

Defendant asserts that the court abused its discretion by giving an excessive sentence in

length, in consecutiveness, in departing from the guidelines, and in foiling to consider

mitigating factors, See Defendant’s Concise Statement, 5/12/2025, 5. The Court interprets

Defendant’s first claim as containing four (4) sub-issues: (1) a challenge to the excessive nature

of the sentence based on its length, (2) a challenge to the consecutive nature of the sentence, (3)

a challenge to the guideline departure, and (4) a challenge for failing to consider mitigating

circumstances. The Court believes they are distinct issues required to be addressed separately?

a. Excessive Sentence

In Defendant’s first issue, he asserts that the court abused its discretion by imposing an

excessive sentence in length. See Defendant’s Concise Statement, 5/12/2025, H 5. A sentence

1 This court is frustrated by appellate counsel continually raising vague issues on appeal that require the court to

consider sub-issues. It forces this court to engage In excessive and time-consuming analysis. Pa.R.A.P. 1 925(b)(ii) requires a concise statement to “concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge.” A 1925(b) statement which is so “redundant, vague, incoherent, or confusing as to prevent the lower court from engaging in a meaningfol analysis result in waiver of all claim presented." Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super.2016). Further, “when a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for a meaningfol review.” W, at 1114.

6 may be challenged either on the legality of the sentence or on discretionary aspects. “A sentence

is illegal ... if the trial court exceeds its statutory authority in imposing ft.” Commonwealth v.

Starr, 234 A3d 755 (Pa. Super.2020). The Court finds that the issue raised here does not

implicate a challenge to the legality of the sentence because the Defendant does not assert the

sentencing Court exceeded its statutory authority. Rather, the court interprets the Defendant’s

first issue as a challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence. Commonwealth, v. Lutes,

793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (finding appellant’s claim that the sentence was manifestly

excessive challenges the sentencing court’s discretion).

In order to challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, the Defendant must raise a

substantial question regarding the appropriateness of his sentence under the Sentencing Code.

Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 467 (Pa. Super. 2018). The determination of what

constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by case basis. Commonwealth v.

Battles, 169 A.3d 1086, 1090 (Pa. Super. 2017). Generally, a defendant raises a substantial

question when he sets forth a colorable argument that a sentence is either (1) inconsistent with a

specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which

underlie the sentencing process. Radecki at 467. I Here, the Court’s sentence was firmly grounded in the Sentencing Code and is not contrary

to the fundamental norms of sentencing. The Defendant was sentenced to life without the

possibility of parole on Count 1, First Degree Murder, in violation of 1 8 Pa. C.S A. § 2502(a), a

Homicide 1. Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 1102(a)(1), First-Degree Murder carries amendatory

sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

On the remaining counts, the Defendant was sentenced to a period of incarceration where

the minimum sentence was either a departure front the Sentencing Guidelines or an aggravated

7 range sentence but complied with the statutory maximums in the Sentencing Code. 3On Count

2, Aggravated Assault of a minor in violation of 1 8 Pa< C.S.A. § 2702(a)(9), a felony 1, the

Offense Gravity Score is twelve (12) and the Defendant had a Prior Record Score of (3). The

standard range is sixty-eight (68) to eighty-four (84) months. The aggravated range included an

additional twelve (12) months. Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 1 103, a sentence of imprisonment for a

felony 1 may be up to the statutory minimum of twenty (20) years. The Defendant was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of a minimum of ten (10) years to a maximum twenty (20) i years.

On Count 3, Concealment of the Whereabouts of a Child, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §

2909(a) a felony 3, the Offense Gravity Score is four (4) and the Defendant had a Prior Record

Score of (3). The standard range is three (3) to fourteen (14) months. The aggravated range

included an additional three (3) months. Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 1103, a sentence of

imprisonment for a felony 3 may not exceed the statutory maximum of seven (7) years. The

Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of a minimum of forty-two (42) months to

a maximum of seven (7) years.

On Count 5, Abuse of a.Corpse, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5510, amisdemeanor 2, the

Offense Gravity Score is three (3) and the Defendant had a Prior Record Score of (3). The

standard range is restorative sanctions to less than twelve (12) months. The aggravated range

included an additional three (3) months, Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 1104, a sentence of

imprisonment for a misdemeanor 2 may. not exceed the statutory max of two (2) years. The

Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of a minimum of one (1) year to a

maximum of two (2) years,

’ At the time of the sentencing hearing, Defense counsel agreed to the gravity score, prior record, aggravating and mitigating sentence range and standard range for each offense.

8 On Count 6, Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence in violation of 18 Pa. C.S. A.

§ 4910(1), a misdemeanor 2, the Offense Gravity Score is two (2) and the Defendant had a Prior

Record Score of (3). The standard range is restorative sanctions to four (4) months. The

aggravated range included an additional three (3) months. Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. §. 1104, a

sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor 2 may not exceed the statutory maximum of two

(2) years. The Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of a minimum of one (1)

year to two (2) years.

On Count 7, False Identity to Law enforcement in violation of 18 Pa. C.S A. § 4914(a), a

misdemeanor 3, the Offense Gravity Score is one (1) and the Defendant had a Prior Record

Score of (3). The standard range is restorative sanctions to three (3) months. The aggravated

range included an additional three (3) months. Under 18 Pa, C.S.A. § 1104, a sentence of

imprisonment for a misdemeanor 3. may not exceed the statutory maximum of one (1) year. The

Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of a minimum of six (6) months to a

maximum of twelve (12) months.

, Together, the Defendant was sentenced to a cumulative term of imprisonment of a

minimum of sixteen (16) to a maximum of thirty-two (32) years consecutive to life without

parole. Each individual sentence complied with the statutory maximum and does not violate the

Sentencing Code. Furthermore, each individual sentence is consistent with the norms of « sentencing. Under 42 Pa,C.S.A. § 9721(b), the sentencing court must consider: (1) the

protection of the public, (2) gravity of offense in relation to impact on the victim and

community, and (3) the rehabilitative needs of the defendant when crafting its sentence. In

determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the appellate court must give great

weight to the sentencing court’s discretion, as he or she is in the best position to measure factors

9 such as the nature I of the crime, the defendant's character, and the defendant's display of . remorse, defiance, or indifference. Commonwealth % £THs, 700 A.2d 948, 958 (Pa. Super.

1997).

Here, the Defendant murdered a two-year old in a savage, cruel, and brutal way. Dr. Vey

testified that the victim died from injuries sustained from repeated blunt force trauma to the

head, chest, abdomen, and extremities delivered with a large amount of force. Wal Tr.,

1/2025, pp. 4-50;. Commonwealth Ex, 29, 2/1 1/2025. The autopsy report indicated that the

victim had 98 bruises and lacerations all over his body. Dr. Vey found the victim’s heart

lacerated, lungs ruptured, broken ribs, spleen lacerated, pancreas tom in two, kidney tom, and

the small intestine bruised among many other injuries. Id, Dr.Vey also observed thermal

abrasions on the victim’s buttocks indicative of a cigarette bum, Id. Dr. Vey testified that the

injuries sustained by the child-victim were consistent in severity with the types of injuries

suffered in a fhtal car crash. Trial Tr., 2/1 1/2025, p.43. Dr.Vey’s testified that the victim’s

injuries were consistent with deliberate and repeated strikes, Trial Tr., 2/1 1/2025, pp. 43-47.

The Defendant aggravated the offense by removing the victim’s clothes before hiding the

victim’s body in an air mattress bag in the basement area and misleading law enforcement in

their investigation. Defendant also was in a position of trust with the victim. Defendant was

Gladfeiter’s boyfriend and Gladfelter entrusted the victim’s health, safety, and welfare to tiie

Defendant while she was at work. Trial Tr„ 02/10/2025, p. 67. The length of the Defendant’s

sentence is meant to reflect the gravity of the offenses, the impact it had on the victim’s family,

and address the sentencing court’s determination that the Defendant cannot be rehabilitated.

Sentencing Tr., 03/31/2025, p. 23,

10 ‘The Defendant is not entitled to a volume discount because he committed several offenses.

See Commonwealth v. Hoag, 445 Pa.Super. 455, 665 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Super.1995); see

also Commonwealth v, Prisk, 13 A.3d 586 (Pa. Super, 2011)(finding a 633-to-1,500-year

sentence Is not manifestly excessive); Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super.

2008) (finding imprisonment anaggregate sentence of 58 ¥ to 124 years is not excessive). The

Court properly analyzed all relevant factors at the time of sentencing to determine an

appropriate sentence, Therefore, the sentence is not excessive in length and the Defendant's

claims is meritless.

b. Consecutive Sentences ’

The Defendant next asserts that the court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive

sentence because Counts 2 through 7 were fmposed consecutively to the life sentence imposed

on Count 1, See Defendant's Concise Statement, judgehas 5/12/2025,15. A sentencing discretion to impose a sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed

simultaneously or to sentences already imposed. See Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d

581 (Pa. Super. 2010)(and cases cited therein). The appellate court will not disturb consecutive

sentences unless the aggregate sentence is grossly disparate” to the defendant's conduct, or

“viscerally appear[s]patently unreasonable.” Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Defusus, 994 A.2d

595, 599 (Pa. Suer. 2010).

Here, The Court found thatthe Defendant's conduct warranted the imposition of ’

consecutive sentences:

THE COURT: The evidence presented at the trial was very disturbing. The testimony and revealed the significant injuries and damages sustained by The nature of this crime can best be described as savage, cruel, ; and brutal, However, words truly capture theseverity and nature of cannot

this trauma. Dr, Vey attempted by testifying to the lacerations, abrasions, bruises due to and bruising. He could not accurately state the number of

11 there being bruises on top of braises. The pictures presented from the autopsy captured the brutal nature of your actions. The testimony further indicated the bruises were at different levels of healing indicating that not all trauma was caused in any one event. This signified multiple traumatic events thatoccurred over a period of time. Sentencing Tr., 03/3 1/2025, pp. 20-21 .

In considering the facts cited above, the Court stated the following at the sentencing

hearing:

THE COURT: After considering all the factors in this case, the Court will impose ' the maximum sentence allowable under law. The punishment must reflect the severity of the crime committed and there is no graver an offense that-than that of intentionally taking the life of a young child. For murder in the first degree, this Court can only sentence you to life in prison without the possibility of parole. For the remaining counts, the Court will be deviating from the guidelines, This Court will not be giving you a volume discount and will not run any of the counts concurrent Each count is convicted demonstrated separate in distinct conduct that this Court must address with a separate independent sentence. To do so would otherwise reward you for your disturbing conduct. The intent of this sentence is to ensure that you never leave a prison cell as your conduct and history indicate that you will reoffend if you are not incarcerated and that any lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of this offense. Sentencing Tr., 03/31/2025, pp. 23 -24.

Based on these findings, the court believed a consecutive sentence was necessary to protect

the public, reflect the gravity of the offenses, and address the Defendant’s rehabilitative needs.

In determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the appellate court gives great

weight to the sentencing court’s discretion, as he or she is in the best position to measure factors

such as the nature of the crime, the defendant's character, and the defendant's display of

remorse, defiance, or indifference. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 700 A.2d 948, 958 (Pa. Super.

1 997). The Court incorporates the statement of the facts referenced in the Court’s analysis for

Excessive Sentences. Further, the Defendant is not entitled to a volume discount because he

12 committed several offenses. See Commonwealth v. Hoag, 445 Pa.Super. 455, 665 A2d 1212,

of is not abuse of 1214 (Pa. Super.1995). Therefore, the imposition aconsecutive sentence an

discretion and the Defendant’s claim ls meritless.

¢. Sentencing Guideline Departure

The Defendant asserts that the sentencing court abused its discretion by departing from the

sentencing guidelines. See Defendant’s Concise Statement, 5/12/2025, 1 5. The sentences

imposed on Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6 are upward departures from the sentencing guidelines and

Count 7 is a aggravated range sentence. However, the sentencing guidelines are purely advisory ’

in nature, not Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, 923 A.2d 1111, 1118 (Pa. 2007). A mandatory.

exceed sentencing court, in its discretion, may depart from the guidelines as long as it does not

the maximum sentence allowed by statute. /d. at 1118-19. When a court deviates from the

sentencing guidelines, it must state the reasons for doing so on therecord. See Commonwealth

v. McLaine, 150 A.3d 70, 76 (Pa. Super. 2016).

did exceed the maximum allowable sentence allowed under Here, the Sentenolng Court not

and stated the for from the sentencing guidelines on the record. See statute reasons departing

Sentencing Tr., 03/31/2025,p. 29. The sentencing court found that the Defendant's crime, the

murder of a two-year old and the Defendant's attempt to hide the crime, was savage, cruel, and

stated brutal in nature, Sentencing Tv, 03/317 2025, p. 20. At the Sentencing Hearing, the Court

the following:

THE COURT: It's hard to fathom reason that would lead someone to any type and emount of trauma on a two-year-old child, ’ did not stand a cannot accurately reflect ~ the horror, and fear went through in his final pain, he his moments. The moments where finally succumbed to injuries. But your actions didn't stop with the brutal beating and killing of a two-year-old child. The coverup was equally disturbing. You attempted to conceal and destroy evidence,

eee BE eC ae ed hide your by folding the child into an air mattress crime bag, removing the child's clothing, washing away blood stains, and hiding the bag behind miscellaneous items in a basement, You . then slept in the same room as the body and went about your

day as if nothing had happened. The Court cannot With : how you slept in the sdhe basement area

deceased, rolled up in a bag,

Sentencing Tr., 03/31/2025, p. 22.

At the time of his arrest, the Defendant hed multiple warrants for his arrest. Jd, at 23.

Throughout the proceedings, the Sentencing Court did not observe the Defendant display any

remorse for his actions, Jd. at 20. Accordingly, the Sentencing Court stated the following:

THE COURT: The sentence imposed on Counts Two, Three, Five, Six and Seven for the public Gl are guideline departures necessary ) protection considering the gravity of the offense--offenses and . vulnerability of the victim and the Defendant’s abuse of a . position of trust, The Court determines that any lesser sentence

would depreciate the seriousness of the offenses and the Court

imposed total confinement because the conduct of the Defendant indicates he will commit another crime if not : imprisoned. 1d. at 29.

The of the Defendant's sentence not strictly guided by the Sentencing Code was only part

the of the sentences to run consecutive, not concurrent, to the life sentence, It is well imposition

| settled that the sentencing judge has discretion to impose a sentence concurrently or

consecutively to other sentences being imposed simultaneously or to sentences already imposed.

See Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010)(and cases cited therein). In

have that is “consistent with the exercising this discretion, courts a duty to impose a sentence

it relates the impact the life of the victim protection of the public, the gravity offense as to on

* and the end rehabilitative needs of the defendant. 42 Pa. C.S. § 9721(b). on community,

the facts establish the Defendant As stated in the analysis for an excessive sentence, \

assaulted, murdered, and abused the corpse of a two (2) year old victim. The crimes were

14 i

A A i, oN PG SE A. predatory, heinous, and anti-social. Ai the time of his arrest the Defendant absconded from

supervision and had warrants out for his arrest The Sentencing Court departed from the

guidelines because it felt it was necessary to impose a sentence that reflected the gravity of the .

crimes and to deny the Defendant the opportunity to reoffend in the future. The Sentencing

Court is given great discretion in formulating its sentences. Commonwealth v. EUis, 700 A.2d

948, 958 (Pa. Super. 1997). Therefore, the Sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in

departing from the sentencing guidelines and the Defendants claim is without merit. 1

d. Mitigating Factors

The Defendant asserts the court abused its discretion in failing to consider the Defendant’s

mitigating factors. See Defendant’s Concise Statement, 5/12/2025, 5. It is well-established that

l1 a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question."

Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A. 3d 127, 133 (Pa, Super. 2013). Further, when a Pre- Sentence

Investigation Report (PSI) exists, it is presumed that "the sentencing judge was aware of

relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along

with mitigating statutory factors." Commonwealth v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa. Super.

2020) (citation omitted).

The Defendant’s claim that the Sentencing court failed to consider the mitigating factors is

belied by the record, The Sentencing Court stated on the record the court’s sentence was

informed by a PSI, the gravity of the offenses charged, any mitigating factors like family

history, the criminal history of the Defendant, the facts presented at trial, the Defendant’s

demeanor during the proceedings, and the nature and circumstances of the offenses.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson, sentencing court is tn consider a number of factors generally guided by public protection, the rehabilitative needs of the Defendant and tiie gravity of the particular offense. I considered those circumstances, including the crimes charged and convicted, the facts set forth at trial, the

15 prior criminal record, any lawful motive that may existed, the lack of remorse, general morale character, predisposition to commit further crimes, and ail other relevant factors. I reviewed and considered ell the infonnatlon set forth in the PSI and all statements and arguments made here at sentencing. The victim impact statements, and I also considered the recommended guideline ranges. Sentencing 7k, 03/31/2025, p. 20.

The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the facts of the crime,

the background of the Defendant, and sentencing norms as required by statute. The Defendant’s

sentence reflects the Defendant’s criminal conduct. The sentence imposed took into account

each separate crime perpetrated on the victim and. imposed a sentence necessary to recognize

the specific harm caused. He is not entitled to a volume discount because he committed multiple

offenses. See Commonwealth v. Hoag, 445 Pa.Super. 455, 665 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa.

Super. 1995). The sentence imposed was not excessive and the Defendant’s claim is meritless.

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence for Count 1 - First Degree Mnrdej

The Defendant asserts that the evidence presented was not sufficient for a jury to return a

guilty verdict for first-degree murder. The Defendant claims, that no direct evidence was

presented at the time of trial that identified the Defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. See

Defendant 's Concise Statement, 5/12/2025, 6. To support his claim, the Defendant asserts that

Devonte Riedel’s testimony witnessing the Defendant and victim descend together into the

basement on the night of the victim’s disappearance is unreliable because on cross examination

he was unsure of what date he observed the two together. Id Furthermore, the Defendant « presented evidence at trial that a blonde hair, not the Defendant’s black hair, was found on a

wooden object near where the decedent’s body was located, Id.

As an initial matter, this Court struggles to parse out the nature of this claim because a

plain text reading of the Defendant’s concise statement oscillates between a purported challenge

16 to the sufficiency of the evidence and a challenge to the weight of the evidence. Challenges to

the weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are two distinct legal claims. See

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa, 308, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000), The Defendant does not

separate the issues for consideration but rather blends the claims together.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is when a defendant asserts that the

Commonwealth has failed to establish each material element of the crime charged. See

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000). In asserting a challenge to

the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must “specify the element or elements upon

which the evidence is insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super.

2015)(stating appellant’s claim that evidence was “not sufficient” fails “to specify the element

or elements upon which the evidence is insufficient”).

Whereas, a challenge based on the weight of the evidence is a claim that the fact-finder

reached a verdict not supported by the most persuasive evidence. See Commonwealth v. Brown,

538 Pa. 410, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994). A weight challenge is successful where

“notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them

or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny Justice.” .See Commonwealth v. •

Thompson, 648 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1994).

On the one hand, the Defendant uses the words “not sufficient” and asserts that the

Commonwealth foiled to present evidence identifying the Defendant as perpetrator of the crime.

See Concise Statement, 05/12/2025, 6. Identify of the perpetrator is an implicit element of

every crime. See Commonwealth v. Harris, 315 A.3d 26 (Pa, 2024) (“[i]t is generally true ‘that

a crime conceptually consists of three elements: 'First, the occurrence of the specific kind of

injury or loss ...; secondly,, somebody's criminality (in contrast, e.g., to accident) as the source of

17 the loss, — these two together involving the commission of a crime by somebody; and, thirdly,

• the accused's identity as the doer of this crime"’). A reading of the. defendant’s concise

statement in this mann er would classify the Defendant’s claim as a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence.

On the other hand, the Defendant goes farther than simply asserting the Commonwealth’s

evidence fails to identify the Defendant The Defendant also cites contradictory evidence

(Devonte Riedel’s testimony and lack of DNA evidence) and asserts the Commonwealth has not

met their burden of proof considering the contradictory evidence. This is more similar to a

weight of the evidence claim. Therefore, the Court will analyze the Defendant’s claim under

both a sufficiency of the evidence and a weight of the evidence analysis in order to address both

possible interpretations of the Defendant’s ambiguous claim. 4

In analyzing the sufficiency claim, the Defendant miscalegorizes both the evidentiary

standard and the facts. In order to sustain a conviction for first degree murder, the

Commonwealth must prove: (1) that the defendant acted with the specific intent to kill, (2) that

a human being was unlawfully killed, (3) that the person accused did the killing, and (4) that the

killing was done with deliberation. 18 Pa. C.S. § 2502(a); Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 691

A.2d 907, 903 (Pa. 1997), cert, denied 522 U.S. 936 (1997). The crime is established by

sufficient evidence when, ’’accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences

therefrom, upon which, if believed by the factfinder could properly have based its verdict, it is

sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime or

4 The Court recognizes that when there are two reasonable interpretations of the Defendant’s claim, it is

ambiguous. Ambiguous claims are waived for lack of specificity. See Pa. RA.P. 1925(b)(4) . In addition, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(ii) requires a concise statement to "concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for foe judge.” A 1925(b) statement which is. so “redundant, vague, incoherent, or confusing as to prevent foe lower court from engaging In a meaningful analysis , result in waiver of all claim presented," Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super^016)< The Defendant’s claims are therefore waived, Nevertheless, foe Court will address the merits of the Defendant’s possible claim.

18 crimes of which he has been convicted.” Commonwealth v. Hamm, 378 A.2d 1219, 1222

(Pa.1977).

The Defendant asserts the Commonwealth failed to present any direct evidence identifying

the Defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. Defendant ’s Concise Statement, 05/12/2025, 5.

However, the Commonwealth'does not need direct evidence to meet their burden. The

Commonwealth may use wholly circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden of showing the

accused intentionally killed the victim, and circumstantial evidence can itself be sufficient to

prove any or every element of the crime. Commonwealth, v. Perez, 93 A.3d 829 (Pa. 2014).

Importantly, the fact finder may infer that the custodian of a chiId"Victim is the perpetrator of

the crime when the child was in the custodian’s care when the injuries occurred:

where an adult is given sole custody of the child of tender years for a period of time and where during that time the child sustains injuries which may be caused by criminal agency, the finder of fact may examine any explanation offered and, if they find that explanation to be wanting, they may reject it and find the person having custody of the child responsible for the wounds. Commonwealth v. Meredith, 416 A.2d 481- (Pa. 1980).

Accepting as true all evidence offered by the Commonwealth, the victim was in the

Defendant’s custody and control when he was last seen alive on December 18, 2023, Caleigh

Gladfelter, the victim’s mother, was at work from 2 P.M. to 1 1 P.M, on December 18, 2023. 5

Before leaving for work, she testified to leaving the victim in the Defendant’s custody. Trial

Tr„ 02/10/2025, p. 67. Both Devonte Riedel and Misty Unangst, the Defendant’s housemates,

testified that it was a typical occurrence for the Defendant to be the only person to be in custody

and control of Glafelter’s children when Gladfelter was at work. Trial Th, 02/11/2025, p. 55;

5 The Commonwealth submitted Gladfelter’s timesheet from her employer to show she was at work from 2 P.M. to

11 .P.M. on December 18, 2023 . See Commonwealth ’S ExA

19 Trial Tr„ 02/1 1/2025, p. 206. That evening the Defendant sent multiple texts and pictures to

Gladfelter that showed the victim with the Defendant. Trial Tr^ 02/10/2025, pp. 83-84. Devonte

Riedel testified to last seeing the victim descend into the basement with the Defendant around

10:30 P.M. on December 18, 2023. Wal Tr.. 02/11/2025, p.60.

The Commonwealth also submitted evidence that the Defendant murdered the victim and

attempted to hide the crime. When Gladfelter came home from work around 11:30 P.M. on

December 18, 2023,. the Defendant texted her that he sent the victim to his cousin’s house but

never identified the cousin or provided further information about the child’s specific

whereabouts. Wal Tr.. 02/10/2025, pp. 88-92. Gladfelter testified that when she entered the

basement, she observed the Defendant doing laundry, an activity she had not observed him

perform prior to that night. Wal Tr., 02/10/2025, p. 93. The following day, both Misty Unangst

and Devonte Riedel testified that the Defendant told them he had given the * victim to a cousin in Erie. Wal Tr., 02/10/2025, p. 212; Wal Tr., 02/11/2025, p. 61.

On December 20, 2025, Oil City police officers found file victim’s naked corpse in a large

air mattress in the basement area near the Defendant’s bed. Wal Tr., 02/10/2025, p. 1 61 . Dr.

Vey testified that the victim died from injuries sustained from repeated blunt force trauma to the

head, chest, abdomen, and extremities delivered with a large amount of force. Wal Tr.,

02/1 1/2025, pp. 4-50; Commonwealth Ex. 29, 2/1 1/2025 . The autopsy report indicated that the

victim had 98 bruises and lacerations all over his body. Dr. Vey found the victim’s heart

lacerated, lungs ruptured, broken ribs, spleen lacerated, pancreas tom in two, kidney tom, and

the small intestine bruised among many other injuries. Id Dr.Vey also observed thermal

abrasions on.the victim’s buttocks indicative of a cigarette burn. Id. Dr. Vey testified that the

injuries sustained by the child-victim were consistent in severity with the types of injuries

20 suffered in a fatal car crash. Trial Tr„ 2/1 1/2025, p.43. Dr.Vey’s testified that the victim’s

injuries were consistent with deliberate and repeated strikes. Trial Tr., 2/1 1/2025, pp. 43-47.

When questioned by law enforcement, the Defendant offered inconsistent answers and non¬

sensical responses. Commonwealth's Ex. 36, The Defendant told law enforcement that he did

not take care of the children, never sent the victim to Erie, and was not at the house when

Gladfelter got home on December 18, 2023. Id, Upon an accusation that he killed the child by

law enforcement, the Defendant was silent for approximately thirty (30) seconds before denying

his involvement. 6See Commonwealth's Ex. 36., 00:38:27.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, a jury could

reasonably infer, the victim was in the Defendant’s care during the relevant time period, the

injuries were non-accidental, the Defendant murdered the victim, and then lied about it in

statements made to law enforcement and to file other witnesses. This evidence, even though

circumstantial, is enough for the Commonwealth to cany its burden in identifying the

Defendant as the perpetrator of this crime. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim is meritless.

In addressing the weight of the evidence claim, the weight of the evidence is exclusively

for the finder of fact to believe all, part, or none of the' evidence and to determine the credibility

of the witnesses. Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A-3d 868, 873 (Pa. Super. 201 1). A jury verdict

may only be reversed when it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

Id.

’ A defendants silence after an accusation of guilt is generally not admissible where the silenca occurred while the defendant is In police custody because a contrary policy would effectively vitiate a defendant constitutionally guaranteed right against self-incrimination. Commonwealth v. Dravecz, 227 A.2d 904 (Pa. 1967). However, this principal does not extend to tacit admissions where the defendant docs not remain silent but instead volunteers a response to police questioning. Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 549 Pa, 352, 386 (Pa. 1997). Here, the Dafeiulant was readily conversing with police, the Defendant was silent for approximately thirty (30) seconds before denying his .guilty. See.Commonwealth's JEx, 36., 00:38:27.

21 Here, the jury verdict is not so against the weight of the evidence that it “shocks one’s

sense ofjustice.” As stated previously, the victim was found deceased from repeated blunt force

trauma to the head, neck, face, abdomen, and extremities. In Dr.Vey’s expert opinion, the

victim’s injuries were consistent with deliberate and repeated strikes. The Defendant was given

custody of the child on the night of the murder. Multiple witnesses saw the two together on the

night of the murder. On the evening of December 1 8, 2025, the Defendant lied about the

whereabouts of the victim stating he was with his cousin. The victim was found in a large air

mattress bag in the same area as the Defendant’s bed. Defendant’s statements to law

enforcement were contradicted by his own text message statements and picture messages sent to

Caleigh Gladfelter. 7

The Defendant asserts that the jury’s verdict cannot be supported considering, inter alia,

Devonte. Riedel’s testimony where he Indicated he was unsure about the exact date, he observed

the Defendant and the victim descend the stairs into the basement. This misstates Riedel’s

testimony. Riedel testified to not seeing the victim child the day after the murder, which was

corroborated by the testimony of Misty Unanst and Caleigh Gladfelter. Riedel was unsure about

whether the night of the murder, December 18, 2025, was a Sunday or a Monday, not about the

date he observed the Defendant descend into.the basement with the victim:

ATTORNEY MISKO : You indicated that you saw Mr.Jackson going downstairs Monday, the 18‘\ with the two boys and that was the last time you had eyes on them watching them go down the stairs, so to speak? RIEDEL: > Yes, sit. ATTORNEY MISKO: Was that Sunday or Monday?

RIEDEL: It was Monday.

7 Defendant stipulated to the authenticity and accuracy of the messages prior to trial. The Defendant cannot now

argue he did not send the messages or that the message were not true. ATTORNEY MISKO; You are sure of that today?

RIEDEL: I’m positive. ATTORNEY MISKO: Is it your own recollection or maybe because had you talked to Misty about what was going on and maybe you said, yeah, it was Monday? RIEDEL: It was after I talked to Misty about it when we got home that night from being at the police, station. ATTORNEY MISKO: So, it really not from your memory. It’s kind of like Misty’s memory as well. Right? RIEDEL: Yeah. ATTORNEY MISKO: Because actually when you got interviewed you weren’t quite sure if It was Monday or Sunday was the last time, you’d seen Mr. Jackson with the boys. Isn’t that correct?

RIEDEL: Yes. Trial Tr., 02/11/2025, pp. 63-64. Regardless of Riedel’s memory of the events surrounding the

victim’s murder, the jury was able to believe or disbelieve his testimony in light of all the other

evidence presented.

This claim also fails to consider the testimony of Misty Unangst, Caliegh Gladfelter, or the

Defendant’s own statements, texts, and picture messages. The jury was free to reconcile

Riedel’s testimony with the other testimony provided at trial to reach a verdict.

The same is true in regards to the blonde hair found on a wooden objectnext to the location

of the victim’s body. The victim’s body was found in an air mattress bag that had been used for

laundry in the basement. Both the Defendant and' Gladfelter lived, slept, and did laundry in the

basement. Gladfelter, the victim, and his brother ell lived in the basement and had light colored I hair. Both children had longer hair when they began residing in Oil City and the Defendant had

cut their hair at an undetermined point after November 23, 2023, Trial Tr, 2/10/25, p, 65. The

presence of a light blonde hair is of little import considering the amount of people who were

present in that area at any given time. Furthermore, Commonwealth Exhibit 23 illustrates a

23 blonde hair on the floor in front of laundry where the victim’s hair was cut. No other evidence

was presented alleging that any other person committed the crime. The jury is free to weigh this

eyidence in light of the other evidence presented. Just because evidence may lend itself to an

alternative resolution, it does not mean that it is sb contradictory to warrant a reversal of the

• verdict. Therefore, the weight of the evidence does not contradict the verdict and the

Defendant’s claim is meritless.

3. Sufficiency of the Evidence for Count 2-Aggravated Assault

The Defendant asserts that the evidence presented in this case ia not sufficient to convict

the Defendant of aggravated assault in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2702(a)(9). The Defendant

claims that no direct evidence was presented at the time of trial that identified the Defendant as

the perpetrator of the crime. See Defendant’s Concise Statement, 5/12/2025, 17. To support his

claim, the Defendant asserts that Devonte Riedel’s testimony witnessing the Defendant and

victim descend together into the basement on the night of the murder is unreliable because on

cross examination he was unsure of what date he observed the two together. Id, Furthermore,

the Defendant presented evidence at trial that a blonde hair, not the Defendant’s black hair, was

found on a wooden object next to where the decedent’s body was located. Id.

As previously stated, the court struggles to parse out the nature of this claim because it

oscillates between a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and a challenge to the weight

of the evidence. The Court maintains that when a claim is subject to multiple interpretations it is

ambiguous and is waived for lack of specificity under Pa.R,A,P. 1925(B)(4). Further, each of

the Defendant’s issues raised on appeal impermissibly contains sub-issues. Pa.R.A.p.

1 925(b)(ii) requires a concise statement to “concisely identify each ruling or error that the

appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge.”

24 A 1925(b) statement which is so ‘‘redundant, vague, incoherent, or confusing as to prevent the

lower court from engaging in a meaningful analysis result in waiver of all claim presented.”

Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super.2016). Nevertheless, Court will analyze the

Defendant’s claim under both a sufficiency of the evidence and a weight of the evidence,

analysis in the. event the appellate court finds the claim is not waived.

In analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence claim for aggravated assault under 18 Pa.

C.S.A. § 2702 (a)(9), the Commonwealth must prove: (1) aperson attempts to cause or •

intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury, (2) the victim is a child less

than thirteen (13) years old, and (3) the defendant is over eighteen (18) years old. 18 Pa.C.S. §

2702(a)(9). In assessing the evidence presented,, circumstantial evidence can itself be sufficient

to prove any or every element of the crime. Commonwealth, v. Perez, 93 A.3d 829 (Pa. 2014).

Further, the jury may infer the custodial adult caused the injuries when the adult was given sole

custody of a child and during that time the child sustained non-accidental injuries. See

Commonwealth v. Meredith, 416 A.2d481 (Pa. 1980).

Here, the Defendant does not state a specific element of aggravated assault but rather

challenges the identity of the Defendant as perpetrator of this crime. In consideration of the

facts presented in the sufficiency analysis for First Degree Murder, the analysis of that evidence,

and all inferences that flow therefrom, the Court finds the evidence was sufficient to conclude

the Defendant was the perpetrator of the aggravated assault Further, the evidence, viewed in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, established the victim suffered significant blunt

force trauma resulting in serious bodily injury; the injuries were consistent with deliberate and

repeated strikes to his head, neck, face, abdomen, and extremities; and the Commonwealth

presented evidence that the Defendant was twenty-four years old and the victim was two (2)

25 years old at the time of the murder. A jury may reasonably infer from these facts that the

injuries were caused intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by the Defendant. Therefore,

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence is sufficient

to sustain the Defendant’s conviction of aggravated assault in violation of 18 Pa. C,S.A.§

2702(a)(9) and the Defendant’s claim is meritless.

In analyzing the Defendant’s claim under the weight of the evidence analyses, (he Court

incorporates the previous weight of the evidence analysis for First degree Murder and finds the

jury verdict was not so against the weight of the evidence that it “shocks one’s sense ofjustice.”

The Defendant’s evidence questioning the credibility of Devonte Riedel’s testimony and

pointing to a blonde hair near the victim’s body must be weighed against the evidence presented

by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth presented eyewitness testimony that the victim was

seen alive in the morning, testimony from Gladfelter, Riedel, and Unangst stating that the

Defendant was left in the care of the Defendant when Gladfelter was at work, Gladfelter’s time

card proving she was at work on December 1 8, 2023, texts and pictures from the Defendant

showing the victim was in his presence on the evening of December 18, 2023, and the

Defendant’s inconsistent statements about giving the victim to a cousin. The jury is free to

believe all, some of, or none of the testimony. Tills court cannot find that the jury verdict is

against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim is meritless.

4, Sufficiency of the Evidence for Count 3 - Concealment of the Whereabouts of a Child

The Defendant alleges that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was not

sufficient to convict the Defendant of Concealment of the whereabouts of a child in violation of

1 8 Pa. C.S.A. § 2909. See Concise Statement, 05/12/2025, f 8. Again, the court struggles to

parse out the nature of this claim because the Defendant states that the evidence is not sufficient

26 which implicates a sufficiency claim, but also states contradictory evidence which implicates a

weight of the evidence claim, The court maintains that when a claim is subject to two or more

reasonable interpretations It is ambiguous and is waived for lack of specificity under Pa.R.A.P.

1925(B)(4). Nevertheless, Court will analyze the Defendant’s claim under both a sufficiency of

the evidence and a weight of the evidence analysis in the event the appellate court finds the

claim is not waived.

In addressing the sufficiency of the evidence claim, the court finds this claim to be waived.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence needs

which the evidence is insufficient.” Commonwealth v. tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super,

2015); Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252,. 1257-1258 (Pa. Super. 2008). When a

1925(b) statement does not specify the allegedly unproven elements the sufficiency issue is

waived on'appeal. Tyack at 260. Here, the Defendant’s claim includes a general statement that

the evidence was "not sufficient.” 2?ee Concise Statement, 05/12/2025, 8. Unlike the

defendant’s other claims, this claim does not state that the evidence was insufficient to identify

the Defendant as the perpetrator, nor does it specify any element for which there is insufficient

evidence. Alone, this statement that the evidence was “not sufficient” fails to specify the

element or elements upon which the evidence is insufficient.” Id. Accordingly, this claim is

waived for failure to specify an element,

In the event foe court finds that the claim is not waived, the evidence was sufficient to

support the jury verdict. In order to be convicted of Concealment of the Whereabouts of a Child,

the Commonwealth must show: (1) the Defendant removed a child from his known place of

residence, (2) the child is under eighteen (18) years of age, and (3) the Defendant removed the

27 child with ths intent to conceal his whereabouts. A defendant can remove a child by personally

removing the child or by preventing the child from returning.

Here, the Commonwealth presented evidence that the Defendant encouraged Gladfelter to

remove the victim and prevented his return. Gladfelter testified that the victim had been staying

with his biological father in Fulton County. Trial 7k, 02/10/2025, p. 54. The victim was two (2)

years old at the lime of being removed from his father's custody. Gladfelter and the biological

father had been sharing custody of the victim and arranged for him to celebrate Thanksgiving

with Gladfelter and the Defendant at Gladfelter’s parent’s house. Id. Gladfelter testified that the

Defendant had convinced her to take the victim back to Venango County with him for an

indefinite period of time. Id at 55. Gladfelter received texts from the biological father and the

paternal side of the family but she never responded because “Tre [the Defendant] didn’t want

me to.” Id. at. 106-107. Gladfelter also testified that the Defendant engaged in manipulative

behavior like.beating her and keeping her car keys which prevented her from reporting. Id. at

pp. 51.-52; 68-69; 77-78. Therefore, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that the

defendant concealed the whereabouts of the victim from his biological father and the t defendant’s claim is without merit,

In analyzing the weight of the evidence claim, the court finds it is also waived. The

Defendant again points to the credibility of Devonte Riedel’s testimony and the blonde hair

present at the crime scene. However, neither of these assertions pertain to the concealment of

the whereabouts of the victim from the biological father. As stated above, the central question

for this crime is whether the child was removed from his place of residence and whether the

Defendant prevented his return. Riedel's testimony pertains to the victim being in the

Defendant’s presence on December 1 8, 2023 and the blonde hair pertains to the identity of the

28 victim’s murder, The Defendant’s contradictory evidence claim does not attack any element of

the crime. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim is without merit.

5. Sufficiency off the JEvidence for Count 5 - Abuse of Corpse

The Defendant alleges that die evidence presented by the Commonwealth was not

sufficient to convict the Defendant of Abuse of Corpse in violation of 18 Pa, C.S.A. § 5510. See

Cdncise Statement, 05/12/2025, U 9. The Defendant asserts that the Commonwealth presented

no direct evidence, eyewitness testimony, video evidence or admission that identifies the

Defendant as perpetrator of the crime, Id. To support his claim, the Defendant asserts that

Devonte Riedel’s testimony witnessing the Defendant and victim descend together into the

basement on the night of the murder is unreliable because on cross examination he was unsure

of what date he observed the two together. Id Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that a blonde

hair was found near the crime scene was found on a wooden object next to where the decedent’s

body was located, not the Defendant’s black hair. Id

Again, the court struggles to parse out the nature of this claim because the Defendant states

that the evidence is “not sufficient” and asserts the Commonwealth does not identify the

Defendant which both implicate a sufficiency claim but also states contradictory evidence

which implicates a weight of the evidence claim. The court maintains that when a claim is

subject to two or more reasonable interpretations it is ambiguous and is waived for lack of

specificity under Pa,RA..P. 1925 (B)(4). Nevertheless, Court will analyze the Defendant’s claim

yndar both a sufficiency of the evidence and a weight of the evidence analysis in the event die

appellate court finds the claim is not waived.

In analyzing the sufficiency claim, the court finds the Defendant’s claim to be meritless. In

order to be convicted of Abuse of a Corpse in violation of 18 Pa C.S.A. § 5510, the

29 Commonwealth must show that the Defendant treated the corpse of the victim in a way that he

knew would outrage ordinary family sensibilities. Here, the victim’s corpse was found in a large

bag located under a table in the basement near to where the Defendant slept. TWoZ Th.,

02/10/2025, p. 159. The bag was placed among numerous stacked items like decorations in the

basement Id. While there is no direct evidence identifying the Defendant as.perpetrator of this

crime, the Commonwealth does not need to present direct evidence to carry its burden. Hie

Commonwealth can carry its burden exclusively through circumstantial evidence.

Commonwealth v, Perez, 93 A.3d 829 (Pa. 2014).

Here, the Defendant does not state a specific element of abuse of a corpse, but rather

challenges the identity of the Defendant as perpetrator of this crime. In consideration of the

facts presented in the sufficiency analysis for First Degree Murder, the evidence was sufficient

to conclude the Defendant was the perpetrator of the abuse of a corpse. Viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury can infer the Defendant was the

perpetrator of this crime of first-degree murder, hid the victim’s body, made inconsistent

statements about caring for the child, made inconsistent statements about caring for the child on

the day of the homicide, made contradictory statements of the child’s whereabouts, and

concealed the evidence of the crime by washing the victim’s clothes. Therefore, taking the

Commonwealth’s evidence as true, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s

conviction of abuse of a corpse in violation of 1 8 Pa. C.S.A.§ 5510 and the Defendant’s claim is

meritless.

In analyzing the weight of the evidence, the weight of the evidence is exclusively for the

finder of fact to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the

witnesses. Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868, 873 (Pa. Super. 2011). A jury verdict may only

30 be reversed when it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense ofjustice. Id Here,

the jury verdict is not so against the weight of the evidence that it “shocks one’s sense of

justice.” As stated previously, the victim was found in a large bag in the basement near where

the Defendant slept, the Defendant was given custody of the child on the night of the murder,

multiple witnesses saw the two together on the night of the murder, the Defendant lied about the

whereabouts erf the child to Gladfelter, and made inconsistent statements to law enforcement.

The Defendant asserts that the jury’s verdict cannot be supported considering Riedel’s

testimony where he admitted to being unsure about the exact date, he observed the Defendant

and the victim descend Ihe stairs into the basement. Trial Tr. 2/1 1/2025,. pp. 63-64, This

misstates Riedel’s testimony. Riedel was unsure about whether the night of the murder,

December 18, 2025, was a Sunday or a Monday, not about the date he observed the Defendant

descend into the basement with the victim. Regardless of Riedel’s memory of the events

surrounding the victim’s murder, the jury was able to believe or disbelieve his testimony in light

of all the other evidence presented.

The same is true in regards to blonde hair found on a wooden object next to the location of

the victim’s body. The victim’s body was found in a large laundry bag in the basement. Both

the Defendant and Gladfelter lived, slept, and did laundiy in the basement. Gladfelter, the

victim, and his three (3) year old brother all lived in the basement and had light colored hair.

The presence of a light blonde hair is of little import considering the amount of people who

were present in that area on a daily basis. No other evidence was presented alleging that any

other person committed the crime. The jury is free to weigh this evidence in light of the other

evidence presented and just because evidence may lend itself to an alternative resolution, it does

31 not mean that it is so contradictory to. warrant a reversal of the verdict. Therefore, the weight of

the evidence does not contradict the verdict and the Defendant’s claim is meritless.

6. Sufficiency of the Evidence for Count 6 - Tampering with or Fabricating Physical

Evidence

The Defendant alleges.that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was not

sufficient to convict the Defendant of Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence in

violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A, § 4910(1). See Concise Statement, 05/12/2025, $ 9. The Defendant

asserts that no direct evidence was presented by the Commonwealth identifying the Defendant

as perpetrator of the crime. To support his claim, the Defendant asserts that Devonte Riedel’s

testimony is unreliable because on cross examination he was unsure of the date he observed the

two together. Id Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that a blonde hair was found next to where

the decedent’s body on a wooden object,, not the Defendant’s black hair. Id

■ The court struggles to parse cut the nature of this claim because the Defendant states that

the evidence is not sufficient which impticates.a sufficiency claim but also states contradictory

evidence which implicates a weight of the evidence claim. The court maintains that when a

claim is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations it is ambiguous and is waived for lack

of Specificity under Pa.R,A.P. 1 925(B)(4). Nevertheless, Court will analyze the Defendant's

claim under both a sufficiency of the evidence and a weight of the evidence analysis in the event

the appellate court finds the claim is not waived.

In addressing the sufficiency of the evidence claim, the Commonwealth must show: (1) the

Defendant believed an official investigation was pending or about to be instituted, (2) the

Defendant altered or concealed evidence, (3) the Defendant did so with the intent to impair its

availability to the investigation. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4910(1). In proving this crime, the

32 Commonwealth need not present direct evidence. The Commonwealth can cany its burden

exclusively through the use circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth. v. Perez, 93 A.3d 829 (Pa.

2014).

Here, the Defendant does not cite a specific element of tampering or fabricating physical

evidence but rather challenge the identity of the Defendant as the perpetrator of this crime. In

consideration of the facts as presented in the sufficiency analysis for First Degree Murder, the

jury could reasonably infer the Defendant hid the victim’s body and laundered the victim’s

clothes after brutally beating the minor to death. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim is meritless.

In analyzing the weight of the evidence, the finder of fact to is free believe all, part, or hone

of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Commonwealth v, Orr, 38

A.3d 868, 873 (Pa. Super. '20 1 1). A jury verdict may only be reversed when it is so contrary to

the evidence as to shock one’s sense ofjustice. Id Here, the jury verdict is not so against the

weight of the evidence that it “shocks one’s sense ofjustice.” As stated previously, the victim

was found in a large bag in the basement next to where the Defendant slept, the victim was

observed under the care, custody, and control of the Defendant on the night of his

disappearance, and the Defendant lied about the whereabouts of the child.

The Defendant asserts that the jury’s verdict cannot be supported considering Riedel’s

testimony where he admitted to being unsure about the exact date, he observed the Defendant

and the victim descend the stairs into the basement. Trial Tr, 2/11/2025, pp. 63-64. This

misstates Riedel’s testimony. Riedel was unsure about whether the night of the murder,

December 18, 2025, was a Sunday or a Monday, not about the date he observed the Defendant •

descend into the basement with the victim. Regardless of Riedel’s memory of the events

33 surrounding the victim’s murder, the jury was able to believe or disbelieve his testimony in light

The same is true in regards to blonde hair found on a wooden object next to the location of

the victim’s body. The victim's body was found in a large bag in the basement. Both the

Defendant and Gladfelter lived, slept, and did laundry in the basement. Gladfelter, th© victim,

and his three (3) year old brother all lived in the basement and had light colored hair. The

presence of a light blonde hair is of little import considering the amount of people who were

present in that area on a daily basis. No other evidence was presented alleging that any other

person committed the crime. The jury is free to weigh this evidence In light of the other

evidence presented. Just because evidence may lend itself to an alternative resolution, it does

not mean that it is so contradictory to warrant a reversal of the verdict. Therefore, the weight of

the evidence does not contradict the verdict and the Defendant’s claim is meritless.

in, CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that the Superior Court uphold

the Defendant’s convictions and affirm the March 31, 2025 judgement of sentence.

BY THE COURT,

MATHEW T. KIRTLANDH’resident Judge Cc: DA PD Tina Fryling, Esq. LE

34 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA SITTING AT PITTSBURGH

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. 487 WDA 2025

TREVAUGHN STRIBLING-JACKSON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that she is this date serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure:

D. Shawn White Personal service upon duly Venango County District Attorney authorized agent at office. Venango County Courthouse Franklin, PA 16323

TREVAUGHN STRIBLING-JACKSON First class mail, postage prepaid PA DOC, SMART COMMUNICATIONS

Date: October 2, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

Tina ling} I.D. No. 76520 AttorneKfor appellant