Com. v. Thomas, A.

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

AHMAD THOMAS :

:

Appellant : No. 3253 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 2, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002858-2020

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED AUGUST 24, 2026

Appellant Ahmad Thomas appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his convictions for third-degree murder and possession of

an instrument of crime (PIC).1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the weight

and sufficiency of the evidence. Following our review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the underlying facts of this case as follows:

In the evening hours of February 28, 2020, [responding to a report, police arrived at 2087 East Clementine Street. Upon arriving at the scene and entering 2087 East Clementine Street, police located two (2) deceased males inside the property. Police later identified the first male lying in the middle of the living room floor as Brandon White. Moving to the kitchen, police located a second male identified as Javon Skinner.] Both men were pronounced dead on scene at 6:33 p.m.

At approximately 7:00 p.m., Alexis Ellison[, the sole tenant of 2087 East Clementine Street,] was transported from her home to Philadelphia’s Homicide Unit for questioning. At the Homicide

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c) and 907(a), respectively.

Unit, Alexis Ellison consented to a search of her phone. Detectives were able to extract information from [Ellison’s] call log which detailed her incoming and outgoing calls on February 28, 2020. Reports showed [Ellison] received an incoming Facetime call at 6:26 p.m., from a number subscribed to Appellant. Three minutes later, at 6:26 p.m., [Ellison] placed a call to 911. Detectives subsequently recovered video surveillance from the area showing Appellant and his co-defendant, Anthony [Brown], entering 2087 East Clementine Street and exiting shortly after decedents are believed to have been shot and killed.

The investigation eventually led detectives to request a search warrant for Appellant’s home, wherein they discovered an abundant amount of live ammunition which matched the caliber of rounds recovered at the crime scene. Subsequently, detectives apprehended Appellant and brought him in for questioning, wherein he identified himself as the one individual seen throughout the surveillance footage. This included the footage which showed Appellant and his co-defendant, Anthony Brown, entering 2087 East Clementine Street. Appellant was subsequently arrested on February 28, 2020, and charged with inter alia, two (2) counts of murder, two (2) counts conspiracy to commit murder, two (2) counts firearms not to be carried without a license ,[2] two (2) counts carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia,[3] and two (2) counts [of PIC].

Trial Ct. Op., 6/30/25, at 1-3 (citations and footnotes omitted and some

formatting altered).

After a mistrial in September of 2022, Appellant’s second trial

commenced on March 11, 2024. On March 21, 2024, the jury convicted

Appellant of third-degree murder and PIC.4 On August 2, 2024, the trial court

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.

4 Appellant was acquitted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-

degree murder, conspiracy to commit third-degree murder, and two counts of (Footnote Continued Next Page)

3

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of eighteen to forty years’

incarceration. On August 7, 2024, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion

challenging the weight of the evidence, which the trial court denied on

November 6, 2024. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant

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

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Did the Commonwealth’s evidence fail to prove each and every element of Third-Degree Murder and Possession of an instrument of Crime?

2. Did the Court err in denying the defendant’s Post Sentence Motion arguing that the Jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Appellant’s Brief at 1.5

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his first issue, Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to

sustain his convictions for third-degree murder and PIC. Appellant’s Brief, at

21. Specifically, Appellant claims the Commonwealth “fail[ed] to prove each

and every element of the charges[,]” and “the video compilation never showed

____________________________________________

firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia. See Verdict Sheet, 3/21/24.

5 We note that in his Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant raised an additional

claim concerning the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate Appellant’s case with his co-defendant’s case. However, Appellant has not presented any argument in support of this claim in his appellate brief. Therefore, it is abandoned for purposes of appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a); see also Commonwealth v. Felder, 247 A.3d 14, 20 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that “an issue identified on appeal but not developed in the appellant’s brief is abandoned and, therefore, waived” (citation and emphasis omitted)).

4

[Appellant’s] entry into the residence.” See Appellant’s Brief, at 1, 26.

Appellant argues the video evidence, as supported by the testimony of

Detective Ortiz, did not clearly show Appellant enter the scene of the crime.

See id. at 19, 24-25. Moreover, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth’s

witness, Alexis Ellison, had no personal connection to Appellant, but instead

with co-defendant and one of the decedents. See id. at 11-13, 24-26.

Before reaching the merits of this claim, we must address whether the

claim is preserved for our review. See Commonwealth v. Edmondson, 718

A.2d 751, 753 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate courts may raise the

issue of waiver sua sponte). “[T]he applicability of waiver principles . . . is a

question of law, over which our standard of review is de novo and our scope

of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa.

2018) (citations omitted).

The Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appellant’s 1925(b)

statement to “concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert

with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge” to avoid

waiver. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii), (vii). Further, we have previously explained

that

[i]f an appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient. This Court can then analyze the element or elements on appeal. Where a 1925(b) statement does not specify the allegedly unproven elements, the sufficiency issue is waived on appeal.

5

Commonwealth v. Arnold, 284 A.3d 1262, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(brackets, ellipses, and citations omitted). “Such specificity is of particular

importance in cases where [an appellant] was convicted of multiple crimes,

each of which contains elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 231 A.3d 1011, 1016 (Pa.

Super. 2020). “Even if the trial court correctly guesses the issue [the

appellant] raises on appeal and writes an on appeal and writes an opinion

pursuant to that supposition[,] the issues are still waived.” Commonwealth

v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020) (brackets and citation

omitted).

Here, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement failed to identify the crimes

or elements for which the evidence was allegedly insufficient. See 1925(b)

Statement, 12/24/24, at 1-2 (stating that “[t]he evidence was insufficient to

support the jury’s verdict for the [same] reasons listed [in support of his claim

challenging the weight of the evidence]”); see also Arnold, 284 A.3d at

1279. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s sufficiency claim waived on appeal. 6

See id.; Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 1106.

____________________________________________

6 In any event, Appellant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence

actually raise challenges to the weight of the evidence. See Appellant’s Brief at 11-13, 19. 24-25; see also Commonwealth v. Watkins, 315 A.3d 145, 152 (Pa. Super. 2024) (stating arguments that “would have us accept [Appellant’s] alternate explanations of the circumstances at issue” go to the weight of the evidence); Commonwealth v. Bloomer, 327 A.3d 1282, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2024) (stating that “[a] sufficiency of the evidence review does not include an assessment of credibility of testimony offered by the (Footnote Continued Next Page)

6

Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.

Weight of the Evidence

Next, Appellant argues that the verdict is against the weight of the

evidence.7 See Appellant’s Brief, at 21-22. Specifically, Appellant claims the

verdicts were against the weight of the evidence as “there was only

speculation as to [Appellant’s] alleged role in the offense.” Id. at 29.

Appellant argues that the video evidence and Detective Ortiz’s testimony do

not conclusively place Appellant inside 2087 East Clementine Street and, and

instead, only places him on the stairs of the residence. Id. at 24-25, 30.

Additionally, Appellant argues that he had no connection with Commonwealth

witness Alexis Ellison and had no motive to kill the decedents. Id. at 11-13,

24-26, 29-30. Appellant argues that the evidence presented at trial

connecting Appellant to the decedent only established that there was a three

____________________________________________

Commonwealth. Instead, such arguments are more properly characterized as challenges to [the] weight of evidence.”). It is well established that a sufficiency argument that goes purely to the weight of the evidence “necessarily fails.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 323 A.3d 807, 816 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted).

7 It is well established that, in order to preserve a weight of the evidence claim

for appeal, a defendant must raise it before the trial court in a motion for a new trial, either prior to sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). “Failure to properly preserve the [weight of the evidence] claim will result in waiver.” Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

Here, our review of the record reflects that Appellant raised his weight of the evidence challenge before the trial court in a timely post-sentence motion. See Post-Sentence Motion, 8/7/24. Accordingly, Appellant preserved his weight claim for our review. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A).

7

week old connection at the time of the murders and did not establish a

connection with Alexis Ellison. Id. at 26, 29-30.

In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we are governed

by the following standard of review:

A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that 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.

An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court. Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa. Super. 2017)

(citations omitted).

As this Court has repeatedly stated,

[t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none, or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Resolving contradictory testimony and questions of credibility are matters for the finder of fact. It is well-settled that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact.

* * *

Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of

8

the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

Furthermore, in order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.

Commonwealth v. Spence, 290 A.3d 301, 311 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citations

omitted and formatting altered).

Here, the trial court addressed Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim

as follows:

The Commonwealth presented ample evidence at Appellant’s trial which led the jury to reasonably infer that Appellant killed Brandon White with malice and possessed an instrument of crime with the intent to use it criminally.

Dr. Simon testified that Brandon White died from multiple gunshot wounds and ruled the manner of death as homicide. N.T. 3/13/24, at 38-39, 44. Philadelphia Ballistics expert, Officer Paul Ward, and Philadelphia Homicide Detective, Orlando Ortiz, provided testimony supporting Dr. Simon’s conclusion. Officer Ward testified that of the ballistic evidence collected from the scene included fired cartridge casings (FCCs) fired from a .40 caliber Smith and Weston firearm and a 9-millimeter Luger firearm. N.T. 3/14/24, at 66. Microscopic comparison confirmed all sixteen (16) fired cartridge casings recovered were all determined to be fired from the same .40 caliber Smith and Weston firearm and the seven (7) fired cartridge casings were determined to all be fired from the same 9millimeter Luger firearm. N.T. 3/14/24, at 66. Ballistic evidence Dr. Simon collected from Javon Skinner’s clothing and Brandon White’s head during her autopsies was also determined to be fired from a .40 caliber Smith and Weston firearm. N.T. 3/14/24, at 6364. The two models of cartridge casings recovered from inside 2087 East Clementine Street confirm Detective Ortiz’s theory that there were two shooters inside on February 28, 2020. Furthermore, police also recovered identical .40 caliber and (9) millimeter bullets from Appellant’s residence at 2109 East Clearfield Street, where Appellant and Anthony Brown were seen on surveillance camera entering minutes before heading to 2087 East Clementine Street, where

9

Brandon White and Javon Skinner [were] subsequently killed. N.T. 3/18/24, at 74.

The Commonwealth also presented video surveillance evidence substantiating the fact that the murders were committed by two individuals inside the home. Footage recovered from nearby locations showed two individuals, one being Appellant, who identified himself in the video to police, and the other being Anthony Brown, who was identified by Philadelphia Police Officer, Malik Carr, ascending the steps of 2087 East Clementine Street where they entered the home. N.T. 3/18/24, at 69, 84-87, 128, 132. Detective Ortiz testified that the murder occurred at some time between 3:51 p.m. and 4:01 p.m. on February 28, 2020. N.T. 3/19/24, at 12. The time of the murders was affirmed from surveillance footage that showed Appellant and Anthony Brown fading off camera after they ascended the stairs of 2087 East Clementine Street, and by evidence that Brandon White made his last outgoing call from his cell phone at 3:51 p.m. Subsequently, neither Brandon White nor Javon Skinner were seen on video, nor were they seen exiting 2087 East Clementine Street any time after 3:51p.m. N.T. 3/18/24, at 113-114, 135.

The Commonwealth presented compelling testimony and evidence supporting the jury’s verdict finding Appellant guilty of murder of the third degree and PIC. Evidence presented and weighted together clearly demonstrated that Appellant killed Brandon White with malice by firing either the .40 caliber S&W or the 9mm Luger at Brandon White and Javon Skinner with his uncle, Anthony Brown. Regardless of Appellant’s alternative theories presented in his post-sentence motion, a jury weighed the evidence and logically concluded that Appellant was in possession of an instrument of crime and employed a gun criminally in carrying out the murder of Brandon White. Further, the connection between the evidence and the jury’s conclusion was not so “tenuous, vague and uncertain” that the jury’s verdict shocked the conscience of this court. Accordingly, this court properly exercised its discretion in denying Appellant’s post-sentence motions. Appellant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence is therefore without merit, and no relief is due.

Trial Ct. Op., 6/30/25, at 8-10 (some formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by

the trial court. See Windslowe, 158 A.3d at 712. The main thrust of

10

Appellant’s weight of the evidence argument asks this Court to reweigh the

evidence, which is beyond this Court’s purview. See Commonwealth v.

Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072, 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that credibility

determinations are “solely within the province of the [factfinder]” (citation

omitted)). Further, the jury, as factfinder, was free to determine the

credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence. See Spence, 290 A.3d

at 311. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Appellant’s weight claim and no relief is due.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 8/24/2026