defendant waived claim in Pennsylvania

2018See also Commonwealth v. Peters, [] 373 A.2d 1055 ([Pa. ]1977) (defendant waived double jeopardy claim by failure to raise it prior to second trial).

2016He - 15 - J-S21014-16 cannot now argue that that procedure violated his double jeopardy rights. 2 See Commonwealth v. Peters, 373 A.2d 1055, 1057 (Pa. 1977) (holding that the failure to raise a double jeopardy claim prior to the commencement of the second trial waives that issue); see also Commonwealth v. Perillo, 626 A.2d 163 , 168 n.6 (Pa. Super. 1993) (noting that in Commonwealth v. Gilman, 401 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1979), our Supreme Court “held that a defendant waived his claim that retrial amounted to double jeopardy because he did not move to dismiss prior to retrial”).

2023See Groff, 548 A.2d at 1244 (concluding that pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 306 (now Rule 578), the defendant waived a challenge to the statute of limitations because he failed to raise the issue in a pretrial motion); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 578, cmt. (providing the types of relief that are appropriate for omnibus pretrial motions under Rule 578 and stating that “rule is not intended to limit other types of motions, oral or written, made pretrial or during trial[.] The earliest feasible submissions and rulings on such motions are encouraged.”); Darush, 459 A.2d at 730 n.4; Rossetti, 863 A.2d at 1190

2014See Groff, 548 A.2d at 1244 (concluding that pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 306 (now Rule 578), the defendant waived a challenge to the statute of limitations because he failed to raise the issue in a pretrial motion); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 578, cmt. (providing the types of relief that are appropriate for omnibus pretrial motions under Rule 578and stating that “rule is not intended to limit other types of motions, oral or written, made pretrial or during trial ….

2022In Smith, we addressed whether the defendant waived his challenge to the weight of the evidence where his counsel, at sentencing, stated: “Your Honor, first off, under Rule 607, I am going to make a motion for judgment of acquittal,” but then “specifically characterized his complaint as being that there ‘was insufficient evidence.’” Id. at 1027 (citation omitted).

2016It is well-established that a "challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is entirely distinct from a challenge to the weight of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Smith, 853 A.2d 1020, 1028 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2018In Commonwealth v. Gilman, [] 401 A.2d 335 ([Pa. ]1979), the [S]upreme [C]ourt held that a defendant waived his claim that retrial amounted to double jeopardy because he did not move to dismiss prior to retrial on a felony murder charge.

2016He - 15 - J-S21014-16 cannot now argue that that procedure violated his double jeopardy rights. 2 See Commonwealth v. Peters, 373 A.2d 1055, 1057 (Pa. 1977) (holding that the failure to raise a double jeopardy claim prior to the commencement of the second trial waives that issue); see also Commonwealth v. Perillo, 626 A.2d 163 , 168 n.6 (Pa. Super. 1993) (noting that in Commonwealth v. Gilman, 401 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1979), our Supreme Court “held that a defendant waived his claim that retrial amounted to double jeopardy because he did not move to dismiss prior to retrial”).

2026III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010) (finding the Appellant waived his void- for-vagueness claim); Commonwealth v. Diodoro, 970 A.2d 1100 , 1104 n.5 (Pa. 2009) (concluding the defendant waived his challenge to the statute prohibiting the possession of child pornography as unconstitutionally vague, because he failed to first raise the issue before trial court); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 124 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explaining that an ex post facto constitutional challenge presents a legal question that cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). - 10 - J-S45023-25 McNeil, 665 A.2d at 12

2026III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010) (finding the Appellant waived his void- for-vagueness claim); Commonwealth v. Diodoro, 970 A.2d 1100 , 1104 n.5 (Pa. 2009) (concluding the defendant waived his challenge to the statute prohibiting the possession of child pornography as unconstitutionally vague, because he failed to first raise the issue before trial court); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 124 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explaining that an ex post facto constitutional challenge presents a legal question that cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). - 10 - J-S45023-25 McNeil, 665 A.2d at 12

2025Specifically, this Court has found that a defendant ‘participates in -7- J-A14016-25 the merits of litigation’ by tendering “handwritten discovery responses bearing [the defendant’s] signature,” Sharpe, 206 A.3d at 1185 ; “filing an answer to [a] complaint[,]” Cinque, 585 A.2d at 491 ; or filing a notice of deposition, Ball v. Barber, 621 A.2d 156, 158 (Pa. Super. 1993).

2025Our courts have held that a defendant manifests the intent to submit to the court’s jurisdiction when the defendant takes “some action (beyond merely entering a written appearance) going to the merits of the case, which evidences an intent to forego objection to the defective service.” Sharpe v. McQuiller, 206 A.3d 1179, 1184 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted); see also id. at 1186-87 (holding that the defendant waived her claim regarding defective service when “she participated in the merits of the litigation”).

2025Our courts have held that a defendant manifests the intent to submit to the court’s jurisdiction when the defendant takes “some action (beyond merely entering a written appearance) going to the merits of the case, which evidences an intent to forego objection to the defective service.” Sharpe v. McQuiller, 206 A.3d 1179, 1184 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted); see also id. at 1186-87 (holding that the defendant waived her claim regarding defective service when “she participated in the merits of the litigation”).

2025See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”); see also Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137, 158-59 (Pa. 2013) (holding that the defendant waived his claim regarding attorney-client privilege by failing to raise it in the trial court and stating “that preservation of the specific argument in support of the ground for reversal is required for appellate review” (citation omitted)).

2024Lastly, this Court has explained that “[a] party who has acquiesced in an order or judgment will not later be heard to challenge it.” Miller v. Miller, 744 A.2d 778, 783 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted).

2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749 , 765 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding that the defendant waived his claim that the Commonwealth violated his right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions because although the defendant raised that issue in a pre-trial motion, he subsequently abandoned it and only pursued a claim that the Commonwealth had violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 600).

2023Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted and formatting altered); see also Commonwealth v. Ly, 980 A.2d 61, 90-91 (Pa. 2009) (concluding that the defendant waived his claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness because he failed to properly layer his claims regarding subsequent counsel's ineffectiveness).

2023Cf. Commonwealth v. Whanger, 30 A.3d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finding a defendant waived his claim that the language of a former SVP statute prohibited a post-sentence SVP hearing). -5- J-S12011-23 to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is an SVP.

2023Id. § 9799.24(e)(3).

2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bartee, 868 A.2d 1218 , 1221 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that when the defendant waived a challenge to the validity of a search warrant which he originally raised in his omnibus pretrial motion but subsequently withdrew at the suppression hearing).

2023Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted and formatting altered); see also Commonwealth v. Ly, 980 A.2d 61, 90-91 (Pa. 2009) (concluding that the defendant waived his claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness because he failed to properly layer his claims regarding subsequent counsel's ineffectiveness).

2022See Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692 (Pa.Super. 2001) (holding that a defendant waived claim concerning the “sentencing court’s alleged failure to state the reasons for [the defendant’s] sentence on the -6- J-S12040-22 record” by not raising the issue in the trial court); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

2021See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that issues not raised in the court below are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); see also Commonwealth v. Colon, 846 A.2d 747, 752-53 (Pa. Super. 2004) (holding that the defendant waived his claim regarding the trial court’s evidentiary ruling where he acceded to the ruling when it was made).

2016He - 15 - J-S21014-16 cannot now argue that that procedure violated his double jeopardy rights. 2 See Commonwealth v. Peters, 373 A.2d 1055, 1057 (Pa. 1977) (holding that the failure to raise a double jeopardy claim prior to the commencement of the second trial waives that issue); see also Commonwealth v. Perillo, 626 A.2d 163 , 168 n.6 (Pa. Super. 1993) (noting that in Commonwealth v. Gilman, 401 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1979), our Supreme Court “held that a defendant waived his claim that retrial amounted to double jeopardy because he did not move to dismiss prior to retrial”).

2015See Coleman, supra (concluding. that the defendant waived his claim that the evidence was insufficient in the municipal court for conviction where he failed to raise said claim in a certiorari petition in the trial court).