addressed claim in Pennsylvania

2026See Capital Care Corp. v. Hunt, 847 A.2d 75, 84 (Pa. Super. 2004) (declining to find waiver where a party failed to move for a directed verdict, sought JNOV in a post-trial motion, and the trial court addressed the claim as presented in the post-trial motion).

2026See Capital Care Corp. v. Hunt, 847 A.2d 75, 84 (Pa. Super. 2004) (declining to find waiver where a party failed to move for a directed verdict, sought [JNOV] in a post-trial motion, and the trial court addressed the claim as presented in the post-trial motion).

2017Prothonotary Date: 2/24/2017 ____________________________________________ 7 We note that while Thomas did include a weight of the evidence challenge in his court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court addressed the claim in its opinion, Thomas’s weight claim is not preserved “in the absence of an earlier motion.” See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1111 (2010). - 14 -

2017Judge Jenkins did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. ____________________________________________ 7 We note that while Gerald did include a weight of the evidence challenge in his court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court addressed the claim in its opinion, Gerald’s weight claim is not preserved “in the absence of an earlier motion.” See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1111 (2010). - 14 - J-S90005-16 Judgment Entered.

2016Further, we note the fact that the trial court addressed this claim is of no moment; “[f]ailure to properly preserve the claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court addresses the issue in its opinion.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting Lofton, supra, 57 A.3d at 1273 (citation omitted).9 Because we conclude Williams has failed to preserve any issues for our review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

2016As this Court, in Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa. Super. 2014), explained: [A] weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a post-sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.

2017This Court addressed such a claim in Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa.Super. 2001), where, relying upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Flores–Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), we held: [C]ounsel has a constitutionally-imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing.

2016This Court addressed such a claim in Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2001).

2017Commonwealth v. Stiles, 143 A.3d 968, 980 (Pa.Super. 2016) (“[A] defendant must present his challenge to the weight of the evidence to the trial court for a review in the first instance.”).

2017Commonwealth v. Stiles, 143 A.3d 968, 980 (Pa.Super. 2016) (“[A] defendant must present his challenge to the weight of the evidence to the trial court for a review in the first instance.”).

2003In its decision, the Court addressed the factors to be considered in determining an appropriate sanction for failure to preserve evidence: “(1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party, and (3) the availability of a lesser sanction that will protect the opposing party’s rights and deter future similar conduct.” Id. at 250 , 710 A.2d at 27 (adopting the test of the Third Circuit in Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3rd Cir.1994)).

2003In its decision, the Court addressed the factors to be considered in determining an appropriate sanction for failure to preserve evidence: “(1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party, and (3) the availability of a lesser sanction that will protect the opposing party’s rights and deter future similar conduct.” Id. at 250 , 710 A.2d at 27 (adopting the test of the Third Circuit in Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3rd Cir.1994)).

2017Prothonotary Date: 2/24/2017 ____________________________________________ 7 We note that while Thomas did include a weight of the evidence challenge in his court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court addressed the claim in its opinion, Thomas’s weight claim is not preserved “in the absence of an earlier motion.” See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1111 (2010). - 14 -

2017Judge Jenkins did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. ____________________________________________ 7 We note that while Gerald did include a weight of the evidence challenge in his court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court addressed the claim in its opinion, Gerald’s weight claim is not preserved “in the absence of an earlier motion.” See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1111 (2010). - 14 - J-S90005-16 Judgment Entered.

2023To the extent Appellant complains the court should not have imposed the current sentence consecutive to another sentence Appellant was serving on a separate docket in Blair County, this claim likewise affords Appellant no relief.4 See Austin, supra. Following our independent review ____________________________________________ 4 The trial court addressed this claim, along with any claim that Appellant’s charges in Cambia County should have been tried together with his charges in Blair County, as follows: (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 12 - J-S36019-22 of the record, we agree with counsel that

2014The trial court addressed this claim as follows: The court could impose separate sentences on these offenses, because the crimes did not merge. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § crimes merge for sentencing purposes unless the crimes arise from a single criminal act and all of the statutory elements of one offense are included in the statutory elements of the other sentencing court discretion to impose its sentences concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2026See Quiles, 619 A.2d at 294 .

2026Accord Munoz v. Children’s Hosp. of Phila., No. 1388 EDA 2024, unpublished memorandum at 17 n.13 (Pa. Super. filed May 27, 2025) (declining to overlook grounds for waiver of JNOV even though the trial court addressed the claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion); see also Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (providing unpublished non-precedential memorandum decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value). 13 “Whether an incorrect legal standard was applied is a question of law, and thus our standard of review is de novo.” C.G. v. J.H., 172 A.3d 43, 52 (Pa. Super. 2017)

2026Wag-Myr Woodlands, 197 A.3d at 1250 n.10; see also Scott, 271 A.3d at 903 n.4 (same).

2025The crime of defiant trespass thus includes an element of intent or mens rea.” Commonwealth v. Namack, 663 A.2d 191, 194 (Pa. Super. 1995) (emphasis in original). -5- J-S38007-24 The trial court addressed the claim as follows: [O] February 8, 2022, around four o’clock in the morning, Officer Elijah Brown of the Upper Darby Township Police Department was dispatched to a call for the ongoing problem of a trespasser sleeping in the stairwell of the apartment building.

2025See Commonwealth v. Armstead, 305 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. 1973). 5 The Armstead Court, after defining the issue before it in terms of possession, 5 The opinion does not provide a date for the infraction.

2025Most importantly, the trial court addressed the claim on the merits. -8- J-S08034-25 Commonwealth v. Shackelford, 293 A.3d 692, 698 (Pa. Super. 2023), appeal denied, 313 A.3d 150 (Pa. 2024) (“Our review of a challenge to a search warrant based on an affidavit of probable cause is limited to the information within the four corners of the affidavit”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023See Palm, supra. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

2021See Commonwealth v. Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064, 1070 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

2021See id. (stating that the “failure to satisfy any ____________________________________________ 12 The PCRA court discussed Appellant’s claim that the cell phone data obtained from T-Mobile was not admissible and noted that this Court addressed this claim in Appellant’s direct appeal.

2021See PCRA Ct. Op., 5/19/20, at 3, 5-6 (citing Gibbs, 2018 WL 1516366 ). - 15 - J-A21024-21 prong of the ineffectiveness test requires rejection of th[at] claim”); see also Wiley, 966 A.2d at 1157 (stating that we may affirm the denial of Appellant’s PCRA petition on any grounds).

2021See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that the argument shall include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”); Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775, 781 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that when an appellant cites not authority to support an argument, “this Court is inclined to believe there is none.” (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) and (b)). 12 Hassel’s Statement of Questions Involved also indicates his intention to challenge his convictions at Count 8 (indecent assault) and Count 9 (COM).

2020However, because Appellant did raise a punitive damages argument in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court addressed the claim in its opinion, we decline to find that issue waived.13 A finder of fact may award punitive damages when “the plaintiff has established that the defendant ‘acted in an outrageous fashion’ due to either an evil motive or in ‘reckless indifference to the rights of others.’” Scampone v. Grane Healthcare Co., 11 A.3d 967, 991 (Pa. Super. 2010), aff'd in part ____________________________________________ granting Appellees’ motion in limine, and review the cour

2020See Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682, 690 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court reviews trial court’s grant or denial of motion in limine for abuse of discretion). 13 As for Appellant’s argument concerning the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, our review of the record reveals Appellant did not raise such a claim in her complaint or at any time before the trial court.