Com. v. Cobb, C.
2285 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 11, 2016Background
- On Nov. 22, 2012, Antonio Smith was assaulted on Palm Street (Philadelphia): punched, pinned by two men, and struck multiple times in the left face/eye area with a 2x4, causing lacerations and concussion; $100 and his cell phone were taken.
- Smith identified Calvin S. Cobb as one assailant in a statement to police ~2 hours after the assault and at a preliminary hearing; medical records corroborated head injury/facial contusion.
- Cobb’s trial presented an alibi witness (Aleah Wilson) and evidence impeaching her credibility; Cobb also signed one notarized statement but disputed the other.
- Non-jury trial resulted in convictions for Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Receiving Stolen Property, PIC, Simple Assault, and REAP; sentences imposed in the mitigated range for robbery/aggravated assault and probation for other counts.
- Post-sentence motion challenging sufficiency and weight was filed and denied by operation of law; Cobb appealed raising insufficiency, weight, and discretionary sentencing claims.
- Superior Court affirmed, finding Cobb’s Rule 1925(b) statement too vague (waiver of sufficiency and weight claims) and his discretionary-sentencing claim waived for failure to preserve at sentencing or in post-sentence proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions | Commonwealth: evidence (victim ID, medical records, property taken) supports convictions | Cobb: evidence was insufficient to prove elements of offenses | Waived — Cobb’s Rule 1925(b) statement failed to specify which elements/crimes were challenged, preventing meaningful review |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: verdicts supported by credible evidence | Cobb: verdicts were against the weight of the evidence (general claim) | Waived — Cobb’s Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague to identify which verdicts were challenged or why |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing | Commonwealth: sentence within statutory range and properly considered | Cobb: sentence excessive; court failed to consider his background, youth, rehabilitative potential | Waived — Cobb did not object at sentencing or preserve the claim in a timely post-sentence motion; thus not preserved for appeal |
| Whether trial court adequately addressed claims in Rule 1925(a) opinion | Commonwealth: trial court addressed relevant offenses and found evidence sufficient | Cobb: appellate briefing lacks focused discussion of elements for each offense | Court found trial court hampered by vague statement; appellate review precluded on sufficiency/weight grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) purpose—aid trial judges in focusing appellate issues)
- In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 2000) (concise statements must adequately identify issues)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (vague 1925(b) is functionally equivalent to no statement)
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency challenges require specificity in 1925(b))
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (importance of specificity when multiple offenses with distinct elements are charged)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (waiver for vague concise statements on sufficiency/weight)
- Commonwealth v. Seibert, 799 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2002) (waiver of weight claim where 1925(b) merely asserted verdict was against weight)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test for addressing discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discretionary-sentencing objections generally waived if not raised at sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (issues cannot be raised for first time on appeal)