Com. v. Comer, E., Com. v. Comer, E. No. 1520 MDA 2016

In December 2011 appellant Emma Comer’s eight-year-old son was struck by a vehicle; Comer submitted claims to Donegal Insurance for the child’s injuries and, later, a personal lost-wages claim for $160,700.00.
Comer provided Donegal a letter purporting to be from her former employer (CDC Transportation, LLC) supporting the wage-loss amount; Donegal’s adjuster found anomalies in the letter (no letterhead, 4‑digit ZIP, spelling/grammar issues, dated earlier than when submitted).
Two men whose names appeared on the letter, Steven Watts and Cleyton Decarvalho, testified they did not author or authorize the letter and denied that the wage figure reflected actual payments to Comer.
Following a jury trial Comer was convicted of Insurance Fraud (18 Pa.C.S.A. §4117(a)(2)) and Attempted Theft by Deception (18 Pa.C.S.A. §§901, 3922(a)(1)). She did not file a post‑sentence motion; sentenced to 1–23 months plus probation.
On appeal Comer argued the evidence was insufficient to prove she knowingly submitted a fraudulent document (and also referenced weight of the evidence); the Commonwealth argued the sufficiency issue was waived because Comer’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement did not preserve it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove attempted theft by deception and insurance fraud	Comer: evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt she created or knowingly submitted a fraudulent document or had intent to defraud	Commonwealth: Comer waived sufficiency claim by failing to specify challenged elements in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement	Waived — Appellant failed to preserve a sufficiency challenge in the Rule 1925(b) statement, so appellate review is precluded
Preservation of weight-of-evidence claim	Comer: weight of evidence insufficient to show she manufactured the document (raised in 1925(b) in general terms)	Commonwealth: weight claim must be preserved via post-sentence motion or oral motion before sentencing	Waived — Comer did not file a post-sentence motion or raise weight claim properly before sentencing, so claim is forfeited
Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement	Comer: sought appellate review on sufficiency despite vague 1925(b) statements	Commonwealth/trial court: Rule 1925(b) requires specificity (identify elements not proven)	Affirmed — courts enforce Rule 1925(b) waiver doctrine; vague or weight-focused statements do not preserve sufficiency challenges

Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (appellants must comply with trial court order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement to preserve issues)
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (explaining necessity of Rule 1925(b) compliance for appellate preservation)
Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. 2016) (distinguishing weight-of-evidence claims from sufficiency challenges)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sufficiency claim waived where 1925(b) statement failed to specify elements challenged)
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (importance of specificity when multiple convictions with distinct elements are involved)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 51 A.3d 237 (Pa. Super. en banc 2012) (finding waiver for issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement)
Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237 (Pa. Super. 2010) (1925(b) must specify elements when challenging sufficiency)
Commonwealth v. Ford, 141 A.3d 547 (Pa. Super. 2016) (weight claim must be preserved in post‑sentence motion or orally before sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to preserve weight claim results in waiver even if trial court addresses it)