Com. v. Dennis, R., Com. v. Dennis, R. No. 3122 EDA 2015

On Nov. 7, 2011, Philadelphia officers pursued a minivan after a radio call of a person with a gun; Richard Dennis was a rear passenger who police observed stuffing a handgun between the seats. A loaded .45 revolver was recovered and a blue Safariland bulletproof vest was observed next to where Dennis had been sitting.
Dennis was charged with possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying firearms on public streets/public property; he chose a bifurcated jury trial and was convicted on all counts.
Sentencing (Apr. 30, 2015): consecutive terms totaling 9 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Post-sentence motions raised (among other things) challenges to admission of evidence relating to the bulletproof vest and a second firearm, alleged improper judicial comment/answer to a jury question, and sufficiency/weight of the evidence; those motions were denied by operation of law and Dennis appealed.
The Superior Court evaluated preservation under the contemporaneous-objection rule and the adequacy of Dennis’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement and concluded many claims were waived for appellate review.

Issue	Dennis's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Preservation of trial objections (timely objection requirement)	Post-sentence motion preserved claims about the vest, second gun, and judge’s jury answer despite no trial objection	Failure to contemporaneously object at trial waives the claims; post-sentence motion cannot cure waiver	Waived — contemporaneous objection required; post-sentence motion did not preserve these issues
Admission of testimony/evidence about bulletproof vest and second firearm	Admission was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; should warrant new trial	Dennis did not object on these specific grounds at trial, so appellate review is waived	Waived for failure to raise contemporaneous, specific objections; not reviewed on merits
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence was insufficient to support convictions	Evidence proved possession and related offenses; but Commonwealth also argues Dennis failed to preserve specificity in Rule 1925(b)	Waived — Dennis’s Rule 1925(b) statement was boilerplate and failed to identify specific elements, so sufficiency claim not preserved
Weight of the evidence	Verdict was against weight of the evidence	Weight claim is waived because the 1925(b) statement was conclusory and non-specific	Waived — conclusory weight claim in 1925(b) forfeited appellate review

Commonwealth v. Tha, 64 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to raise contemporaneous objection waives evidentiary claim)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (preservation required to challenge jury instruction)
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (purpose of Rule 1925 and need for an adequate concise statement)
In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 2000) (vague concise statements impede trial court’s ability to address issues)
Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (a concise statement too vague is the functional equivalent of none)
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (specificity required in Rule 1925(b) to preserve sufficiency claims)
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (same principle for sufficiency preservation)
Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussing Rule 1925’s role in appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Seibert, 799 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2002) (boilerplate weight claims in 1925(b) result in waiver)

Outcome: Judgment of sentence affirmed.