Com. v. Onesko, B.
675 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- On Oct. 7, 2016, appellant Brian Onesko allegedly forced entry into the Mid‑Towne Café, assaulted 80‑year‑old owner Frank Softa, took his wallet (ID, cards, ≈$15), and fled. Softa and a witness identified Onesko as the assailant.
- Softa required stitches for a cut hand and chiropractic treatment for back injuries; police were called and Softa identified Onesko at the scene and in a photo lineup.
- A jury convicted Onesko of two counts of robbery, criminal trespass (surreptitious entry), simple assault, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and summary harassment.
- On May 1, 2017, the court sentenced Onesko to 3½ to 7 years’ imprisonment for burglary (one count) and entered judgment of sentence. Onesko timely appealed and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
- Onesko raised two appellate issues: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) trial court’s refusal to give a requested identification jury instruction (Suggested Std. Jury Instr. 4.07A).
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding both issues waived and, alternatively, without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Commonwealth: evidence (victim and witness IDs, injuries, property taken) proved crimes beyond a reasonable doubt | Onesko: evidence insufficient, identifications contradictory (generally challenged) | Waived for failure to specify elements in Rule 1925(b); claim frivolous on merits given consistent IDs and testimony |
| Trial court refused requested ID instruction (S.S.J.I. 4.07A) | Commonwealth: no relief; record is incomplete and no prejudice shown | Onesko: court erred by not giving instruction addressing identification accuracy | Waived for incomplete certified record (jury charge not in transcript) and procedural shortcomings; no prejudice shown even if reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 1925(b) must specify sufficiency grounds or claim waived)
- Commonwealth v. Grays, 167 A.3d 793 (Pa. Super. 2017) (finder of fact may credit all, part, or none of testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 904 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing refusal to give requested jury instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 151 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellant must ensure certified record adequate for review)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (absence of adequate record forecloses appellate relief)
- Commonwealth v. Irby, 700 A.2d 463 (Pa. Super. 1997) (undeveloped arguments are waived)
- Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016) (Act 192 held void under single‑subject rule; noted but inapplicable here)