Com. v. Siminick, G., 320 WDA 2016

Glenn W. Siminick was charged in two separate misdemeanor/summary trespass cases: alleged presence in Buhl Park on Sept. 10, 2014 (416-2015) and Oct. 6, 2014 (415-2015).
At the morning bench trial (Oct. 6 incident) the Commonwealth’s hearsay proffer about a prior court admonition was excluded; after other testimony the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for acquittal, finding the Commonwealth failed to prove the required actual communication of notice.
At the afternoon bench trial (Sept. 10 incident) the Commonwealth presented witnesses who testified Appellant had been told in June 2013 and by subsequent park notice processes that he was banned; the court denied a collateral-estoppel-based motion and found Appellant guilty of summary defiant trespass.
Post-trial motions were denied; Appellant was sentenced to 90 days unsupervised probation plus costs and appealed.
Appellant argued (1) collateral estoppel barred prosecution on the Sept. 10 incident because the court previously found lack of proof of notice on Oct. 6, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict. The sufficiency claim was found waived on appeal for failure to preserve it in the Rule 1925(b) statement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel barred the second trespass prosecution	Commonwealth: not barred; Sept. 10 incident is separate and different proof may exist	Siminick: prior acquittal on Oct. 6 precludes relitigation of notice element for Sept. 10	Denied — acquittal on Oct. 6 did not definitively decide notice for Sept. 10 and the first ruling was limited to lack of proof about the manner of communication
Whether evidence was insufficient to support conviction	Commonwealth: presented testimony showing prior notice/bans and reports establishing knowledge	Siminick: (raised on appeal) evidence did not prove requisite notice or presence beyond reasonable doubt	Waived on appeal — insufficiency argument not preserved in Rule 1925(b); court did not reach merits

Preacher v. Commonwealth, 827 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appeal from denial of post-trial motion is procedurally improper; appeal lies from judgment of sentence)
Barger v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for pure legal questions is de novo)
Holder v. Commonwealth, 805 A.2d 499 (Pa. 2002) (outlines Pennsylvania collateral estoppel/issue-preclusion test in criminal cases)
States v. Commonwealth, 938 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2007) (discussion of when an acquittal can collaterally estop the Commonwealth)
Zimmerman v. Commonwealth, 445 A.2d 92 (Pa. 1982) (acquittal that necessarily decides an issue can bar subsequent prosecution on related charges)
Buffington v. Commonwealth, 828 A.2d 1024 (Pa. 2003) (acquittal may not preclude subsequent prosecution when it could have been grounded on other bases)
Phillips v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (issues not raised in lower court are waived on appeal; Rule 1925(b) preservation required)
Castillo v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (issues not included in a Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)