Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327

Commonwealth charged Kane with attempted burglary, attempted criminal trespass, terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person and criminal mischief.
Incident occurred March 5, 2008, when Kane pounded on victims' door in Scranton, threatened to cut the door with a chainsaw, and caused a gash in the door; victims fled.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania reviewed Kane's convictions on appeal from his judgment of sentence.
Appellant challenged sufficiency, weight of the evidence, several evidentiary rulings, and sentencing issues including discretionary aspects and merger.
The court emphasized strict adherence to appellate preservation and briefing rules and noted multiple preserved and waived issues.
Judgment of sentence was affirmed; Mundy concurred in the result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Commonwealth contends the evidence supported each element.	Kane argues the evidence was insufficient or improperly supporting elements.	Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions; no reversal warranted.
Weight of the evidence	Commonwealth asserts the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence.	Kane asserts the verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence.	No abuse of discretion; verdicts not shocking to conscience.
Admission of Fedrick and Pappas testimony; preservation and related evidentiary rulings	Commonwealth argues admissibility and rebuttal purposes were proper; preservation issues are addressed.	Kane contends improper admissibility and failure to preserve related issues.	Many subclaims waived for failure to preserve; court found no abuse in evidentiary balancing and scope of questioning.
Sentencing: discretionary aspects and merger	Commonwealth argues proper discretion and no improper factors.
Kane claims improper consideration of factors and potential merger of sentences.	Discretionary aspects lack substantial question; merger doctrine does not require relief; Baldwin applied.

Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review; weigh all evidence in favor of Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 2 A.3d 628 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for weight of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Flores, 921 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2007) (admissibility and procedure; importance of following appellate rules)
Commonwealth v. Boich, 982 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2009) (credibility and jury's role; appellate review of witness credibility)
Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2010) (trial court's evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion standard)
Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377 (Pa. Super. 2008) (substantial question/concerns for discretionary appeal; relation to sentencing guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (merger doctrine; statutory elements governing merger of sentences)
Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate briefing requirements; need for developed argument)