COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERICK DANIEL THOMPSON
No. 54 MDA 2026
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JULY 10, 2026
J-S21009-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 19, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001460-2024
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
Erick Daniel Thompson appeals from the amended judgment of sentence of nine and one-half to twenty years in prison followed by three years of probation entered upon his jury convictions for rape and related offenses. We affirm.
We glean the following from the record. The victim, S.S., had previously been in a relationship with Appellant, which produced a child. At the time of the offenses, thе two were no longer romantically involved but shared custody of their one-year-old child. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on October 3, 2024, Appellant arrived at S.S.‘s home in anticipation of a custodial visit the following day. He had requested to spend the night before the visit because he arrived late from Maryland. S.S. agreed and informed Appellant he could sleep upstairs and she would sleep on the couch.
Police arrived and interviewed S.S. about what happened. During her subsequent sexual assault examination, Appellant repeatedly called her but she did not answer. The following morning, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Nathan Klinger cоntacted Appellant. During an interview over the phone, Appellant claimed that the intercourse had been consensual and the 911 recording captured S.S.‘s statements while he attempted to give her a hug.
The jury found Appellant guilty as charged. Sentencing was deferred for an evaluation by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board. Appellant was found not to be a sexually violent predator. The court originally sentenced him on December 11, 2025, to the above term of incarceration for his rape conviction. His sentence was amended on December 19, 2025, to add the consecutive probationary period. The other charges merged for sentencing purposes.1 Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with the mandates of
Appellant‘s question poses a sufficiency challenge, our consideration of which is governed by the following principles:
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from thаt viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is sufficient to establish all the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court, however, may not weigh the evidence and substitute our own judgment for that of the fact-finder. We also note that the fact-finder is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence presented to it. The question of whether reasonable doubt of guilt exists is one for the fact-finder, unless the evidence be so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn.
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713 (Pa.Super. 2003) (cleaned up).
Despite being convicted of four crimes, each of which required proof of multiple elements, Appellant did not specify in his Rule 1925(b) statement the crime or the element that he believed the Commonwealth failed to establish. This error is fatal to his sufficiency challenge:
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 496 (Pa.Super. 2020) (cleaned up). As such, Appellant has waived any sufficiency issue by failing to preserve it with any specificity in his concise statement. Id.
Our review does not end there. Notwithstanding Appellant‘s statement of questions, his argument clarifies that he does not actually challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. To explain, we reproduce his single-paragraph argument in its entirety:
It is the position of [Appellant] that the Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence, as matter of law, to аllow the case to proceed to a jury. Due to the various inconsistencies throughout the testimony of S.S. that were pointed out by Appellant during his testimony at trial, Appellant‘s position is that the testimony of S.S. is too inconsistent and outrageous to be relied upon by the jury. While it is generally in the purview of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness at trial, in this particular case Appellant argues the credibility of the complaining witness presented by the Commonwealth was too inconsistent and contradictory to be believed. Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993). Therefore, the trial court should not have allowed the case to even proceed to the jury. Therefore, Appellant is requesting this Honorable Court to overturn his conviction and grant him a new trial.
Appellant‘s brief at 10 (cleaned up, unnecessary prepositions omitted).
In Karkaria, our Supreme Court reiterated:
We have, however, made exception to the general rule that the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts where the testimony is so inherently unreliable that a verdict based upon it could amount to no more than surmise or conjecture.
Traditionally under our system of jurisprudence, issues of credibility are left to the trier of fact for resolution.
This concept, however, must be distinguished from an equally fundamental principle that a verdict of guilt may not be based upon surmise or conjecture. Following this principle, courts of this jurisdiction have recognized that where evidence offered to support a verdict of guilt is so unreliable and/or contradiсtory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, a jury may not be permitted to return such a finding.
Karkaria, 625 A.2d at 1170 (cleaned up).
The Karkaria exception is simply not applicable here. First, Appellant has wholly failed to argue how S.S.‘s testimony was so unreliable that it could not support a guilty verdict. Moreover, our independent review of her testimony bears out that it was internally consistent and sufficient to establish Appellant‘s guilt without needing to resort to surmise or conjecture. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 181 A.3d 1168, 1186 (Pa.Super. 2018) (distinguishing the facts of Karkaria, wherein “the Commonwealth‘s case was based upon thе testimony of a witness whose testimony was so inconsistent as to be completely irreconcilable, and the finder of fact would have had to guess which version of the story to believe“).
Although couched as a Karkaria-type challenge, based upon the relief sought and his limited argument, Appellant actually attacks the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. Thus, our review is guided by the following legal tenets:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence prеsented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial
court‘s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons fоr granting or denying a new trial is the lower court‘s conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
Commonwealth v. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 414 (Pa.Super. 2019) (cleaned up).
Importantly, “a challenge to the weight of the evidence must first be raised in the trial court in order for it to be the subject of appellate review.” Wilson, 825 A.2d at 714 (cleaned up); see also
In sum, Appellant has waived both his purported sufficiency and weight challenges by failing to properly preserve them in, respectively, a Rule 1925(b) statement and motion for a new trial. Even if we could ignore these omissions in order to reach the merits of either claim, we would still find waiver due to his underdeveloped argumеnt. See Commonwealth v. Deible, 300 A.3d 1025, 1035 (Pa.Super. 2023) (reiterating that “when an appellant‘s argument is underdeveloped, we may not supply it with a better one” and will instead find waiver (cleaned up)). Having no preserved issue or developed argument to review, we affirm Appellant‘s judgment of sentence.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/10/2026