Com. v. Bonds, K. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J.S45033/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. KEENAN BONDS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1989 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 6, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-51-CR-0014071-2011 BEFORE: BOWES, WECHT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JULY 17, 2014 Appellant, Keenan Bonds, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his convictions for possession of firearms by a prohibited person,1 carrying a firearm without a license,2 and carrying a firearm in public.3 Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm. * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1). 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1). 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. J. S45033/14 See Trial Ct. Op., 11/12/13, at 1-5. After a non-jury trial, Appellant was convicted on December 3, 2012. On January 18, 2013, the court sentenced Appellant to motion for reconsideration of sentence nunc pro tunc, which did not challenge the weight of the evidence. The court held a hearing on June 6, 2013, at which Appellant did not raise a weight claim. Subsequently, the Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant raises the following issues: evidence? Did the trial necessary? court issue a greater sentence than Initially, we note that a challenge to the weight of the evidence Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). This Court Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1191 (Pa. 1994) (citation omitted). We only review whether the trial court abused its discretion when it evaluated the challenge. Id. (limiting review of weight of evidence to whether trial court abused -2- J. S45033/14 discretion and not assessing credibility of witnesses). For these reasons, a challenge to the weight of evidence may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Id.; see also Pa.R.A.P. 607(a). Thus, if the issue is not raised with the trial court initially, it is waived. Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009). Instantly, Appellant did not challenge the weight of the evidence before the trial court. Accordingly, he has waived this claim. See id. his sentence: To be reviewed on the merits, a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence must raise a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate. A substantial question is raised when the appellant advances s Court determines whether an appellant has raised a substantial question by examination of the appellant's concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal, which must be included in the appellant's brief, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(f). If a Rule 2119(f) statement is not included in the appellant's brief and the appellee objects to the omission, then this Court is claim. Commonwealth v. Faulk, 928 A.2d 1061, 1071-72 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Instantly, Appellant has not included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief, and the Commonwealth has objected. -3- Accordingly, J. S45033/14 See id. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of sentence. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/17/2014 -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
