March 4, 2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
RAMONA FLORIO Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of March 28, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0001019-2013
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON AND PLATT, JJ. [*]
Appellant, Ramona Florio, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on March 28, 2013. We affirm.
The trial court has ably explained the underlying facts of this case. In the trial court's words:
On August 18, 2012, [Appellant] called [R.B.] and told [R.B.] that [Appellant] had a .25 caliber handgun and was going to kill [R.B.]. Appellant told [R.B.] that she was "a dead b*tch." Appellant and [R.B.], who are cousins, had been previously engaged in a hostile relationship, as [R.B.] had filed and was granted numerous [protection from abuse ("PFA")] orders against Appellant.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/13, at 1-2.
Following Appellant's bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of terroristic threats and, on March 28, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a one-year term of reporting probation.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and the trial court ordered Appellant to file and serve a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement declares:
The witness' credibility was called into question. Therefore, Appellant raises a weight of the evidence claim.
Appellant's Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/2/13, at 1.
Appellant now raises the following claim on appeal:
The evidence at trial was insufficient to convict on the charge of terroristic threats. At trial, the Commonwealth has the burden of proving every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at bar, the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant conveyed a threat with the intent to terrorize.
Appellant's Brief at 7.
Appellant's sufficiency of the evidence claim is waived, as Appellant did not include the claim in her court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) ("[i]ssues not included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement . . . are waived"); Commonwealth v. Davis, 799 A.2d 860, 864 (Pa.Super. 2002) ("[w]eight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are discrete inquiries").
Judgment of sentence affirmed.