J. S33011/14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : SANTO MANCUSO, : No. 1345 EDA 2013 : Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 22, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0003330-2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 21, 2014 Appellant challenges the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction for third degree murder and possessing instruments of crime.1 Finding no error, we affirm.

Appellant’s convictions arose from a fight that erupted between members of two families during a New Year’s Eve street celebration on Jessup Street in Philadelphia on December 31, 2011. During the brawl, Jimmy Testa punched appellant twice. Appellant fell down, but got back up, producing a knife. Jimmy Testa retreated and appellant stabbed 77-year-old Joseph Testa, who was standing nearby, twice in the chest. Joseph Testa later died of his wounds.

18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c) and 907(a), respectively.

J. S33011/14

On February 22, 2013, appellant was found guilty of the aforementioned offenses following jury trial. Because he had previously been convicted of third degree murder, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a concurrent term of 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment for possessing instruments of crime. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: I. Is the appellant entitled to an arrest of judgment with respect to his convictions for murder of the third degree and possessing instruments of crime since the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts of guilt as the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proving the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

II. Is the appellant entitled to a new trial since the verdicts of guilt as to murder of the third degree and possessing instruments of crime are against the weight of the evidence?

III. Is the appellant entitled to a new trial as a result of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defense witness Connie Immendorf as to the fact that she did not give a statement to defense counsel and provided no statement to the Commonwealth?

IV. Is the appellant entitled to a new trial as a result of misconduct committed by the prosecutor in his summation?

V. Is the appellant entitled to a new trial as a result of the trial court instructing the jury as to flight?

Appellant’s brief at 5.

-2- J. S33011/14

We find no error with the trial court’s analysis. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it is our determination that there is no merit to the questions raised on appeal. The trial court’s meticulous, 23-page opinion, filed on December 17, 2013, comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. We will adopt it as our own and affirm on that basis.2 Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary Date: 10/21/2014

Appellant’s second issue questions the weight of the evidence to support his convictions. We note that “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.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013). As to the weight claim, we have reviewed the trial court’s analysis of the weight issue and find no abuse of discretion.

-3- Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM Circulated 09/23/2014 03:58 PM