J-A24011-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NAIKIR GREEN : : Appellant : No. 440 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009481-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 05, 2024 Naikir Green appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his conviction of one count of possession of firearm prohibited. 1 After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the factual history as follows: Philadelphia Police Officer Robert Lamanna testified [that] on October 14, 2020[,] he . . . was following a series of Instagram posts relating to two recent shooting victims when he came across an account identified as “NA.VITO” with stories depicting [Green] in the area of the King of Prussia Mall, seated inside of a vehicle brandishing a firearm. The video was played in court and depicted [Green] with a white shark mask covering the bottom portion of his face [and] reach[ing] under his seat and pull[ing] out a firearm. Officer Lamanna recorded the videos[.]

Detective James Brady . . . received the recording of [] “NA.VITO” . . . and testified [the individual was] Green. Detective Brady subsequently determined [Green’s] criminal history prohibited ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).

J-A24011-24

him from possessing a firearm and located [the] most recent address for [Green’s] PENNDOT license information. On October 26, 2020, [police] executed a search warrant at [Green]’s address[.]

Following a knock and announce, police made entry and were directed to the basement level area that was converted into a bedroom. There they found the following personal articles: an American Airlines boarding pass in the name [of] Naikir Green, photographs of [Green], mail from probation addressed to [] Green reflecting the [same] address [as contained in the search warrant], and a laptop computer on top of the bed with the name Naikir Green on the screen. There was also a shark design facemask hanging on the wall that appeared identical to the mask worn by [Green] in the Instagram video. A sneaker box was found on the floor with a gray and black Polymer 80 .9-millimeter firearm[], with a 30-round extended magazine, containing 22 live .9-millimeter rounds.

The parties stipulated that the firearm was operable and that [Green] had a disqualifying conviction prohibiting him from possessing a firearm.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/28/24, at 2-3 (some quotations and citations omitted).

Green was charged, inter alia, with the above-mentioned offense.

Green proceeded to a non-jury trial, after which the trial court convicted Green of the above-mentioned offense. The remaining charges were nolle prossed.

The trial court deferred sentencing and ordered the preparation of a pre- sentence investigation report. On January 4, 2024, the trial court sentenced Green to 3½ to 7 years’ incarceration.

Green filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Green now raises the following claim for our review: “Whether the verdict was based

-2- J-A24011-24

upon insufficient evidence as a matter of law and thus, whether a judgment of acquittal should have been awarded?” Brief for Appellant, at 5.

Green has waived his sufficiency challenge for failing to adequately raise it in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (“The [s]tatement shall concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.”). Here, Green’s Rule 1925(b) statement includes the following claim “Whether the trial court erred in rendering a finding of guilty when the evidence was not sufficient?” Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 2/21/24, at 1. Green failed to identify which elements of his conviction he challenges. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257-58 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Rule 1925(b) requires appellant preserve sufficiency issues by specifying which convictions and which element or elements challenged). Consequently, Green’s sufficiency challenge has been waived.2 Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 Moreover, even if Green had not waived this claim, we would conclude that his challenge lacks merit where the trial court found that the circumstantial evidence supported a finding that Green constructively possessed the firearm.

See Trial Court Opinion, 2/28/24, at 6-7.

-3- J-A24011-24

Date: 12/5/2024

-4-