J-S32045-25
2025 PA Super 271
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JARREN S. WALKER :
:
Appellant : No. 289 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 10, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-CR-0000368-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 09, 2025
Jarren S. Walker appeals from the December 10, 2024 aggregate
judgment of sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
imposed after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, aggravated
assault, burglary, robbery, criminal trespass, and five counts of criminal
conspiracy.1 After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:
On Monday, May 8, 2019, shortly after 10 p.m., police
were summoned to 10 Birchwood Road, Wyomissing,
Berks County, Pennsylvania, to investigate a homeinvasion robbery in which Nail Salamov (“Mr.
Salamov”) had been shot. Mr. Salamov was the
individual who phoned 911 to report the incident and
he did briefly speak with the police before being
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 2702(a)(1), 3502(a)(1)(i), 3701(a)(1)(i),
3503(a)(1)(ii), and 903(a)(1), respectively.
J-S32045-25
transported to Reading Hospital. While being treated
at the hospital, Mr. Salamov succumbed to his
injuries.
Prior to being transported to the hospital, Mr. Salamov
conveyed to the police that two men (unknown to
him) had entered his home and forced the door of his
bedroom open (where Mr. Salamov had retired for the
evening). One of the invaders sprayed Mr. Salamov
with mace. Mr. Salamov struggled with the two
individuals, and during the struggle he was shot in the
torso. Mr. Salamov provided a basic description of the
two invaders as being male with dark skin
complexions, one of which had a dreadlock hairstyle.
Neil Hoffman, M.D., qualified as an expert in the field
of forensic pathology, testified that an autopsy of Mr.
Salamov confirmed he died as a result of a single
gunshot wound to the trunk of the body. Mr.
Salamov’s death was ruled a homicide, with the cause
of death being a gunshot wound.
Police investigators obtained a search warrant for
service upon Google asking for information on any
devices captured within the geographic property
confines of 10 Birchwood Road during a narrow
window of time leading up to and shortly after the
home invasion. As a result of that warrant, one device
was discovered as having been at or near the location
at the time of the home invasion — a cellular
telephone purportedly owned by Appellant with an
email account of “[email protected]” and an
assigned phone number of “484-219-7538.”
Jurors heard testimony that investigators were able to
connect the phone number in question to Appellant
through information obtained through a warrant
showing he was the account holder for the associated
cellphone number. Investigators secured various
photos of Appellant during their investigation,
including one posted to Instagram on May 6, 2019, in
which Appellant had a dreadlock hairstyle.
Investigators, utilizing Google location history for the
phone, were able to place it at 117 Walnut Street,
-2-
J-S32045-25
Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania, a few days prior
to the home invasion. The jury heard that address was
a location associated with Appellant. The jury also
heard testimony that the device was recorded to be at
or near the local Social Security office at a time when
Appellant was listed as signing into the visitor’s log for
the office, thereby further associating Appellant with
the phone/account in question.
Prosecutors presented the testimony of Noel Rivera
(“Mr. Rivera”), who was currently being held in the
Berks County Jail on unrelated drug charges. Mr.
Rivera testified that his mother dated Appellant from
2012 until Appellant was arrested for the murder in
2021. Mr. Rivera further testified Appellant admitted
to him he was part of the home invasion that resulted
in the death of Mr. Salamov.
Trial court opinion, 5/5/25 at 3-4 (footnote and headings omitted).
On September 13, 2024, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion to
suppress electronic evidence seized pursuant to June 19, 2019 geofence2
____________________________________________
2 We note that,
[un]like a warrant authorizing surveillance of a known suspect,
geofencing is a technique law enforcement has increasingly
utilized when the crime location is known but the identities of
suspects are not. Thus, geofence warrants effectively work in
reverse from traditional search warrants. In requesting a geofence
warrant, law enforcement simply specifies a location and period of
time, and, after judicial approval, companies conduct sweeping
searches of their location databases and provide a list of cell
phones and affiliated users found at or near a specific area during
a given timeframe, both defined by law enforcement.
United States v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817, 822 (5th Cir. 2024) (quotation marks,
brackets, and citations omitted), cert. denied, __ S.Ct. __,
2025 WL 3131804
(U.S. November 10, 2025).
-3-
J-S32045-25
warrant signed by Berks County Court of Common Pleas Judge Paul M. Yatron.
This warrant directed Google to disclose certain location history information
for devices that connected to its services from a specific geographic area
corresponding to the property at 10 Birchwood Drive, where the homicide took
place, and during the specific time window of 30 minutes before Salamov
called 911. The suppression court held a hearing on Appellant’s suppression
motion on September 27, 2024, at the conclusion of which the court denied
the motion without prejudice.
Thereafter, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on October 15, 2024.
Following a six-day trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of second-degree
murder, aggravated assault, burglary, robbery, criminal trespass, and five
counts of criminal conspiracy on October 22, 2024. As noted, on December
10, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant filed a timely post-
sentence motion that was denied by the trial court on February 13, 2025. This
timely appeal followed on March 3, 2025.3
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s
motion to suppress the geofence warrants and
all the evidence derived therefrom?
____________________________________________
3 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-4-
J-S32045-25
2. Was the evidence as to each element of the
offense of murder in the second degree
insufficient as a matter of law?
Appellant’s brief at 9 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress the geofence warrants and all the evidence derived therefrom. Id.
at 15-28.
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a denial of a
suppression motion is well settled.
[Our] standard of review in addressing a challenge to
the denial of a suppression motion is limited to
determining whether the suppression court's factual
findings are supported by the record and whether the
legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.
Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the
suppression court, we may consider only the evidence
of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence
for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read
in the context of the record as a whole. Where the
suppression court's factual findings are supported by
the record, [the appellate court is] bound by [those]
findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal
conclusions are erroneous.
Commonwealth v. Dewald, 317 A.3d 1020, 1030 (Pa.Super. 2024)
(citations omitted), appeal denied,
333 A.3d 647 (Pa. 2025).
“[I]t is within the suppression court’s sole province as factfinder to pass
on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.
The suppression court is free to believe all, some or none of the evidence
presented at the suppression hearing.” Commonwealth v. Byrd, 185 A.3d
1015, 1019 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).
-5-
J-S32045-25
Prior to any discussion of the merits of Appellant’s first claim, we must
determine whether the record is sufficiently complete to enable our review.
Appellant’s claim requires consideration of the testimony presented during the
September 27, 2024 suppression hearing. An examination of the certified
record indicates that on April 29, 2025, Appellant filed a request for transcripts
from his October 15-22, 2024 jury trial and December 10, 2024 sentencing.
Appellant, however, failed to ensure that the notes of testimony from the
September 27, 2024 suppression hearing were transcribed nor made part of
the certified record. See “Motion for Transcripts,” 4/29/25 at 1.
This court has long recognized that “[w]hen the appellant ... fails to
conform to the requirements of [Pa.R.A.P.] 1911 [relating to transcript
requests], any claims that cannot be resolved in the absence of the necessary
transcript or transcripts must be deemed waived for the purpose of appellate
review.” Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super. 2006)
(citation omitted), appeal denied,
916 A.2d 632 (Pa. 2007). It is an
appellant’s responsibility to make certain that the certified record contains all
items necessary to ensure that this court is able to review his claims. See
Commonwealth v. B.D.G.,
959 A.2d 362, 372 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc).
This court has stated:
It is black letter law in this jurisdiction that an
appellate court cannot consider anything which is not
part of the record in the case. It is also well-settled in
this jurisdiction that it is Appellant’s responsibility to
supply this Court with a complete record for purposes
of review. A failure by appellant to insure that the
-6-
J-S32045-25
original record certified for appeal contains sufficient
information to conduct a proper review constitutes
waiver of the issue sought to be examined.
Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d 514, 524-525 (Pa.Super. 2007)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied,
940 A.2d
363 (Pa. 2008). As the suppression hearing transcript is necessary to conduct
our appellate review, we find Appellant’s first issue is waived.
Appellant next contends that the Commonwealth presented insufficient
evidence to sustain his conviction for second-degree murder.4 Appellant’s
brief at 29-34.
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence is well settled.
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at
trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom,
when viewed in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the
conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is
sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find
every element of the crime has been established
beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the
evidence claim must fail.
The evidence established at trial need not preclude
every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is
free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence
presented. It is not within the province of this Court
to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment
____________________________________________
4 Notably, Appellant does not specifically challenge whether the
Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for
aggravated assault, burglary, robbery, criminal trespass, or criminal
conspiracy. Accordingly, we will limit our analysis to his second-degree
murder conviction.
-7-
J-S32045-25
for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth’s
burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence
and any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be
resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so
weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no
probability of fact can be drawn from the combined
circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Cahill, 324 A.3d 516, 526 (Pa.Super. 2024) (citations
omitted).
Second-degree murder, or felony murder, is a homicide committed
“while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the
perpetration of a felony.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b). Section 2502 of the
Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines the “perpetration of a felony” as “[t]he act
of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission of,
or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit
robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson,
burglary or kidnapping.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(d).
Preliminarily, we must determine whether Appellant has properly
preserved his sufficiency claim for appellate review. Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(b) provides, inter alia, that “[i]ssues not included
in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this
paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)(4)(vii). It is well settled
that,
[i]n order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule
1925(b) statement must state with specificity
the element or elements upon which the
-8-
J-S32045-25
appellant alleges that the evidence was
insufficient. Such specificity is of particular
importance in cases where, as here, the appellant was
convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains
numerous elements that the Commonwealth must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added); see also
Commonwealth v. LeClair,
236 A.3d 71, 76 (Pa.Super. 2020) (same),
appeal denied,
244 A.3d 1222 (Pa. 2021).
Here, our review establishes that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement
fails to specifically identify any of the elements of second-degree murder that
the Commonwealth allegedly failed to prove. On the contrary, Appellant
presented the following bald, “catch-all” sufficiency argument in his Rule
1925(b) statement:
Whether the evidence was insufficient as a matter of
law as to each element of the offense of Murder of the
Second Degree.
Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 4/28/25 at 1.
Accordingly, because Appellant has failed to identify the specific
elements of second-degree murder that he is challenging on appeal, we could
find his sufficiency claim waived.
In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we agree with the trial court that there
was ample evidence to support the jury’s determination that Appellant was
guilty of second-degree murder. Our review of the record establishes that –
-9-
J-S32045-25
based on the testimony from law enforcement and their conversation with
Salamov before he succumbed to his injuries, Appellant’s own social media
posts, and the testimony of his former cellmate, Noel Rivera, that Appellant
had confessed the crime to him – there was sufficient evidence that Appellant
or his co-conspirator shot and killed Salamov during the course of a home
invasion robbery. Additionally, the record demonstrates that the electronic
evidence seized from the geofence warrants placed Appellant’s phone in the
home of Salamov during the time that the crime was committed, via his email
address and phone number registered with Google.
As the trial court recognized in its opinion,
The jury was presented with evidence that Mr.
Salamov was shot in his home and died as a result of
that gunshot wound. The jury heard that Mr. Salamov
himself, prior to dying, told the police two individuals
entered his home, forced their way into his bedroom,
and fought with him. There is no question predicate
information to find that a Murder in the Second Degree
occurred. . . . Regarding the identification of the
perpetrator, the jury heard from police investigators
that Mr. Salamov’s description of one of the assailants
matched Appellant’s physical description. The jury
heard that investigators were able to trace a mobile
phone registered to the Appellant to the time and
place of the murder. The jury heard from investigators
that they were able to put the location of that phone
in proximity of the Appellant on other occasions and
in other locations within a few days of the murder.
The jury also heard from Mr. Rivera that the Appellant
admitted to having been involved in the home
invasion and murder.
Trial court opinion, 5/5/25 at 9.
- 10 -
J-S32045-25
Based on all of the foregoing, Appellant’s sufficiency claim warrants no
relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s December 10, 2024 judgment
of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/09/2025
- 11 -
