Full Opinion

J-S20010-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WAYNE WINSTON : : Appellant : No. 1657 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 7, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001149-2023 BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J. MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2026 Appellant Wayne Winston appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions following a bench trial of one count each of aggravated assault, persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person.1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the admission of video evidence, and alleges that the trial court did not adequately consider all of the relevant sentencing factors. We affirm. The trial court set forth the following factual and procedural history: On November 27, 2022, Appellant entered the Junior Food Market located at the intersection of 52nd Street and Arch Street in the city and county of Philadelphia. Appellant was playing [on] ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a), 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108, 2701(a), and 2705, respectively. J-S20010-26 gambling machines at the back of the store when Sean McMillan entered and engaged Appellant in conversation. Following Appellant and McMillan’s verbal exchange, both parties drew firearms and McMillan fired towards Appellant. Appellant and McMillan exchanged gunfire and they fled from the store and Appellant was struck by a bullet in his buttocks. Appellant was transported to the hospital for his injures and subsequently charged with aggravated assault, possession of firearm[s] prohibited, firearms not to be carried without [a] license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, possession of an instrument of crime with intent, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. On August 12, 2024, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a waiver trial before the Hon. Judge Tamika Washington. [The] Commonwealth called Philadelphia Police Detective Matthew Swan as its first witness. Detective Swan testified that on November 27, 2022, he was working as a detective for the Shooting Investigation Group when he was called to investigate a shooting at the intersection of 52 nd Street and Arch Street . . . Detective Swan received notification of the shooting between 1:45 P.M. and 2:00 P.M. and arrived at the scene at approximately 2:30 P.M. The shooting scene was in the area surrounding Junior Food Market. Detective Swan photographed the scene in thirty-five (35) photographs which were marked by [the] Commonwealth as exhibits “C-4.1” through “C-4.35.” Commonwealth exhibit[s] “C- 4.1” and “C-4.2” depicted the storefront of Junior Food Market. Commonwealth exhibits “C-4.4[”] and “C-4.5” depicted a fired cartridge casing and a placard marked “17.” Commonwealth exhibits “C-4.6” through “C-4.14” depicted the interior of Junior Food Market. Commonwealth exhibits “C-4.8” through “C-4.14” were images of fired cartridge casings and projectiles found in the store along with corresponding placards. Commonwealth exhibits “C-4.16” through “C-4.35” captured the numbered placards and fired cartridge casings found by police outside of Junior Food Market. . . . Detective Swan testified that three (3) 80-caliber fired cartridge casings, seven (7) 40-caliber fired cartridge casings[,] and five (5) copper projectiles were recovered by police and marked on a Philadelphia Police property receipt. . . . * * * -2- J-S20010-26 [The] Commonwealth called Philadelphia Police Detective Ryan Moore as its second witness. Detective Moore testified that he went to the crime scene with Detective Michael Hardcastle on the day following the shooting to recover surveillance video from Junior Food Market. Detective Moore recovered surveillance video of the alleged shooting and filled out a Philadelphia Police Surveillance Video Recovery Form. Detective Moore testified that the surveillance footage was offset from [the] U.S. Naval Observatory Time Clock by approximately two (2) second[s] and explained how he confirmed the date and time of the recovered surveillance video. [The] Commonwealth then offered exhibit “C-8.2” for evidence and played it for the [trial court]. Commonwealth exhibit “C-8.2” was a compilation video of the surveillance cameras inside and outside of Junior Food Market. Detective Moore explained that the surveillance video compilation was structured to capture the totality of all individuals’ actions during the shooting. Exhibit “C- 8.2” depicts Appellant, who is wearing a black North Face jacket with a grey hooded sweatshirt underneath, grey Under [Armour] sweatpants and black sneakers, playing a skill game machine in the back of Junior Food Market. Appellant, McMillan[,] and another individual appear to engage in conversation across the store[,] which becomes increasingly hostile. Appellant then steps behind the skill game machine into the store’s other aisle, pulls a mask up over his nose and mouth, and all three men simultaneously draw firearms. McMillan discharges his firearm first and strikes one of the skill game machines. The man who was standing beside Appellant takes cover behind the skill game machines and points his firearm towards McMillan but does not fire. McMillan steps backward to exit the store and Appellant then runs towards the entrance and unsuccessfully attempts to discharge his firearm. Appellant then reaches his left hand toward his firearm to seemingly chamber a cartridge. Appellant exits the store and again encounters McMillan[,] who repeatedly discharges his firearm. Appellant attempts to run away down Arch Street to take cover and discharges his firearm towards McMillan. Appellant’s firearm emits a cloud of white smoke[,] which indicates that it was successfully discharged. Appellant continues to run a few more yards before falling down due to being struck by a bullet. The other man involved in the shooting exits Junior Food Market shortly thereafter and crosses Arch Street while running in the same direction as Appellant. The other man holds up his firearm towards McMillan but does not appear to fire. -3- J-S20010-26 * * * [The] Commonwealth moved exhibit “C-16” into evidence[,] which was a certificate showing that Appellant did not have a valid license to possess a firearm. [The] Commonwealth then moved exhibit “C-17” into evidence[,] which was a certification of prior conviction for [] robbery under docket CP-51-CR-0008162-2023. As a result of the [] robbery conviction, Appellant was statutorily ineligible to possess a firearm. . . . Defense counsel called Appellant to testify as their sole witness. Appellant testified that on November 27, 2022, he went to Junior Food Market to play a [skill game] machine at the rear of the store. Appellant played the [skill game] machines with a man known to him as “Dave.” Appellant testified that while he was playing the [skill game] machine, he noticed McMillan and a woman enter the store. McMillan approached Appellant and asked if he had, “weed or Xanax or E pills” and Appellant responded, “No.” Appellant and the other men playing the [skill game] machines ignored McMillan and he then stated, “Y’all are not leaving this store.” Appellant testified that he saw a bulge in McMillan’s shirt and believed that he was in danger. Appellant stated that he walked around to the aisle to exit the store when he heard gunshots. Appellant then ran towards the front of the store to escape. Appellant denied discharging a firearm while inside Junior Food Market. Appellant exited the store and found himself standing approximately two (2) feet from McMillan. Appellant ran to the right, eastbound on Arch Street towards 51 st Street. Appellant testified that[,] as he was running, he heard multiple gunshots and felt a bullet strike his buttocks. Appellant stated that[,] after he was shot, he turned around and attempted to return fire with a starter pistol before collapsing in an alleyway. Appellant testified that he did not remember anything else until he woke up in the hospital. Appellant explained that he had the starter pistol because he was going to use it as a prop in a music video he planned to make later that day. According to Appellant, the starter pistol did not fire real bullets. Appellant argued that he had an opportunity to shoot McMillan while in the store but did not have a real, working firearm. * * * -4- J-S20010-26 Ultimately, [the trial court] found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault, [persons not to possess firearms], firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, simple assault[,] and [recklessly endangering another person]. [The trial court] found that Appellant was not guilty of conspiracy and possession of an instrument of crime with intent. On April 7, 2025[, the trial court held] a sentencing hearing for Appellant. * * * [The trial court] carefully considered the testimony and argument heard by both parties. [The trial court] found that Appellant had opportunities to prevent his involvement in the shooting incident and failed to do so. [The trial court] noted that Appellant caused danger to the public due to his actions. [The trial court] determined that Appellant should receive a mitigated sentence of six (6) to twelve (12) years of incarceration followed by three (3) years of reporting probation. On April 12, 2025, Appellant filed a timely post sentence motion. In Appellant’s post sentence motion, he argued that evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence[,] and asked that the [trial court] reconsider its sentence. On May 30, 2025, [the trial court] denied Appellant’s post sentence motion. On June 25, 2025, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court. On June 30, 2025, [the trial court] ordered Appellant to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal . . . pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed [his Rule 1925(b) statement] on July 21, 2025. Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/25, at 1-11 (citations and footnotes omitted; formatting altered). The trial court subsequently filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Appellant raises the following issues for our review: -5- J-S20010-26 1. Whether the evidence was not sufficient to establish that [Appellant] caused or attempted to cause serious bodily injury to complainant [] as to aggravated assault (F1)? 2. Whether the evidence was not sufficient to establish that [Appellant] possessed a firearm as to [persons not to possess firearms]? 3. Whether the evidence was not sufficient to establish that [Appellant] possessed a firearm as to [firearms not to be carried without a license]? 4. Whether the evidence was not sufficient to establish that [Appellant] possessed a firearm as to [carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia]? 5. Whether the evidence was not sufficient to establish that [Appellant] caused or attempted to cause bodily injury to complainant [] as to simple assault (M2)? 6. Whether a conviction for causing or attempting to cause serious bodily injury to complainant [] as to aggravated assault (F1), was against the weight of the evidence when the firearm [Appellant] possessed was not tested and deemed to be operable, no shell casings matched the firearm, the firearm was never recovered, [Appellant] offered an explanation for the firearm and the complainant did not testify? 7. Whether a conviction for [persons not to possess firearms] was against the weight of the evidence when the firearm [Appellant] possessed was not tested and deemed to be operable, no[] shell casings matched the firearm, the firearm was never recovered, and [Appellant] offered an explanation for the firearm and the complainant did not testify? 8. Whether a conviction for [firearms not to be carried without a license] was against the weight of the evidence when the firearm [Appellant] possessed was not tested and deemed to be operable, no[] shell casings matched the firearm, the firearm was never recovered and [Appellant] offered an explanation for the firearm and the complainant did not testify? 9. Whether a conviction for [carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia] was against the weight of the evidence when the -6- J-S20010-26 firearm [Appellant] possessed was not tested and deemed to be operable, no[] shell casings matched the firearm, the firearm was never recovered and [Appellant] offered an explanation for the firearm and the complainant did not testify? 10. Whether a conviction for causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to complainant [] as to simple assault (M2), was against the weight of the evidence when the firearm [Appellant] possessed was not tested and deemed to be operable, no shell casings matched the firearm, the firearm was never recovered, [Appellant] offered an explanation for the firearm and the complainant did not testify? 11. Whether it was an abuse of discretion to admit into evidence video from any store, private business or private person without proper authentication? 12. Whether it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court not to consider all of the relevant sentencing factors? Appellant’s Brief at 6-9 (some formatting altered). 2 ____________________________________________ 2 Noting the number of issues Appellant raises on appeal, we refer to the oft- cited quote from the late Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: With a decade and a half of federal appellate court experience behind me, I can say that even when we reverse a trial court, it is rare that a brief successfully demonstrates that the trial court committed more than one or two reversible errors . . . When I read an appellant’s brief that contains ten or twelve points, a presumption arises that there is no merit to any of them. I do not say this is an irrebuttable presumption, but it is a presumption nevertheless that reduces the effectiveness of appellate advocacy. Appellate advocacy is measured by effectiveness, not loquaciousness. Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949, 955 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations and quotation marks omitted). -7- J-S20010-26 Sufficiency of the Evidence In his first five issues, Appellant raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth relating to his convictions of persons not to possess firearms, carrying firearms without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, aggravated assault, and simple assault. See id. at 16-23. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are governed by the following standard: A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim, the court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In applying the above test, we may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 313 A.3d 265, 278 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citations omitted). When reviewing a conviction for the sufficiency of the evidence, we evaluate the entire record, and we must consider all evidence actually received at trial. See Commonwealth v. Holt, 270 A.3d 1230, 1233 (Pa. Super. 2022). -8- J-S20010-26 Firearms Offenses Relating to his convictions for the three firearms offenses, Appellant raises the following argument: The Commonwealth never recovered the firearm. No fired cartridge casings were associated with any firearm associated with [Appellant. Appellant] testified that he possessed a starter pistol. No witnesses testified that they saw and heard [Appellant] firing a weapon. There is insufficient evidence that [Appellant] possessed a firearm . . . Appellant’s Brief at 19, 20, 21 (citations omitted). The three firearms offenses of which Appellant was convicted all share the common element of either possession or carrying of a firearm. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1) (prohibiting persons convicted of certain offenses from possessing firearms in this Commonwealth); 6106(a)(1) (prohibiting the carrying of a concealed firearm in certain circumstances without a license); 6108 (prohibiting the carrying of a firearm without a license on the public streets or public property in Philadelphia). Possession can be established “by proving actual possession, constructive possession, or joint constructive possession.” Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Here, the trial court addressed Appellant’s claims as follows: [The trial court] heard testimony from . . . Detective [] Swan[,] who stated that there were two types of fired cartridge casings found at the scene. Detective Swan testified that there were three (3) 80-caliber fired cartridge casings and seven (7) 40-caliber fired cartridge casings recovered by Philadelphia Police. This was compelling circumstantial evidence that there were two firearms -9- J-S20010-26 discharged during the shooting incident in and around Junior Food Market. [The trial court] next heard testimony from . . . Detective [] Moore, who collected surveillance video of the shooting incident and compiled it into a compilation . . . marked as Commonwealth exhibit “C-8.2.” [The trial court] viewed video evidence of the shooting incident[,] which provided uncontroverted evidence that Appellant was in possession of an operable firearm. Appellant was captured on surveillance video as he removed a firearm from his waistband and attempted to fire towards McMillan while inside Junior Food Market. After Appellant exits Junior Food Market, he is seen pointing his firearm towards McMillan again as he discharges the weapon. The firearm is clearly operable due to the white smoke seen after it is fired. While the other individual with Appellant does point his firearm towards McMillan as well, there is never a muzzle flash or an emission of white smoke to indicate that it was discharged and therefore the source of one of the two fired cartridge casings. [The trial court] then heard from Appellant[,] who testified that the firearm seen in the video surveillance was a starter pistol and not an operable firearm. As only two types of fired cartridge casings were found at the crime scene and white smoke is seen being emitted from Appellant’s firearm on the surveillance video compilation, [the trial court] found Appellant’s testimony to be unreliable. Ultimately, the fired cartridge casings, surveillance video[,] and testimony heard by the [trial court] provided sufficient evidence that Appellant possessed a firearm and therefore the convictions [the firearms offenses] were proper. Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/25, at 17-19 (citations omitted). Viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to convict Appellant of the firearms possessions. See Lawrence, 313 A.3d at 278. As noted by the trial court, the Commonwealth presented a compilation video of surveillance footage in the - 10 - J-S20010-26 area at the time of the shooting. See N.T. Trial, 8/12/24, at 28, 36. During Detective Moore’s testimony, the Commonwealth played portions of the compilation video, which the trial court described as provided “uncontroverted evidence that Appellant was in possession of an operable firearm.” See id. at 28, 32, 36; see also Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/25, at 18. Further, the Commonwealth presented testimony from Philadelphia Police Officer Ivannil Rosario, who testified that he watched the surveillance video referenced above and he recognized Appellant, based upon his having interacted with Appellant on multiple occasions. See N.T. Trial, 8/12/24, at 47, 49-50. Accordingly, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Appellant possessed a firearm in violation of persons not to possess firearms and carried a firearm in violation of firearms not to be carried without a license and carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108. Appellant, therefore, is not entitled to relief. Aggravated Assault and Simple Assault Appellant next raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to his convictions of aggravated assault and simple assault. See Appellant’s Brief at 16-18, 22-23. Specifically, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth failed to sufficiently prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had a specific intent to cause serious bodily injury, as it relates to his aggravated assault conviction, or bodily injury, as it relates to his simple assault conviction. See id. at 18, 23. - 11 - J-S20010-26 Aggravated assault is defined, in relevant part, as an “attempt[] to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). As applied to aggravated assault, an attempt “is demonstrated by proving that the accused acted in a manner which constitutes a substantial or significant step toward perpetrating serious bodily injury upon another[,] along with the intent to inflict serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). Serious bodily injury is “[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301. “Intent can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence; it may be inferred from acts or conduct or from the attendant circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 641 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted and some formatting altered). Of relevance here, simple assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault. See Commonwealth v. Verticelli, 1827 EDA 2021, 2023 WL 4760743 at *5 (Pa. Super. filed July 26, 2023) (unpublished mem.) 3 (citing Commonwealth v. Sirianni, 428 A.2d 629, 632-33 (Pa. Super. 1981)). Here, the trial court reached the following conclusion relating to Appellant’s conviction of aggravated assault: ____________________________________________ 3 We may cite to this Court’s unpublished memoranda filed after May 1, 2019 as persuasive authority. Pa.R.A.P. 126(b). - 12 - J-S20010-26 [The trial court] heard testimony from . . . Detective [] Swan which indicated that there were two types of fired cartridge casings found at the scene. Detective Swan testified that there were three (3) 80-caliber fired cartridge casings and seven (7) 40- caliber fired cartridge casings recovered by Philadelphia Police. This was compelling circumstantial evidence that two individuals discharged firearms during the shooting incident in and around Junior Food Market. [The trial court] next heard testimony from Philadelphia Police Detective Ryan Moore who collected surveillance video from Junior Food Market and other businesses in the area surrounding the shooting incident. Moore testified that he compiled the surveillance video into a compilation which was marked as Commonwealth exhibit “C-8.2.” This surveillance video of the shooting[,] provided uncontroverted evidence that McMillan and Appellant discharged firearms in and around Junior Food Market. Appellant is shown pointing and attempting to discharge a firearm towards McMillan while inside Junior Food Market. After Appellant exits Junior Food Market, he is seen discharging his firearm towards McMillan as he flees. It is evident that Appellant discharged his firearm due to the white smoke that is emitted after firing. Finally, [the trial court] heard testimony from Appellant[,] which proved that he was in Junior Food Market and was involved in the shooting. Appellant testified that after he was shot in his buttocks, he pointed a starter pistol towards McMillan and attempted to fire it. Appellant’s testimony was not found to be credible by [the trial court] due to previous testimony and the video surveillance compilation which clearly shows that Appellant discharged[] his firearm prior to being struck by a bullet. [The trial court] heard compelling, uncontroverted evidence which established all of the elements of [aggravated assault]. Appellant attempted to cause serious bodily injury to McMillan when he unsuccessfully attempted to discharge his firearm at McMillan inside Junior Food Market and when he successfully discharged a firearm towards McMillan outside of the store. The specific intent to injure McMillan can be inferred from the circumstances established by evidence offered to the [trial court]. - 13 - J-S20010-26 Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/25, at 15-16 (discussing Appellant’s aggravated assault conviction); see also id. at 19 (discussing Appellant’s simple assault conviction). As noted by the trial court, the surveillance video played during trial depicted Appellant firing a gun in the direction of McMillan. See id. at 15-16, 19. Moreover, Appellant, in his own testimony, admitted to firing a starter pistol at McMillan after Appellant had been hit by gunfire. See N.T. Trial, 8/12/24, at 64.4 Based upon our review of the evidence, we find that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to warrant convictions for both aggravated assault and simple assault. See Lawrence, 313 A.3d at 278. The evidence reflects that[,] by firing his gun toward McMillan, Appellant acted in a manner which constitutes a substantial or significant step toward perpetrating serious bodily injury upon another along with the intent to inflict serious bodily injury. See Gruff, 822 A.2d at 776. Accordingly, the Commonwealth met its burden of presenting sufficient evidence for the trial court to convict Appellant of aggravated assault. Because simple assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, the Commonwealth has likewise met its burden of proof as it relates to Appellant’s simple assault conviction. ____________________________________________ 4 In its opinion, the trial court notes that it found Appellant’s testimony that he fired a starter pistol as compared to an operable firearm to be “unreliable.” See Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/25, at 18. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, which functioned as the finder of fact in this case, nor may we re-weigh the evidence. See Lawrence, 313 A.3d at 278. - 14 - J-S20010-26 See Verticelli, 2023 WL 4760743 at *5; Sirianni, 428 A.2d at 632-33. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief. Weight of the Evidence In his next five issues, Appellant raises challenges as to the weight of the evidence relating to his convictions of aggravated assault, simple assault, persons not to possess firearms, carrying firearms without a license, and carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia. See Appellant’s Brief at 23-28. As to the firearms offenses, Appellant argues: No firearms were test fired for operability. No firearms were recovered. No witnesses at the store testified in court. No gun shot [sic] residue test was done on [Appellant’s] clothing. There was no testimony of fired cartridge casing matching a firearm possessed by [Appellant]. The complainant did not testify in court. No witnesses from the store testified in court. Id. at 25, 26, 27. As to his convictions for aggravated assault and simple assault, Appellant argues: No witnesses at the store testified in court. The complainant did not testify in court. [Appellant] stated he possessed a starter pistol. Detective Swan came to the location after the shooting and processed the scene. No shooters were there. No injured victims were there. He did not testify about taking witness statements. Detective Moore came to the location the next day and recovered video. The video had no sound. The only person injured was [Appellant]. Id. at 24, 28 (citations omitted). When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we are governed by the following standard of review: - 15 - J-S20010-26 A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that[,] notwithstanding all the facts, [whether] certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice. An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court. Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the [trial court’s] exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted). As this Court has repeatedly stated, [t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none, or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Resolving contradictory testimony and questions of credibility are matters for the finder of fact. It is well-settled that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. * * * Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination [of whether] the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice. - 16 - J-S20010-26 Furthermore, in order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court. Commonwealth v. Spence, 290 A.3d 301, 311 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citations omitted and formatting altered). Here, the trial court addressed Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim as follows: The evidence offered to the [trial court] was not so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court. [The trial court] heavily weighed the evidence of fired cartridge casings[,] which was circumstantial evidence that Appellant and McMillan discharged firearms towards each other. [The trial court] also [accorded] considerable weight to the surveillance video offered by [the] Commonwealth[,] which clearly depicted McMillan and Appellant exchanging gunfire in and around Junior Food Market. [The trial court] heard the testimony of Appellant and did not find it to be credible in light of other evidence offered. Due to the compelling physical evidence and surveillance video, [the trial court] did not require that [the] Commonwealth produce the firearm that Appellant used in the shooting or provide further proof that the firearm was operable. Evidence clearly showed that Appellant possessed a firearm and discharged it towards McMillan. Accordingly, [the trial court’s] verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/25, at 22-23 (citations omitted). Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Windslowe, 158 A.3d at 712. The main thrust of Appellant's weight of the evidence argument asks this Court to reweigh the evidence—seemingly to find Appellant’s testimony that he was only firing a starter pistol to be credible—which is beyond this Court's purview. See Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072, 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating - 17 - J-S20010-26 that credibility determinations are “solely within the province of the [factfinder]” (citation omitted)). Further, the trial court, as factfinder, was free to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence. See Spence, 290 A.3d at 311. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s weight claim and no relief is due. Authenticity of Evidence Next, Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it admitted a compilation video prepared by Detective Moore into evidence. See Appellant’s Brief at 28-30. Specifically, Appellant argues that the “video operators from the two stores [from which Detective Moore compiled footage] did not establish that the videos were a fair and accurate representation of the recording.” Id. at 29-30. The Commonwealth argues that Appellant’s claim is waived on appeal because he failed to raise a contemporaneous objection at trial, thereby failing to preserve the claim for appellate review. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 16. Initially, we must determine whether Appellant has preserved this issue for appellate review. It is well settled that “[t]he absence of a contemporaneous objection below constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 174 A.3d 1130, 1145 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted and some formatting altered); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”). As this Court has explained, the trial court must be given “an opportunity to correct errors at the time they - 18 - J-S20010-26 are made. A party may not remain silent and afterwards complain of matters which, if erroneous, the court would have corrected.” Commonwealth v. Strunk, 953 A.2d 577, 579 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted and some formatting altered). Further, our Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he rule is well settled that a party complaining, on appeal, of the admission of evidence in the court below will be confined to the specific objection there made.” Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1041 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained that Appellant waived any argument as to the authenticity of the compilation video prepared by Detective Moore. See Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/25, at 26-27. The trial court further concluded that Appellant’s evidentiary claim is without merit. See id. at 28-30. The record reflects that, while Appellant raised an objection upon the introduction of the compilation video into evidence, that objection did not relate to the authenticity of the video. See N.T. Trial, 8/12/24, at 26.5 At no point did Appellant raise an objection as to the authenticity of the video. Likewise, Appellant did not raise an objection when the trial court admitted the compilation video into evidence. See id. at 57. Accordingly, because ____________________________________________ 5 Appellant’s objection related to the fact that the surveillance video reco