a claim challenging the credibility of evidence is a challenge to the weight of the evidence). Similarly, Lewis’s other claims, that the Commonwealth did not present testimony to reveal the identity of the Cl, and that although Trooper Garcia testified that numerous telephone calls were made between him and the Cl, these calls were not listed on the discovery provided to defense counsel, also challenge the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence. In order to preserve a claim of weight of the evidence for appellate review, the issue must be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial either orally prior to sentencing, by written motion prior to sentencing, or in a post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v. Butler, 729 A.2d 1134, 1140 (Pa.Super.1999) (<HOLDING>). Lewis did not allege in his brief that he
holding that a challenge to the proper weight of the evidence is a question of fact outside this courts jurisdiction holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that issue in motion for rehearing is waived if original brief is not sufficient to acquaint the court with the issue and does not present an argument that would allow the court to decide the issue