Opinion
J-S22032-17 No. 1016 MDA 2016
05-16-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. CHARLES KENNETH STEELE, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 24, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-21-CR-0002244-2015 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., MOULTON, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Charles Kenneth Steele, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his jury conviction of burglary and related charges. Appellant challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
This was a second trial. In the previous trial, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, and the trial court declared a mistrial. ( See Order, 1/29/16).
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 8/11/16, at 2-4). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them at length here.
For the convenience of the reader, we note briefly that Appellant was convicted of the theft of money from "Trades Cars and Trucks," the used car dealership where his long-time paramour and co-conspirator, Sue Ellen Leonhard, worked. Ms. Leonhard had a key to the office and knew where her employer kept cash between bank deposits.
Ms. Leonhard claimed that even though she initially agreed to cooperate in the burglary, and entered the premises (twice) with Appellant, she had a change of heart and left. Later, about five that morning, Appellant called her by cell phone. He confirmed he had stolen the money, and promised to meet Leonhard in a few days to divide the proceeds of the theft.
A few days later, her employer discovered the cash was missing. Leonhard denied any knowledge, and tried to cover up the burglary by replacing some of the missing cash with her own funds. Nevertheless, she was fired. She lied repeatedly to the police, until she finally agreed to cooperate. Even then her explanations of certain details were still inconsistent.
Leonhard admitted at trial that she had four previous crimen falsi convictions. She conceded that she had lied repeatedly to police when they began to investigate this theft. She acknowledged that she hoped for consideration from the District Attorney's office for her cooperation, but denied that she had been promised any specific benefit.
On March 23, 2016, the jury convicted Appellant of burglary, criminal conspiracy (burglary), criminal trespass, and theft by unlawful taking. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of not less than nine months nor more than twenty-three months' incarceration. The trial court denied Appellant's motion for a new trial, which challenged the weight of the evidence. ( See Order, 6/09/16). This timely appeal followed.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(4).
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921.
Appellant filed a court-ordered statement of errors, on July 18, 2016. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 11, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial challenging the verdict as against the weight of the evidence as the co-defendant's testimony at trial was not credible?(Appellant's Brief, at 7) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
II. Was the evidence insufficient to support guilty verdicts where the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant entered Trades Cars and Trucks, conspired with another to enter Trades Cars and Trucks for the purpose of committing a theft, or unlawfully took any money from Trades Cars and Trucks?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 8/11/16, at 5-10) (concluding: (1) conviction was not against weight of evidence where jury was informed of co-defendant's past crimes and inconsistent statements, but still found her to be credible; jury was free to believe all, some or none of evidence; jury's verdict did not shock conscience of court; and (2) viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth as verdict winner, evidence presented to jury, including testimony of co-conspirator Leonhard (and her husband) as corroborated by cell telephone records placing Appellant in vicinity of business office around time of theft, was sufficient to support guilty verdict).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Furthermore, we agree with the trial court that Appellant's boilerplate assertion of generic insufficiency was inadequate to identify which elements of multiple charges were allegedly not proven. ( See Trial Ct. Op., at 7). Moreover, we add that Appellant's claim that co-defendant Leonhard was "wholly unbelievable" is not a challenge to sufficiency, but a variation on his weight claim. (Appellant's Brief, at 17). See Commonwealth v. Griffin , 65 A.3d 932, 939 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 76 A.3d 538 (Pa. 2013) (claim defendant was wrongly identified as perpetrator of crimes based on "unbelievable identification testimony" went to credibility and weight, not sufficiency, of evidence). --------
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/16/2017
Image materials not available for display.