Opinion
J-S34011-18 No. 1393 WDA 2017
10-22-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PATRICK JAMES FORTNEY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 14, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0004128-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Patrick James Fortney appeals from the judgment of sentence of ninety to 180 months incarceration imposed following his jury trial convictions for, inter alia, burglary. We affirm on the basis of the thoroughly well-reasoned Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion prepared by the Honorable John Garhart, which cogently sets forth why Appellant's claims fail.
This appeal follows Appellant's convictions for four counts of burglary, which occurred at four separate residences over the period of March 7, 2016, through March 28, 2016. The Commonwealth's case was largely circumstantial, and relied, in part, on the admission of a separate burglary that occurred in Ashtabula County in Ohio, just over the Pennsylvania border. Appellant's two claims on appeal attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those convictions, and the trial court's decision to admit the other crimes evidence. Appellant's brief at 7-12. After reviewing the certified record and Appellant's brief, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's twenty-nine page opinion, entered on November 21, 2017 and which we adopt as our own.
Regarding the sufficiency claims, we fully agree with the trial court's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's convictions. The opinion notes that the Commonwealth built its case piece by piece. "Once arranged by the finder of fact, however, the evidentiary pieces created a clear picture of [Appellant]'s absolute complicity in each and every one of the four burglaries of which he was convicted." Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/17, at 6. Appellant's brief largely focuses on the lack of direct evidence placing Appellant inside the residences, but Judge Garhart's opinion carefully examines the direct evidence implicating Appellant in these crimes, namely, the fact that Appellant's girlfriend testified that Appellant gave her a diamond bracelet that was identified as stolen from one of the homes. Additionally, other stolen items were recovered from pawn shops in Ashtabula County. The receipts for these items were made out to the co-defendant's sister, who testified that both Appellant and co-defendant gave her those items. As the trial court opinion notes, the Commonwealth may prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution as verdict winner receives the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. The opinion comprehensively places this direct evidence in context of other pieces of circumstantial evidence, and we agree that the sufficiency claims must fail.
With respect to the second issue, the court also set forth its rationale for admitting the other crimes evidence, and we agree that the judge's decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/22/2018
Image materials not available for display.