From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Trumper

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 26, 2015
No. 1225 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 26, 2015)

Opinion

J-S31014-15 No. 1225 MDA 2014

06-26-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RICHARD TRUMPER, JR., Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 20, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-60-CR-0000030-2014 CP-60-CR-0000107-2013 CP-60-CR-0000108-2013 CP-60-CR-0000109-2013 CP-60-CR-0000110-2013 CP-60-CR-0000111-2013 CP-60-CR-0000112-2013 CP-60-CR-0000324-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., ALLEN, J., and WECHT, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:

Appellant, Richard Trumper, Jr., appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of thirty (30) months' to eight (8) years' imprisonment, imposed after he was convicted of numerous counts of theft by deception; bad checks; deceptive business practices - sale of less than the represented quantity of services; theft by deception - false impression; theft by failure to make required disposition of funds; and deceptive business practices in the above-referenced cases. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions and challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court. We affirm.

In 2012, Appellant was self-employed as a general contractor in Mifflinburg, PA, trading as RTC Custom Home Improvements. N.T. Trial, 4/4/14, at 7. Appellant's business engaged primarily in remodeling and home improvement projects, as well as some new home construction. Id. at 9. Following the ceasing of Appellant's business operations in December 2012, and the filing of bankruptcy by Appellant and his wife, multiple criminal charges were brought against Appellant under eight different docket numbers, which were later consolidated by the court for trial. Appellant's Brief, at 6.

A three (3) day non-jury trial commenced on April 3, 2014. Appellant was found guilty of all charges and was sentenced on June 20, 2014, to thirty (30) months' to eight (8) years' imprisonment. Trial Court Opinion ("TCO"), 11/7/14, at 1 (unnumbered page). No post-sentence motions were filed by Appellant. Id. On August 1, 2014, the trial court issued a scheduling order directing Appellant to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), within twenty-one (21) days of the date of said order. As the trial court recognized in its 1925(a) opinion, Appellant's 1925(b) statement was untimely filed on September 5, 2014. However, the trial court proceeded with filing a 1925(a) opinion in which it addressed the issues raised by Appellant at length. Because the trial court has addressed the merits of the issues raised on appeal, we will overlook the waiver of Appellant's claims due to the untimely filing of his 1925(b) statement, based on our authority in Commonwealth v. Burton , 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009), where we stated, "if there has been an untimely filing, this Court may decide the appeal on the merits if the trial court had adequate opportunity to prepare an opinion addressing the issues being raised on appeal." Id. at 433.

Appellant raises the following questions on appeal for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of Bad Checks and Theft by Deception arising out of Payroll Checks issued to Mr. Hook and Mr. Smith?

2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of Deceptive Business Practices, Theft by Deception, and Theft by Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds arising out of the Boop home construction contract?

3. Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of Bad Checks for the check issued to Signature Stone?

4. Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of Deceptive Business Practices and Theft by Deception arising out of the Bennett home construction contract?

5. Whether the trial court's sentence structure should be remanded in the event that the controlling sentences on the Boop and Bennett matters are reversed.
Appellant's Brief, at 9.

Before we may address Appellant's issues, we are compelled to note that Appellant failed to properly preserve his sufficiency issues, due to a lack of specificity in his 1925(b) statement. We have previously stated:

[W]hen challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, ... Appellant's 1925 statement must "specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient" in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Such specificity is of particular importance in cases where ... Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes[,] each of which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Gibbs , 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams , 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008)) (citations omitted).

Appellant's 1925(b) statement merely states the following challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the relevant case numbers: "The verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence." Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 9/5/14, at 1-2 (unnumbered pages). Based on our reasoning in Williams , which was reiterated in Gibbs , we are compelled to conclude that Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement is inadequate to preserve his sufficiency claims. Appellant was convicted of multiple offenses, each with multiple elements, yet his Rule 1925(b) statement does not specify which element(s) of his convictions the Commonwealth failed to prove. Instead, Appellant merely states, in boilerplate fashion, under each case number in which he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that "[t]he verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence." Id. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Appellant's sufficiency claims are waived.

Nevertheless, even if Appellant had properly preserved the claims he raises herein, we would conclude that the issues are without merit. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough and well-crafted 32-page opinion of the Honorable Louise O. Knight, S.J., of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County, entered November 7, 2014. We conclude that Judge Knight's extensive, well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, had Appellant's claims not been waived, we would adopt Judge Knight's opinion as our own and affirm the judgment of sentence on that basis.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/26/2015

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Trumper

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 26, 2015
No. 1225 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 26, 2015)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Trumper

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RICHARD TRUMPER, JR., Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 26, 2015

Citations

No. 1225 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 26, 2015)