HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1290-2007COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CHARGE: THEFT FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE
BRANDON MICHAEL
DARHOWER,
OTN: K314239-2 : CP -21 -CR -1290-2997
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., May 27, 2008.
In this criminal case, Defendant was found guilty following a jury trial of
theft from a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor of the first degree.' He was sentenced
to make restitution to the victim and to undergo a period of imprisonment in the
Cumberland County prison of not less than 38 days nor more than 23 months .2
From the judgment of sentence, Defendant has filed an appeal to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court .3 The sole basis for the appeal has been expressed in
Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal as follows:
The evidence presented was insufficient to support a finding of guilt.4
This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, the
evidence is to be viewed "in [a] light most favorable to the Commonwealth" and
"all reasonable inferences in the Commonwealth's favor" are to be entertained.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 449 Pa. Super. 58, 61, 672 A.2d 1353, 1354 (1996)
' Order of Court, November 9, 2007.
2 See Order of Court, February 21, 2008 (modification of sentence pursuant to agreement of
counsel); Order of Court, January 8, 2008 (original sentencing order).
s Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed February 29, 2008.
4 Defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed March 20, 2008.
Whether a general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a statement of matters
complained of on appeal is a sufficiently specific predicate for appellate review is beyond the
scope of this opinion. But see Commonwealth v. Lemon, 2002 PA Super 234, 804 A.2d 34.
(quoting Commonwealth v. Carter, 329 Pa. Super. 490, 495-96, 478 A.2d 1286,
1288 (1984)). The trier -of -fact is "free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence." Commonwealth v. Petaccio, 2000 PA Super 384, ¶5, 764 A.2d 582,
585 (quoting Commonwealth v. Griscavage, 512 Pa. 540, 543, 517 A.2d 1256,
1257 (1986)).
Viewed in this light, the evidence adduced at trial may be summarized as
follows. The victims in this case, Kenneth Martin, 27, and Jeannie Snyder,
purchased a used "Pioneer head unit" for $150.00 and two new speakers and a box
for housing them in a vehicle for $335.91, on or before April 11, 2005.5 This
electronic equipment was installed by Mr. Martin in Ms. Snyder's 1995 Ford
Eddie Bauer Explorer SUV; this motor vehicle was thereafter involved in an
accident in the fall of 2006 that rendered it inoperable.6 Following the accident,
they stored the disabled vehicle, outside and unlocked, at Mr. Martin's residence
at 135 Oak Hill Road, Lower Frankford Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
At this time, Defendant, 28, a cousin and long-time friend of Mr. Martin,
was unemployed and living at Mr. Martin's residence by the latter's largesse.$
Defendant was aware of the presence of the aforesaid equipment in the disabled
Explorer,9 and was skilled in the installation and removal of such equipment. 10
The equipment was surreptitiously stolen from the vehicle in early 2007 by
a person who was able to skillfully extricate it." Around the time of the theft,
Defendant, on a certain occasion, was driving a vehicle loaned to him by Mr.
'N.T. 5, 7,9-10, 12-14,50-51, 59, Trial, November 9, 2007 (hereinafter N.T. �.
6 N.T. 9-10, 52-54, 56.
N.T. 9, 22-23, 54, 56.
'N.T. 6-8.
9 N.T. 25, 73.
10 N.T.25-26, 76.
" N.T. 11-12.
2
Martin in the company of one Misty Rhinehart, 20, a mutual acquaintance. 12 On
that occasion, Defendant advised Ms. Rhinehart that he needed to deposit at the
residence of Defendant's grandfather in Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, some stereo equipment that he had stolen from the Explorer at the
residence of Mr. Martin. 13 In connection with the theft, Defendant told Ms.
Rhinehart not to tell anyone, because she "was the only one that knew. ,14
Defendant proceeded to his grandfather's house and Ms. Rhinehart watched
as he unloaded the stolen equipment and placed it in his grandfather's garage. 15 In
late January, 2007, Defendant installed the stolen Pioneer head unit in a truck
owned by his grandfather, in payment of a debt. 16
About two weeks after Defendant confessed the theft to her, Ms. Rhinehart
told Mr. Martin about it.17 Her motivation in doing so was explained in her
testimony as follows:
... I got to thinking about it after a while, and it's kind of messed up
that he's giving Brandon a place to stay and he's going to turn around and
do this to his own cousin. That is kind of ignorant and mean, I guess.18
Mr. Martin, who had not reported the theft to law enforcement authorities
when he had discovered it,19 proceeded to the residence of Defendant's
grandfather, observed the stolen head unit in the grandfather's truck '20 and, on
March 15, 2007, advised the state police of the incident .21 He apparently had not
previously suspected Defendant of the theft, notwithstanding the latter's departure
12 N.T. 27, 30-31, 36-37.
"N.T. 32-33, 38.
14 N.T. 33.
" N.T. 35, 38, 40.
16 N.T. 45, 63, 80.
17 N.T. 35.
" N.T. 35.
19 N.T. 20.
20 N.T. 16-17.
21 N.T. 18, 61.
3
from his residence shortly after its occurrence 22 because of Defendant's
appearance of shock when advised that the theft had occurred .23
Defendant's testimony at trial was to the effect that he had not stolen the
Pioneer head unit from the Ford Explorer ,24 that he had simply installed a similar
unit, which he had acquired from "an older couple out in Dillsburg," in his
grandfather's truck ,25 and that he had never admitted to Ms. ninehart that he had
stolen the equipment in question. 26 He testified that "every crime [he'd] ever
committed, [he'd] always taken responsibility [for],"27 and that he saw nothing
coincidental in the fact that a Pioneer head unit which he installed in his
grandfather's truck was the same type of unit that had recently been stolen from
his place of residence .28
DISCUSSION
On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, the
proper test is "whether, viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
Commonwealth's favor, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to
find every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt."
Commonwealth v. Jones, 449 Pa. Super. 58, 61, 672 A.2d 1353, 1354 (1996)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Carter, 329 A.2d 490, 495-96, 478 A.2d 1286, 1288
(1984)).
Under Section 3934 of the Crimes Code
[a] person commits the offense of theft from a motor vehicle if he
unlawfully takes or attempts to take possession of, carries away or
22 N.T.
16.
23 N.T.
15.
24 N.T.
75, 77.
2s N.T.
73-75, 80.
26 N.T.
75.
27 N.T.
77.
2s N.T.
79.
11
exercises unlawful control over any movable property of another from a
motor vehicle with the intent to deprive him thereof 29
In the present case, evidence in support of the prosecution tended to show
that Defendant had lived at a certain location in the winter of 2006-07, that he had
been aware that a vehicle at that location contained certain electronic equipment
belonging to another, that he possessed the skill to remove such equipment, that
the equipment was skillfully removed from the vehicle and carried off, that
Defendant then moved from the scene of the crime, that Defendant admitted to a
third party that he had taken the equipment and told her not to tell anyone, that the
third party saw Defendant carry the stolen items into his grandfather's garage, and
that Defendant thereafter installed part of the equipment into his grandfather's
truck to pay a debt. This evidence, if credited by the jury, was more than
sufficient, in the court's view, to lead to a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the said movable property of another had been taken from a motor vehicle by
Defendant, with the intent to deprive the owner of it.
For the foregoing reasons, it is believed that the evidence was sufficient to
support the finding of guilt, and that the judgment of sentence was properly
entered.
BY THE COURT,
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Michelle H. Sibert, Esq.
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Michael Halkias, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
29 Act of December 21, 1998, P.L. 1108, §2, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §3934(a) (2007 Supp.).
E