Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-2069 98-0767 criminalCOMMONWEALTH · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V, , · 97-2069 CRIMINAL TERM GLORIA JEAN BRANDT ' 98-0767 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULF OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 192~ Bayley, J., February 25, 1999:-- On December 7, 1998, following a bench trial, defendant, Gloria Jean Brandt, was found guilty at 97-2069 of attempted theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree, and theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree. The victim was Linda Mumma. At 98-0767, defendant was found guilty of theft, a felony of the third degree. The victim was Barbara Mumma. On January 12, 1999, defendant was sentenced on a count of theft at 98-0767 to pay the costs of prosecution, make restitution to Chubb Insurance in the amount of $28,949, and to Barbara Mumma in the amount of $500, and to undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for a term of not less than six months nor more than twenty-three months. At 97-2069, defendant was sentenced on the count of attempted theft to pay the costs of prosecution. On the count of theft she was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and make restitution to Chubb Insurance in the amount of $8,200, to Linda Mumma in the amount of $500. Defendant filed a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, defendant makes one allegation: The Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant stole any items over and above the items recovered and the items confessed to by Defendant in her handwritten statement. 97-2069 CRIMINAL TERM 98-0767 CRIMINAL TERM The evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth was as follows.~ Defendant worked as a housekeeper in the homes of Barbara Mumma and her daughter Linda Mumma. As of May 5, 1997, defendant had been a housekeeper for Barbara Mumma for thirteen years and for Linda Mumma for three months. On May 5, 1997, while defendant was working at the home of Linda Mumma, Mumma saw defendant with a trash bag that was fairly full. She went to help her with the bag and defendant pushed her away. Mumma had defendant put the trash bag in a container in the garage. After defendant left for the day, Mumma looked into the container and found some of her sterling silver in the trash bag.2 Defendant had been polishing Mumma's silver that day. Mumma called the police who had her inventory her possessions in the house. The inventory resulted in her discovering other similar types of property that were missing that were never recovered. Defendant had access to Linda Mumma's house by a combination lock. entry into the house.3 Barbara Mumma was in Florida on May 5, 1997. tell her about the incident that day involving defendant. There had been no forced Linda Mumma, called her to Defendant, who had access to Barbara Mumma's house, had continued to do housework there when Mumma was theft. 1. Commonwealth v. Reddix, 355 Pa. Super. 514 (1986). 2. These were the facts upon which defendant was convicted of attempted 3. Defendant was convicted of the theft of those items for which restitution was ordered totalling $8,700. -2- 97-2069 CRIMINAL TERM 98-0767 CRIMINAL TERM in Florida. Barbara Mumma immediately returned home and discovered that property was missing from her house. There had been no forced entry. Mumma retained a private detective to whom defendant gave a written statement admitting that she had stolen items from the house. Harry Donson, who buys and sells precious metals, testified that he purchased some silverware and some Cartier lighters from defendant. He further testified that defendant told him that the items had been given to her. Some of Barbara Mumma's property that defendant sold to Donson was recovered from him. Donson testified that he had melted some of the other property that defendant sold him for its silver. Barbara Mumma identified the property purchased by Donson from defendant as property that was stolen from her home. A Cartier watch, whiskey container and glass tea set that Barbara Mumma identified as hers were discovered in defendant's home in Carlisle. Defendant testified at trial and admitted she stole those items and some silverware and cigarette lighters from the home of Barbara Mumma.4 Defendant did not file a petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim. P. 1410(B)(1)(v) to modify the sentences of restitution on the theft counts. Based on her concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, defendant is not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to any of the three charges for which she was 4. These were the facts upon which defendant was convicted of theft for which restitution was ordered totalling $29,499 for property that was missing from the home and was not recovered. -3- 97-2069 CRIMINAL TERM 98-0767 CRIMINAL TERM convicted. It appears that defendant is obliquely challenging the orders of restitution on the counts of theft from both the victims as to the items found missing in both homes that either were (1) not recovered, or (2) that she did not admit she stole. We do not believe that defendant's concise statement of matters complained of on appeal provides a legal basis for such relief. Notwithstanding, there was sufficient evidence to support all of the convictions and the orders of restitution on the theft counts. That evidence showed that defendant had a common scheme and plan of stealing property from both of her employers. See Commonwealth v. Bradley, 243 Pa. Super. 208 (1976). Defendant (1) was caught attempting to steal property from the home of Linda Mumma, (2) admitted stealing property from the home of Barbara Mumma, (3) sold some of Barbara Mumma's property to Harry Donson, some of which was recovered, and (4) admitted that she stole property from Barbara Mumma that was found in her own home. There were no forcible entries into the homes of either victim and additional property was missing from both of the homes. There was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence whereby the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt defendant stole all of the property that was missing from the homes of the victims for which she was held accountable in restitution. · (DATE) Edgar B. Bayley, J. -4- 97-2069 CRIMINAL TERM 98-0767 CRIMINAL TERM Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Ellen K. Barry, Esquire For Defendant :saa -5-