HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1820-2001
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
TANYA RAE UNGER : CP-21-CR-1820-2001
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Bayley, J., February 14, 2006:--
On December 20, 2005, defendant, Tanya Rae Unger, was found guilty at a
1
bench trial of criminal mischief, a misdemeanor in the third degree. On January 9,
2006, she was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, make restitution to Dawn
Clark in the amount of $628.50, and undergo a period of unsupervised probation for six
months. 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 avers that “The Trial Court lacked sufficient evidence to support [her]
conviction for criminal mischief.”
The evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth was as follows. On
September 14, 2000
, Dawn Clark worked at the Leer Corporation in Carlisle. She
drove to work in her red Volkswagen Jetta for a third shift that started at 11:00 p.m.
She parked in an employee lot. Two to three months earlier, while her Jetta was in the
same parking lot, the tires were slashed. While Clark was working on her September
th
14 shift, she was told that there was a problem with her car. She went outside and
__________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(2). A person is guilty of criminal mischief if that person
“intentionally or recklessly tampers with tangible personal property of another so as to
endanger person or property.”
CP-21-CR-1820-2001
discovered that the windshield was smashed and the hood damaged. Officer Kevin
Roland of the Carlisle Police Department responded. He and Clark saw an empty beer
bottle sitting on the hood of the car. The hood was deeply scratched almost through
the metal. On the ground next to the car was a knife blade with a serrated edge. There
were red paint flakes on the blade which were consistent with the color of the Jetta.
Subsequently, a fingerprint of defendant was identified on the blade. Officer Roland
then talked to defendant. She told him that she did not know how her fingerprint could
have gotten on the blade. Prior to September 14, 2000, Greg Myers had been a
boyfriend of Dawn Clark. At the same time he was involved with defendant, Tanya
Unger. During that period, Unger telephoned Clark and told her that Myers had gotten
2
her pregnant. She demanded to talk to Myers and threatened to beat up Clark.
In examining a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine
whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence to enable a factfinder to find every
Commonwealth v. Lyons,
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 833 A.2d
sub judice,
245 (Pa. Super. 2003). In the case there was evidence that, (1) defendant
was upset at Clark, (2) defendant threatened Clark, (3) a knife blade found next to the
Jetta was used to damage the hood, (4) that blade contained the fingerprint of
2
Defendant called as a witness another boyfriend, Ronald Paul Barness, an inmate at
the Cumberland County Prison. He testified that he damaged Clark’s Jetta on the
evening of September 14, 2000, with a knife he took from the home of defendant. His
testimony, long after the two year statute of limitations had expired (42 Pa.C.S. § 5552
-2-
CP-21-CR-1820-2001
(a)), was in its entirety not credible.
-3-
CP-21-CR-1820-2001
defendant, and (5) defendant told a police officer that she did not know how her
fingerprint could have gotten on that blade. The evidence was sufficient to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally damaged Clark’s car and was
guilty of criminal mischief.
(Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Derek R. Clepper, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Ellen K. Barry, Esquire
For Defendant
:sal
-4-