Com. v. Bowman, W.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 19, 2014
• Docket: 92 EDA 2014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S57025-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

WILLIE L. BOWMAN

Appellant No. 92 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 6, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003622-2013

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014

Appellant, Willie L. Bowman, appeals from the December 6, 2013

f one count of

theft by unlawful taking and three counts of forgery.1 After careful review,

we affirm.

procedural history of this case as follows. This action arises out of a

posthumous

-6. The real property in

question consists of three adjoining parcels in Chester, Pennsylvania, upon ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(b) and 4101(a)(3), respectively. J-S57025-14

Id. at 2 n.1. Brother died from

leukemia on November 19, 2011. Id.

Id. at 3-4. Early in 2012,

ted in

the home she shared with Brother. Id. at 3. Late in 2012, Niece was

transferring the property from Brother to Appellant were executed

Id. at 3-4, 7. Each

deed contained an acknowledgment form, signed by a notary public, which

indicated Brother appeared before the notary on the date of the transfer.

Id.

behalf, alleging Brother granted him the authority to do so during a

Id. at 8.

The Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant with various

offenses arising out of his attempted transfer of the property. Following a

two-day trial, a jury convicted Appellant of the aforementioned offenses on

October 29, 2013. The trial court sentenced Appellant on December 6,

2013. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on December 9, 2013,

-2- J-S57025-14

which the trial court denied on December 11, 2013. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal on January 9, 2014.2

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.

1[.] Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for [f]orgery since the Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Appellant], with the intent to defraud or injure another person, made, completed, executed, authenticated, issued, uttered, or transferred the deeds at issue herein without authorization from the person who [sic] those writings purported to be from?

2[.] Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for [t]heft by [u]nlawful [t]aking (immovable property) since the Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Appellant] unlawfully transferred, or exercised unlawful control over, immovable property of another person that he was not entitled to?

Our standard of review regarding challenges to the sufficiency of the

In reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

-3- J-S57025-14

to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and

inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn

Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d

108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted), appeal denied, --- A.3d ---, 1033 MAL 2013 (Pa. 2014). As an

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

resolved by the fact-finder

unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no

Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 64 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses

and the weight of the evidence produced is free to believe all, part or none

a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review

Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013)

(citation omitted).

Appellant initially avers that the Commonwealth failed to present

sufficient evidence to support his underlying forgery convict

Brief at 14-18, citing Commonwealth v. DiPiero, 208 A.2d 912, 915 (Pa.

-4- J-S57025-14

Su

cert. denied,

DiPiero v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 992 (1966). Specifically, Appellant

[he] acted with the intent to defraud[] or that he signed the deeds without

Id. at 14.

The Crimes Code defines forgery in Section 4101(a) as follows.

§ 4101. Forgery.

(a) Offense defined. --A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the actor:

(1) alters any writing of another without his authority;

(2) makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues or transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed; or

(3) utters any writing which he knows to be forged in a manner specified in paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a).

-5- J-S57025-14

Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of

forgery pursuant to Section 4101(a)(3). When addressing the sufficiency of

reasoned as follows.

The enti that [B]rother verbally authorized him to transfer the deeds to the three properties to himself, notwithstanding the fact that this was never done

admitted that nine mon he took the deeds to the three properties, signed

each recorded by the Recorder of Deeds. Additionally, the jury heard the testimony of [N]iece and the independent real estate agent demonstrating the attempts by [Brother] to sell the properties during his lifetime. The Commonwealth proved that Appellant altered and recorded the deeds without the authority to do so in order to deprive the rightful

chose to reject the self-serving testimony of Appellant was due to the abundance of evidence

thereof.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 7-8.

Herein, the Commonwealth presented evidence from Niece, who stated

that Appellant and Brother did not have a relationship and that Brother

never intended to give Appellant the property upon his death. N.T.,

10/28/13, at 99, 119. Rather, Niece testified that Brother tried to sell the

property in 2002 and 2010. Id. at 101-102. Specifically,

estate agent testified that Brother listed the property for sale from August

-6- J-S57025-14

l

the property subsequent to February 2010. Id. at 11. Niece testified that

she maintained the property for Brother during 2011 and updated him on

any offers received from potential purchasers of the property. N.T.,

10/28/13, at 138-139; see also

estate agent testified that he forwarded any further inquiries he received

regarding the sale of the property to Niece). Additionally, Broth

attorney testified that Brother intended for the entirety of his property to

10/28/13, at 152; see also id. at Exhibit C-

confirmed that Brother chose not to bequeath any property to Appellant

within his will. Id.

three deeds, which purported to transfer the property to Appellant, were

e as grantor approximately

nine months after his death. Id. at 157, 166, 170-171, 173. Upon

examining this testimony, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to

forgery. See Patterson, supra.

first claim fails.

at 19-

-7- J-S57025-14

[T]here is no evidence that [Appellant] knew about the aged will or its contents. Further, his claim that

issue was not rebutted beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the government failed to prove that he was not entitled to the property, or that he acted with the intent to unlawfully benefit himself. Since a person cannot steal that which he is entitled to, no theft occurred.

Instantly, Appellant was convicted of stealing immovable property

pursuant to Section 3921(b) of the Crimes Code. The Code delineates the

elements of theft by unlawful taking of immovable property as follows.

§ 3921. Theft by unlawful taking or disposition.

(b) Immovable property. A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers, or exercises unlawful control over, immovable property of another or any interest therein with intent to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(b).

--Property the location of which can be changed, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, and documents although the rights represented thereby have no physical location.

Id. § 3901.

In supp

follows.

-8- J-S57025-14

Here, there was an abundance of evidence to

estate to himself in order to benefit his desire to run his business [on] the property. Although Appellant presented evidence via his own testimony and that of two witnesses that [Brother] purportedly authorized the transfer of the property, the jury did he events to be a credible account, particularly, in light of the fact that the conversation authorizing the transfer occurred

Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 8.

described above amply supports its theory that Appellant transferred the

property of Brother to his own name to benefit himself without authorization.

See supra at 6-7. Accordingly, the Commonwealth presented sufficient

evidence to suppor See Patterson, supra.

sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

-9- J-S57025-14

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/19/2014

- 10 -