J-S43011-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STEPHEN ERIC CLAYCOMB : : Appellant : No. 1501 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 2, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002355-2023
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 4, 2025
Stephen Eric Claycomb appeals from the judgment of sentence of one
year of probation imposed upon his convictions for theft by unlawful taking
and receiving stolen property. We affirm.
By way of background, on the morning of Monday, January 30, 2023,
the general foreman of Intren Electric, Matthew Watkins, noticed that
aluminum wire had been taken from the company’s recycling bin. Intren
Electric acquired the wire after completing a job for Philadelphia Electric
Company (“PECO”), and was obligated to return it to PECO for recycling. Mr.
Watkins last saw the wire the previous Friday, coiled, taped, and stored inside
the bin, which was located at the edge of their property and adjacent to
railroad tracks. When he discovered that the wire was missing, Mr. Watkins
recovered images taken by motion-activated trail cameras at the recycling bin J-S43011-24
and at a dead-end driveway on the other side of the train tracks. The camera
located by the bin caught two men approaching it at nighttime, and the other
camera by the driveway captured a pickup truck in motion.
On the same day that Mr. Watkins noticed that the wire was missing,
Appellant showed up at Reliable Auto, a scrap metal buyer, to sell wire.
Appellant had sold material to this business in the past, and Francis Bianchini,
an employee of Reliable Auto, was familiar with Appellant. A security camera
at the business captured video and a still image of Appellant approaching
Reliable Auto with coiled and taped wire in the bed of his Dodge Ram pickup
truck. Although Appellant attempted to sell the wire, Reliable Auto refused to
buy it.
Detective Edward Nitka of the Pottstown Police Department investigated
this matter. He began by reaching out to local scrapyards, including Reliable
Auto, to inquire if anyone attempted to sell the stolen material. When
contacted, Mr. Bianchini told the detective that Appellant attempted to sell
wire on January 30, and provided the surveillance footage. Detective Nitka
then inspected Intren Electric’s property and the surrounding area, namely
the driveway beside the railroad tracks. Mr. Watkins also provided the
detective with the images captured by the trail cameras. During his
investigation, Detective Nitka took photographs of disturbed gravel leading
from the railroad tracks to the driveway, showing footprints and indicating
-2- J-S43011-24
that something large had been dragged. The surrounding gravel was
otherwise untouched.
Based on Mr. Bianchini’s identification of Appellant, Detective Nitka
reached out to him for questioning. Appellant agreed to a recorded interview
and began by explaining that he is a scrapper, and he typically collects
material from dumpsters owned by AT&T. When Detective Nitka showed
Appellant the photograph from Reliable Auto’s surveillance, depicting
Appellant in a pickup truck with wire in the bed, Appellant posited that he
likely obtained that wire from the AT&T dumpsters, and he would have
collected it alone. After the detective asked Appellant whether he knew
anything about the theft at Intren Electric, he denied ever being at the
business’s property or the surrounding area. When Detective Nitka showed
Appellant photographs taken by the trail cameras and the images of the
disturbed gravel by the train tracks, Appellant stated that he received word
from an acquaintance that there was abandoned wire on the railroad tracks
next to Intren Electric, and he and a friend went to retrieve it. Appellant
denied obtaining the wire from the recycling bin and claimed that someone
must have dragged it from the bin and left it on the tracks.
After the interview, Appellant was arrested and charged with theft by
unlawful taking and receiving stolen property. At the ensuing jury trial, Mr.
Watkins, Mr. Bianchini, and Detective Nitka testified to the above facts. The
Commonwealth introduced the images captured by the trail cameras at Intren
-3- J-S43011-24
Electric, the surveillance footage and photograph from Reliable Auto, the
pictures of the disturbed gravel, and the audio recording of Appellant’s
interview with Detective Nitka. During his testimony, Mr. Watkins identified
the stolen wire in the bed of Appellant’s truck from Reliable Auto’s photograph.
Detective Nitka was also able to classify the vehicle in the trail camera images
as a Dodge Ram pickup truck. The jury convicted Appellant of both charges,
and the trial court sentenced him to one year of probation.
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion arguing that the jury’s verdict
was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion,
and this timely appeal followed. Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement, asserting that the jury did not have sufficient evidence to
convict him, and the court authored a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Appellant presents the following questions for our consideration:
1. Whether the verdicts on the charges of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property . . . were against the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant was guilty of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property.
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Appellant’s first claim of error is that the weight of the evidence does
not support his convictions. Although raised in his post-sentence motion,
Appellant failed to include this issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See
Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1047 (Pa.Super. 2022) (“Here,
-4- J-S43011-24
while Appellant preserved the weight claim by raising it in a post-sentence
motion, he has waived this issue for failing to properly preserve it in his
concise statement.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating that “[i]ssues not
included in the [1925(b) s]tatement and/or not raised in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived”). Accordingly, Appellant’s
weight issue is waived.
Appellant next assails the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions. In a sufficiency challenge, this Court “must determine whether
the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are
sufficient to support all elements of the offense” beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Miyares, 320 A.3d 740, 743 (Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned
up). The Commonwealth may prove every element of a crime “by utilizing
only circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Riley, 302 A.3d 112, 115
(Pa.Super. 2023). Upon review, we may not substitute our judgment for that
of the factfinder or reweigh the evidence. See Miyares, 320 A.3d at 743.
Appellant was convicted of two theft charges, the first being theft by
unlawful taking. “A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S43011-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STEPHEN ERIC CLAYCOMB : : Appellant : No. 1501 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 2, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002355-2023
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 4, 2025
Stephen Eric Claycomb appeals from the judgment of sentence of one
year of probation imposed upon his convictions for theft by unlawful taking
and receiving stolen property. We affirm.
By way of background, on the morning of Monday, January 30, 2023,
the general foreman of Intren Electric, Matthew Watkins, noticed that
aluminum wire had been taken from the company’s recycling bin. Intren
Electric acquired the wire after completing a job for Philadelphia Electric
Company (“PECO”), and was obligated to return it to PECO for recycling. Mr.
Watkins last saw the wire the previous Friday, coiled, taped, and stored inside
the bin, which was located at the edge of their property and adjacent to
railroad tracks. When he discovered that the wire was missing, Mr. Watkins
recovered images taken by motion-activated trail cameras at the recycling bin J-S43011-24
and at a dead-end driveway on the other side of the train tracks. The camera
located by the bin caught two men approaching it at nighttime, and the other
camera by the driveway captured a pickup truck in motion.
On the same day that Mr. Watkins noticed that the wire was missing,
Appellant showed up at Reliable Auto, a scrap metal buyer, to sell wire.
Appellant had sold material to this business in the past, and Francis Bianchini,
an employee of Reliable Auto, was familiar with Appellant. A security camera
at the business captured video and a still image of Appellant approaching
Reliable Auto with coiled and taped wire in the bed of his Dodge Ram pickup
truck. Although Appellant attempted to sell the wire, Reliable Auto refused to
buy it.
Detective Edward Nitka of the Pottstown Police Department investigated
this matter. He began by reaching out to local scrapyards, including Reliable
Auto, to inquire if anyone attempted to sell the stolen material. When
contacted, Mr. Bianchini told the detective that Appellant attempted to sell
wire on January 30, and provided the surveillance footage. Detective Nitka
then inspected Intren Electric’s property and the surrounding area, namely
the driveway beside the railroad tracks. Mr. Watkins also provided the
detective with the images captured by the trail cameras. During his
investigation, Detective Nitka took photographs of disturbed gravel leading
from the railroad tracks to the driveway, showing footprints and indicating
-2- J-S43011-24
that something large had been dragged. The surrounding gravel was
otherwise untouched.
Based on Mr. Bianchini’s identification of Appellant, Detective Nitka
reached out to him for questioning. Appellant agreed to a recorded interview
and began by explaining that he is a scrapper, and he typically collects
material from dumpsters owned by AT&T. When Detective Nitka showed
Appellant the photograph from Reliable Auto’s surveillance, depicting
Appellant in a pickup truck with wire in the bed, Appellant posited that he
likely obtained that wire from the AT&T dumpsters, and he would have
collected it alone. After the detective asked Appellant whether he knew
anything about the theft at Intren Electric, he denied ever being at the
business’s property or the surrounding area. When Detective Nitka showed
Appellant photographs taken by the trail cameras and the images of the
disturbed gravel by the train tracks, Appellant stated that he received word
from an acquaintance that there was abandoned wire on the railroad tracks
next to Intren Electric, and he and a friend went to retrieve it. Appellant
denied obtaining the wire from the recycling bin and claimed that someone
must have dragged it from the bin and left it on the tracks.
After the interview, Appellant was arrested and charged with theft by
unlawful taking and receiving stolen property. At the ensuing jury trial, Mr.
Watkins, Mr. Bianchini, and Detective Nitka testified to the above facts. The
Commonwealth introduced the images captured by the trail cameras at Intren
-3- J-S43011-24
Electric, the surveillance footage and photograph from Reliable Auto, the
pictures of the disturbed gravel, and the audio recording of Appellant’s
interview with Detective Nitka. During his testimony, Mr. Watkins identified
the stolen wire in the bed of Appellant’s truck from Reliable Auto’s photograph.
Detective Nitka was also able to classify the vehicle in the trail camera images
as a Dodge Ram pickup truck. The jury convicted Appellant of both charges,
and the trial court sentenced him to one year of probation.
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion arguing that the jury’s verdict
was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion,
and this timely appeal followed. Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement, asserting that the jury did not have sufficient evidence to
convict him, and the court authored a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Appellant presents the following questions for our consideration:
1. Whether the verdicts on the charges of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property . . . were against the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant was guilty of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property.
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Appellant’s first claim of error is that the weight of the evidence does
not support his convictions. Although raised in his post-sentence motion,
Appellant failed to include this issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See
Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1047 (Pa.Super. 2022) (“Here,
-4- J-S43011-24
while Appellant preserved the weight claim by raising it in a post-sentence
motion, he has waived this issue for failing to properly preserve it in his
concise statement.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating that “[i]ssues not
included in the [1925(b) s]tatement and/or not raised in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived”). Accordingly, Appellant’s
weight issue is waived.
Appellant next assails the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions. In a sufficiency challenge, this Court “must determine whether
the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are
sufficient to support all elements of the offense” beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Miyares, 320 A.3d 740, 743 (Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned
up). The Commonwealth may prove every element of a crime “by utilizing
only circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Riley, 302 A.3d 112, 115
(Pa.Super. 2023). Upon review, we may not substitute our judgment for that
of the factfinder or reweigh the evidence. See Miyares, 320 A.3d at 743.
Appellant was convicted of two theft charges, the first being theft by
unlawful taking. “A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises
unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him
thereof.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a). Appellant was also convicted of receiving
stolen property, for which “a person is guilty . . . if he intentionally receives,
retains, or disposes of moveable property of another knowing that it has been
-5- J-S43011-24
stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is
received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner.”
18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).
Appellant maintains that he was never identified as the individual in the
images obtained from Intren Electric’s trail cameras, and the truck in those
photos was not proven to be his. See Appellant’s brief at 14. He further
argues that the wire in the bed of his truck, as seen in the video and
photograph taken by Reliable Auto, was not confirmed to be the stolen wire.
Id. He contends that “someone else could have taken the wire and left it on
the railroad tracks[,]” which Detective Nitka conceded was possible, and that
the Commonwealth did not prove that he knew or should have known that the
wire was stolen. Id. at 14-15.
The trial court reasoned in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that there was ample
evidence for the jury to conclude that Appellant was guilty of both charges
beyond a reasonable doubt given the trail camera images, Reliable Auto’s
surveillance footage, the credible testimony of Mr. Watkins, Mr. Bianchini, and
Detective Nitka, and Appellant’s inconsistent answers during his recorded
interview. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/9/24, at 6-7. The court summarized
that “all this circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to identify
Appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes,” and “the fact that the wire stolen
from Intren Electric could not be definitively determined to be the wire in his
truck is not fatal to his convictions.” Id. (cleaned up).
-6- J-S43011-24
We agree with the trial court’s assessment. Reliable Auto’s surveillance
video and photograph depicted Appellant arriving in a Dodge Ram pickup truck
to sell coiled and taped wire on January 30. See Commonwealth’s Exhibits C-
2, C-3. From that photographic evidence, Mr. Watkins was able to identify
the stolen wire. See N.T. Jury Trial, 1/31/24, at 35-37. Mr. Bianchini also
testified that Appellant attempted to sell wire at Reliable Auto on the same
day of the theft, and this was the same wire that Detective Nitka was
investigating. Id. at 44, 50. The detective further identified Appellant’s truck
from Intren Electric’s trail camera images. Id. at 54. The jurors reviewed the
photographic exhibits themselves and were within their province to identify
Appellant and use circumstantial evidence to link him to the theft of the wire.
See Riley, 302 A.3d at 115. The audio-recorded interview with Detective
Nitka was also presented to the jury, wherein Appellant changed his story as
he was presented with photographs that placed him at the scene of the crime.
See N.T. Jury Trial, 1/31/24, at 64-66. Although Appellant did not admit to
removing the wire from the victim’s property, he stated to Detective Nitka
that he believed someone took the wire from the recycling bin and left it on
the train tracks, providing evidence for the notion that he knew the wire was
stolen. Accordingly, Appellant’s sufficiency arguments lack merit.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-7- J-S43011-24
Date: 2/4/2025
-8-