Com. v. Cross, P.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 1240 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S18032-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : PAULA CROSS : : Appellant : No. 1240 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 10, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0001694-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: JULY 21, 2025

Paula Cross (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County on September 10, 2024.

Appellant proceeded to trial on March 9, 2023, on four counts of persons not

to possess a firearm12, and she was subsequently convicted on all four counts.

After careful review, we affirm.

On September 18, 2019, the Altoona police department received a

report of a possible theft of several firearms from the residence of Appellant’s

uncle John and aunt Diane Monnikendam. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 34. At

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) 2 Of note, by agreement of the parties, those four counts had been severed

from a twenty-three count information; Appellant previously attempted to appeal this conviction, but as the remaining nineteen counts were not yet resolved, this Court quashed that appeal on June 7, 2024. Commonwealth v. Cross, 317 A.3d 655 (Pa. Super. 2024). J-S18032-25

that time, Mr. and Mrs. Monnikendam were no longer residing in the home;

by March of 2018, Mr. Monnikendam had moved to an assisted living facility,

where he later passed away in December of 2018, and Mrs. Monnkidendam

had moved in with her daughter and son-in-law, Maria and Brady Dennis. N.T.

Trial, March 9, 2023, at 43. However, Diane maintained ownership of the

residence and stored much of her and her late husband’s personal belongings

there, including Mr. Monnikendam’s extensive firearm and antique collections.

N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 43-47. Mr. and Mrs. Dennis would regularly check

in on the property, entering the residence at least bi-weekly. N.T. Trial, March

9, 2023, at 43-44. According to Mrs. Dennis, no one else had permission to

enter the residence. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 47. It was during one of

these check-ins, on September 18, 2019, that Mr. Dennis saw that the house

had been “turned upside down,” and looked like “an animal got loose in the

place.” N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 32. While Mrs. Dennis was able to confirm

that some property was missing from the residence, including a large hutch,

due to the number of firearms that had been present and the disorganized

state of the house, she could not at that time be sure whether any firearms

had been removed. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, 47. Nonetheless, the couple

called the police.

In the early morning hours of August 28, 2019, following a successful

drug bust at the Super 8 Motel in Altoona, Pennsylvania, three pistols and one

shotgun were recovered from a room in which one Michael Burchfield had been

residing with his girlfriend Summer Heil. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 54-56.

-2- J-S18032-25

Among those firearms were: a Ruger Mark I pistol, a Ruger Charger pistol,

and a Thomson Center Super 14 pistol, all registered to Mr. Monnikendam,

and a Charles Daly Maxi shotgun registered to Appellant’s brother, Robert

Cross3. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, 71-72. Mr. Burchfield and Ms. Heil both

testified that they received the guns from Appellant’s then-fiancé Michael

“Mountain Mike” Trosky, in exchange for drugs. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at

88-89, 102. Mr. Burchfield testified that Mr. Trosky came to his motel room

six or seven times to exchange guns for drugs. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at

96-97. Ms. Heil testified that Appellant was there with Mr. Trosky at each

exchange, and that Appellant and Ms. Heil would get high together at those

times. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 102. Further, concerning the four guns at

issue in the instant case, Ms. Heil testified Appellant told her that one of the

guns had been stolen from Appellant’s brother and that the other three were

taken from Appellant’s uncle’s residence. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 106.

At trial Mr. Trosky, admitted that it was indeed he and Appellant who

had raided the Monnikendams’ home, and he confirmed that they had taken

firearms therefrom to sell or alternatively trade them for drugs. N.T. Trial,

March 9, 2023, 119. He testified that Appellant told him several times that

the Monnikendam house had been abandoned following the death of Mr.

Monnikdendam, and she had urged Mr. Trosky repeatedly to go to the house

to take the guns stored there. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, 120. Mr. Trosky ____________________________________________

3 These four firearms form the basis for the four counts of persons not to

possess of which Appellant was convicted.

-3- J-S18032-25

testified that at first he refused, but eventually he did relent, and he further

testified that he and Appellant raided the house for valuables five or six times.

Id. He explained that the house was padlocked on their initial arrival, but that

Appellant crawled in through the window, and he was able to enter through

the back door. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 121. Mr. Trosky testified that the

two packed the firearms they had found in Rubbermaid tubs, and that

Appellant helped him to carry the guns from the house to the car because he

“couldn’t carry them all himself.” Id. He clarified that there were more

firearms taken from the residence than the three which were recovered from

the motel room. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 124. Mr. Trosky did acknowledge

at trial that he could not say for certain whether he recalled Appellant ever

handling the particular pistols at issue in this matter. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023,

at 137. Prior to trading the firearms, Mr. Trosky explained that the weapons

were kept in their basement, to which Appellant had access. N.T. Trial, March

9, 2023, at 131. Mr. Trosky also recounted one incident wherein Appellant had

taken a pistol, it is unclear which pistol he is referring to, from the basement

and pointed it at him, asking “how do you like me now?” Id.

Regarding the Charles Day Maxi shotgun, Mr. Trosky testified that

Appellant told him about the shotgun as well, and that they went together to

Appellant’s parents’ house in Juniata, where the gun was stored. N.T. Trial,

March 9, 2023, 125-126. Upon arrival, Mr. Trosky waited in the car while

Appellant went inside, and returned with the shotgun, whereafter Mr. Trosky

called Mr. Burchfield to arrange the trade. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 126.

-4- J-S18032-25

At trial, through Robin Patton, Prothonotary and Clerk of Courts for Blair

County, the Commonwealth adduced a certified copy of a sentencing order

showing Appellant had previously plead guilty to two counts of possession with

intent to deliver, graded as felonies. N.T. Trial, March 9, 2023, at 140-141. It

is not contested that these convictions render Appellant a person not to

possess pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c). Appellant’s Brief at 6.

Appellant was convicted and subsequently sentenced on July 14, 2023.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on August 14, 2023, and a concise

statement of matters complained of on appeal on September 5, 2023. On June

7, 2024, this Court quashed that prior appeal as premature. See Cross,

supra. On October 7, 2024, Appellant timely filed a subsequent notice of

appeal following resolution of the remaining nineteen counts listed on the

criminal information, and the instant appeal follows. As all nineteen remaining

counts included in the criminal information were resolved via negotiated

agreement, this matter is ripe for disposition.4 N.T. Guilty Plea and Sentencing

September 10, 2024 at 19-20.

Appellant raises one issue for our review:

“Was the evidence of persons no to possess firearms presented at trial sufficient to convict the Appellant?”

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

4 While we are not impeded from reviewing the matter sub judice, we do

note with displeasure that the Commonwealth has failed to file an Appellee’s brief, and furthermore did not file a letter or otherwise give this Court any indication of its intentions or position relative to this matter.

-5- J-S18032-25

Our standard of review in claims challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence is well-settled:

“The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.”

Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017)(citation

omitted).

To sustain Appellant’s conviction for person not to possess a firearm,

the Commonwealth must prove: (1) Appellant possessed a firearm and (2)

that Appellant had previously been convicted of a disqualifying offense.

Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 333 A.3d 417, 432 (Pa. Super. 2025); 18

Pa.C.S.A. §6105(c). “This Court has held that possession can be found by

proving actual possession, constructive possession, or joint constructive

possession." Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36 (Pa. Super. 2018).

“Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to deal with the realities of criminal law enforcement. Constructive possession is an inference arising from a set of facts that possession of the contraband was more likely than not. We have defined constructive possession as conscious dominion. We subsequently defined conscious dominion as the power to control

-6- J-S18032-25

the contraband and the intent to exercise that control. To aid application, we have held that constructive possession may be established by the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, it is possible for two people to have joint constructive possession of an item of contraband.”

Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820-821 (Pa. Super.

2013)(citation omitted).

As Appellant has acknowledged that she is a person not to possess

pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. §6105(C), all that remains for this Court to analyze

is the possession element. Here, we find that the Commonwealth adduced

sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was in

possession of all four firearms at issue. Relative to the Charles Daly Maxi

shotgun, the Commonwealth produced an eyewitness, Appellant’s ex-fiancé

Michael Trosky, who testified that Appellant went into her parents’ home and

came back out carrying a shotgun. Despite Appellant’s characterization of Mr.

Trosky’s testimony as “highly suspect,” we are nonetheless satisfied that this

evidence is sufficient to prove that Appellant was in actual possession of the

shotgun in question. Appellant’s Brief at 8.

Regarding the Ruger Mark I pistol, Ruger Charger pistol, and Thomson

Center Super 14 pistol taken from Mr. Monnikendam’s residence, we are

satisfied that the Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt that Appellant was in joint constructive possession of the

pistols. Mr. Trosky’s testimony established that Appellant formulated the plan

to remove the firearms from the Monnikendam’s residence, that she recruited

-7- J-S18032-25

him into this scheme, that she was an active participant in entering the home,

locating the firearms, and packing the firearms, and that she assisted him in

carrying the firearms to the car to be transported from the residence. We find

of particular note Mr. Trosky’s clarification that many firearms were taken from

the Monnikendam house which were not recovered, and that packing and

carrying all of the stolen firearms from the house was a joint endeavor in

which Appellant was actively engaged. Further, appellant retained access to

the firearms where they were stored prior to the exchange with Mr. Burchfield

and Ms. Heil, arrived with Mr. Trosky at the motel room where the guns were

traded, and Ms. Heil testified that Appellant told her from where the firearms

had been stolen during the exchange, corroborating Mr. Trosky’s testimony.

In assessing the totality of these circumstances and viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we find that the evidence

clearly shows Appellant exercised “conscious dominion” over all the firearms

removed from the Monnikendam house, and thus she was in joint constructive

possession of the firearms in tandem with Mr. Trosky. The fact that Mr. Trosky

could not say for certain whether Appellant ever physically carried these

particular pistols is of no moment. That is to say, that Appellant may only

have physically carried the firearms which were not recovered does not

expiate her responsibility for the removal of the firearms that were recovered.

As such, we find that Appellant’s single issue presented merits no relief.

Accordingly, we affirm.

-8- J-S18032-25

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DATE: 7/21/2025

-9-