J-S31023-25
2025 PA Super 215
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMAR WELLMON : : Appellant : No. 2794 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003483-2024
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.
OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Appellant, Jamar Wellmon, appeals from the September 12, 2024
judgment of sentence of four to eight months of incarceration followed by two
years of probation after his non-jury trial conviction of Robbery, Retail Theft,
and Simple Assault.1 Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence in support of his Robbery and Retail Theft convictions. After careful
review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On April 24,
2024, at approximately 8:30 AM, Appellant entered a Rite Aid pharmacy in
Philadelphia wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and a face mask, and carrying
one bag over his shoulder and another—a reusable orange shopping bag—in
his hand.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(iv), 3929(a), and 2701(a), respectively. J-S31023-25
Duane Jordan was working as a security guard in the store at the time
and observed Appellant walking down one of the store aisles then suddenly
“duck” into another aisle. N.T., 9/5/24, at 14, 26-27. Mr. Jordan walked up
another aisle so he could be better positioned to watch Appellant and saw
Appellant take something from the refrigerated section. He then observed
Appellant put a 12-pack of Red Bull energy drinks into the orange reusable
shopping bag.
Appellant then walked toward Mr. Jordan and, as he approached, Mr.
Jordan told Appellant “it’s too early for this” and “you’re either going to pay
for it, or put it back.” Id. at 14-15. Appellant did not respond to Mr. Jordan
and continued walking past him. At that point, Mr. Jordan “went for the bag.”
Id. at 15. Appellant then “spun around on [Appellant] and he swung[,]”
landing a punch on Mr. Jordan’s left side. Id. at 16. The two men then
“started tusslin’.” Id. As they fought, they moved towards the vestibule of
the store where Appellant’s mask came off.
Ultimately, Appellant fled the store leaving behind his personal items as
well as the orange reusable shopping bag holding the Red Bull. Police
apprehended Appellant across the street from the Rite Aid, and Mr. Jordan
identified him as the person who had attempted to steal the Red Bull and had
assaulted him.
-2- J-S31023-25
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with the above offenses.2
Appellant proceeded to a non-jury trial and presented the testimony of Mr.
Jordan, who testified in accordance with the above facts. In addition, Mr.
Jordan testified that the vestibule of the store is on the far side of the cash
registers in the direction of the store’s exit. He also testified that Appellant
did not leave the store with unpaid merchandise.
Appellant did not present any evidence or testify on his own behalf, and,
following closing arguments, the trial court convicted Appellant of Retail Theft,
Robbery, and Simple Assault.
On September 12, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term
of four to eight months of incarceration followed by two years of probation.
Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
This appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:
1. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to find that [Appellant] committed a retail theft under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a), where the trial court erred by finding that the presumption pursuant to § 3929(c) applied, and the evidence was otherwise insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] intended to take any merchandise from the store without paying?
2. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law that [Appellant] committed [R]obbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a), ____________________________________________
2 The Commonwealth also charged Appellant with Terroristic Threats. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, the court granted Appellant’s unopposed motion for judgment of acquittal on that charge.
-3- J-S31023-25
because the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] committed or attempted to commit a theft?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in support
of his Retail Theft and Robbery convictions. “A claim challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.” Commonwealth v.
Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). “[O]ur standard of review is de
novo[,] and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v.
Hutchinson, 164 A.3d 494, 497 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). In
reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we determine “whether the evidence at trial,
and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to
establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. May, 887 A.2d 750, 753 (Pa. 2005). “Further, a
conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial evidence, and the trier
of fact—while passing on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the
evidence—is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017). “In
conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh the evidence and
substitute its judgment for the factfinder.” Id.
***
In his first issue, Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence in support of his Retail Theft conviction. A close reading of
-4- J-S31023-25
Appellant’s brief, however, indicates that Appellant, in fact, challenges the trial
court’s application of a provision in the Retail Theft statute that established a
presumption of the intent element of the crime. Appellant’s Brief at 12-17.
A person is guilty of Retail Theft if he “takes possession of [or] carries
away . . . any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any
store . . . with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use
or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof[.]”
18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1).
In Section 3929(c), our legislature established a presumption that a
person in possession of concealed unpurchased property intended to commit
the offense of Retail Theft. Section 3929(c) provides that
[a]ny person intentionally concealing unpurchased property . . . shall be prima facie presumed to have so concealed such property with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use[,] or benefit of such merchandise . . . within the meaning of subsection (a), and the finding of such unpurchased property concealed, upon the person or among the belongings of such person, shall be prima facie evidence of intentional concealment[.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S31023-25
2025 PA Super 215
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMAR WELLMON : : Appellant : No. 2794 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003483-2024
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.
OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Appellant, Jamar Wellmon, appeals from the September 12, 2024
judgment of sentence of four to eight months of incarceration followed by two
years of probation after his non-jury trial conviction of Robbery, Retail Theft,
and Simple Assault.1 Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence in support of his Robbery and Retail Theft convictions. After careful
review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On April 24,
2024, at approximately 8:30 AM, Appellant entered a Rite Aid pharmacy in
Philadelphia wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and a face mask, and carrying
one bag over his shoulder and another—a reusable orange shopping bag—in
his hand.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(iv), 3929(a), and 2701(a), respectively. J-S31023-25
Duane Jordan was working as a security guard in the store at the time
and observed Appellant walking down one of the store aisles then suddenly
“duck” into another aisle. N.T., 9/5/24, at 14, 26-27. Mr. Jordan walked up
another aisle so he could be better positioned to watch Appellant and saw
Appellant take something from the refrigerated section. He then observed
Appellant put a 12-pack of Red Bull energy drinks into the orange reusable
shopping bag.
Appellant then walked toward Mr. Jordan and, as he approached, Mr.
Jordan told Appellant “it’s too early for this” and “you’re either going to pay
for it, or put it back.” Id. at 14-15. Appellant did not respond to Mr. Jordan
and continued walking past him. At that point, Mr. Jordan “went for the bag.”
Id. at 15. Appellant then “spun around on [Appellant] and he swung[,]”
landing a punch on Mr. Jordan’s left side. Id. at 16. The two men then
“started tusslin’.” Id. As they fought, they moved towards the vestibule of
the store where Appellant’s mask came off.
Ultimately, Appellant fled the store leaving behind his personal items as
well as the orange reusable shopping bag holding the Red Bull. Police
apprehended Appellant across the street from the Rite Aid, and Mr. Jordan
identified him as the person who had attempted to steal the Red Bull and had
assaulted him.
-2- J-S31023-25
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with the above offenses.2
Appellant proceeded to a non-jury trial and presented the testimony of Mr.
Jordan, who testified in accordance with the above facts. In addition, Mr.
Jordan testified that the vestibule of the store is on the far side of the cash
registers in the direction of the store’s exit. He also testified that Appellant
did not leave the store with unpaid merchandise.
Appellant did not present any evidence or testify on his own behalf, and,
following closing arguments, the trial court convicted Appellant of Retail Theft,
Robbery, and Simple Assault.
On September 12, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term
of four to eight months of incarceration followed by two years of probation.
Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
This appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:
1. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to find that [Appellant] committed a retail theft under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a), where the trial court erred by finding that the presumption pursuant to § 3929(c) applied, and the evidence was otherwise insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] intended to take any merchandise from the store without paying?
2. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law that [Appellant] committed [R]obbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a), ____________________________________________
2 The Commonwealth also charged Appellant with Terroristic Threats. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, the court granted Appellant’s unopposed motion for judgment of acquittal on that charge.
-3- J-S31023-25
because the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] committed or attempted to commit a theft?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in support
of his Retail Theft and Robbery convictions. “A claim challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.” Commonwealth v.
Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). “[O]ur standard of review is de
novo[,] and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v.
Hutchinson, 164 A.3d 494, 497 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). In
reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we determine “whether the evidence at trial,
and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to
establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. May, 887 A.2d 750, 753 (Pa. 2005). “Further, a
conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial evidence, and the trier
of fact—while passing on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the
evidence—is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017). “In
conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh the evidence and
substitute its judgment for the factfinder.” Id.
***
In his first issue, Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence in support of his Retail Theft conviction. A close reading of
-4- J-S31023-25
Appellant’s brief, however, indicates that Appellant, in fact, challenges the trial
court’s application of a provision in the Retail Theft statute that established a
presumption of the intent element of the crime. Appellant’s Brief at 12-17.
A person is guilty of Retail Theft if he “takes possession of [or] carries
away . . . any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any
store . . . with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use
or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof[.]”
18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1).
In Section 3929(c), our legislature established a presumption that a
person in possession of concealed unpurchased property intended to commit
the offense of Retail Theft. Section 3929(c) provides that
[a]ny person intentionally concealing unpurchased property . . . shall be prima facie presumed to have so concealed such property with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use[,] or benefit of such merchandise . . . within the meaning of subsection (a), and the finding of such unpurchased property concealed, upon the person or among the belongings of such person, shall be prima facie evidence of intentional concealment[.]
18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(c). “Such a presumption is a presumption of fact or an
inference, and not to be confused with an irrebuttable presumption.”
Commonwealth v. Martin, 446 A.2d 965, 968 (Pa. Super. 1982). Stated
another way, a defendant may rebut the Section 3929(c) presumption of his
intent to commit Retail Theft.
Appellant contends that because it is now customary for shoppers to
bring reuseable shopping bags into stores for use while shopping, the trial
court should not have applied the presumption set forth in Section 3929(c)
-5- J-S31023-25
when determining Appellant’s guilt of Retail Theft as it is no longer a
reasonable presumption. Appellant’s Brief at 12-17. He argues that
“concealing unpaid-for merchandise by placing it in a reusable shopping bag
no longer creates an inference of an intention to steal as it had in the past.”
Id. at 12. He claims that, had the court not applied the statutory presumption,
the remaining evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, does not show that Appellant passed all points of sale in an
attempt to steal merchandise. Id. at 15-17.
Notwithstanding Appellant’s argument that the presumption set forth in
Section 3929(c) is no longer reasonable because shoppers now use reuseable
shopping bags, the Section 3929(c) presumption remains the law in
Pennsylvania and, absent its recission or amendment, our courts are bound
to apply it.
Here, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant placed
unpaid-for merchandise in a shopping bag, thus concealing it. This conduct
triggered application of the Section 3929(c) presumption. Our review of the
notes of testimony indicates that Appellant failed to provide any testimony or
other evidence to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, Appellant’s claim—that
the trial court should not have applied the Section 3929(c) presumption to
infer that Appellant intended to intentionally conceal Rite Aid’s merchandise
with the intent to steal it—fails.
-6- J-S31023-25
In his second issue, Appellant claims that the Commonwealth presented
insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of Robbery. Appellant’s Brief at
17-18. In an argument fully reliant on the success of his first claim, Appellant
argues that, because Retail Theft is a predicate offense of Robbery, and the
Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to prove he committed Retail
Theft, the evidence likewise does not support his conviction of Robbery. Id.
Having found Appellant’s first claim meritless, this claim also fails.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 9/24/2025
-7-