Com. v. Winters, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 1634 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A15045-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAWN WINTERS : : Appellant : No. 1634 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 3, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003424-2023

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 28, 2025

Shawn Winters appeals from the October 3, 2024 judgment of sentence

of time-served to 23 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years’ probation,

imposed after he was found guilty in a bench trial of receiving stolen property.1

After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case, as gleaned

from the trial testimony, as follows:

Ariana Weyandt testified that she was employed as a warehouse manager at Royal Green, LLC, which is a scrap yard located in Berks County, Pennsylvania. On August 31, 2023, Ms. Weyandt weighed copper wire that was brought to the scrap yard by Appellant. Ms. Weyandt prepared a weigh ticket that was admitted into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1. Ms. ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a). J-A15045-25

Weyandt testified that state law required her to obtain identification from the seller, and that the seller was Shawn Michael Winters. A second weigh ticket from September 6, 2023, was also admitted into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2. Appellant was also identified as the seller of that metal. A picture that was taken of Appellant’s driver’s license was admitted into evidence as Commonwealth's Exhibit 3.

Ms. Weyandt testified that on September 6, 2023, she was advised that a railroad was searching for stolen wire. Ms. Weyandt took pictures of the wire Appellant sold to the scrap yard that were admitted into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibits 4-8. The wire Appellant brought to the scrap yard matched the wire that had been taken from the railroad.

Amber Busacco, the controller for Royal Green, LLC, testified that she was contacted in August of 2023 about the theft of copper wire from the railroad. Ms. Busacco was notified to look for anyone who might bring wire to the scrap yard. Ms. Busacco contacted Norfolk Southern Railroad Police about the wire that was sold to the scrap yard. Ms. Busacco also collected video surveillance footage from the days the wire was brought to the scrap yard. Appellant appeared in the video surveillance footage captured on August 31, 2023, and on September 6, 2023. Ms. Busacco also prepared a report that she provided to the police. That report was admitted into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 11.

Jesse Tuckett, a communication and signals supervisor for Norfolk Southern, testified that he called Norfolk Southern Police on August 29, 2023, when he discovered that copper wire was missing from the railroad’s storage facility. Mr. Tuckett informed the police that the theft must have occurred between August 15th and August 29th. Mr. Tuckett prepared a report calculating the value of the stolen wire that was admitted into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 13.

-2- J-A15045-25

The Commonwealth also produced a certified copy of a letter Appellant wrote to the court that the Commonwealth obtained from the Clerk of Courts. In the letter, Appellant admitted to the theft due to his addiction, but disputed the estimated value of the property.

Finally, Special Agent Nathan Sloan of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Police testified that after learning of the theft, he contacted several scrap facilities located within a 10-mile radius and asked them to contact him if anyone brought wire to their facility. Special Agent Sloan responded to Royal Green after they called him. Special Agent Sloan obtained videos, photographs, and a copy of Appellant’s identification card from Royal Green during his investigation. Special Agent Sloan also spoke to Appellant on September 7, 2023. During the interview, Appellant admitted that he sold copper wire to Royal Green. Appellant claimed that he obtained the wire from several homes in the City of Reading, but Special Agent Sloan testified that the wire is used exclusively in the railroad industry.

Trial court opinion, 1/7/25 at 3-5 (citations to notes of testimony omitted).

On September 8, 2023, Appellant was charged with one count of

receiving stolen property in connection with this incident. Appellant waived

his right to a jury and proceeded to a bench trial before the Honorable Eleni

Dimitriou Geishauser on July 18, 2024. Following a one-day trial, Appellant

was found guilty of the aforementioned offense on July 23, 2024. A hearing

was scheduled for August 20, 2024 after it was determined that more

information was needed to calculate the value of the stolen copper wire.

Following the hearing, the trial court filed an amended verdict slip stating that

the value of the stolen copper wire was between $2,000.00 and $100,000.00.

Appellant was ultimately sentenced to time-served to 23 months’

-3- J-A15045-25

imprisonment, followed by 5 years’ probation, on October 3, 2024. Appellant

did not file any post-sentence motions. This timely appeal followed on October

31, 2024.2

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

I. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by not entering a verdict of “not guilty’ as the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to support the verdict[?]

II. Whether the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth in its case in chief to admit a “Pro Se Letter to Judge” allegedly sent to the trial court judge by [Appellant] while he was incarcerated at Berks County Prison[?]

Appellant’s brief at 5.

I.

Appellant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his

conviction for receiving stolen property because “the Commonwealth did not

present any direct evidence that Appellant knew or had reason to know that

the [copper wire] was stolen.” Id. at 9.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact- finder. Any question of doubt is for the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that ____________________________________________

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

-4- J-A15045-25

as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations

omitted), appeal denied, 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 2010).

In order to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property, the

Commonwealth must prove: “(1) the property was stolen; (2) the defendant

was in possession of the property; and (3) the defendant knew or had reason

to believe the property was stolen.” Commonwealth v. Foreman, 797 A.2d

1005, 1011 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citation omitted). “[T]he mere possession of

stolen property is insufficient to prove guilty knowledge, and the

Commonwealth must introduce other evidence, which can be either

circumstantial or direct, that demonstrates that the defendant knew or had

reason to believe that the property was stolen.” Id. at 1012 (citation

omitted).

Circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge may include, inter alia, the place or manner of possession, alterations to the property indicative of theft, the defendant’s conduct or statements at the time of arrest (including attempts to flee apprehension), a false explanation for the possession, the location of the theft in comparison to where the defendant gained possession, the value of the property compared to the price paid for it, or any other evidence connecting the defendant to the crime.

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 128 A.3d 261, 268 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en

banc) (citations omitted).

-5- J-A15045-25

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as the verdict winner, we find that there was ample evidence to establish that

Appellant knew or should have known that the copper wire was stolen,

sufficient to sustain his conviction for receiving stolen property. As noted, the

testimony presented during the bench trial established that Appellant was

observed on video surveillance at the Royal Green scrap yard on two different

occasions shortly after the theft – August 31 and September 6, 2023 – selling

copper wire that is utilized exclusively in the railroad industry. Notes of

testimony, 7/18/24 at 10-13, 26-27, 38-40, 62. This wire matched the wire

that had been stolen from the railroad. Id. at 14. The record further

demonstrates that Appellant admitted to Norfolk Southern Special Agent Sloan

that he sold the specialized copper wire in question to Royal Green, but

claimed he found it in the garbage cans of several homes in the City of

Reading, Pennsylvania. Id. at 60-62. Additionally, as discussed infra, the

Commonwealth introduced into evidence a certified copy of a pro se letter

Appellant wrote to the trial court from prison, wherein he acknowledged selling

the wire belonging to the Norfolk Southern Railroad to fund his addiction, but

disputed the estimated value of that which was stolen. Id. at 56, 93;

Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 14. Based on the foregoing, we find that

Appellant’s sufficiency claim merits no relief.

II.

-6- J-A15045-25

Appellant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

permitting the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence the aforementioned

letter “supposedly written by the Appellant while he was incarcerated at Berks

County Prison.” Appellant’s brief at 11. Appellant contends that this letter

was not properly authenticated and should have been “excluded as a

compromise offer and/or negotiation.” Id. at 11-12. For the following

reasons, we disagree.

“Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within the sound

discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not reverse the court’s

decision on such a question absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Commonwealth v. Crosley, 180 A.3d 761, 768 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation

omitted), appeal denied, 195 A.3d 166 (Pa. 2018). “An abuse of discretion

may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a

different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly

erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Bullock, 170 A.3d 1109, 1126 (Pa.Super.

2017) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 184 A.3d 944 (Pa. 2018).

For evidence to be admissible, it must be properly authenticated. See

Commonwealth v. Talley, 236 A.3d 42, 59 (Pa.Super. 2020), affirmed,

265 A.3d 485 (Pa. 2021). Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 901 governs

authentication and provides, in relevant part, that “to satisfy the requirement

of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must

-7- J-A15045-25

produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the

proponent claims it is.” Pa.R.E. 901(a). “A document also may be

authenticated by circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Koch, 39

A.3d 996, 1004 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted), affirmed by an equally

divided court, 106 A.3d 705 (Pa. 2014); see also Pa.R.E. 901(b)(4).

In Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme

Court held that a letter authored by a defendant-prisoner was properly

authenticated where the letter bore defendant’s name and the return address

of the prison where he was incarcerated; used defendant’s unique prison

identification number; and contained subject matter — including the

recipient’s nickname and trial strategy — clearly indicating that defendant was

the author. Id. at 265-266.

Although not identical to the evidence in Collins, the circumstantial

evidence in this matter was more than sufficient, when considered in its

totality, to authenticate the letter in question. The letter that was admitted

into evidence contained Appellant’s name, Jail #2018-2783, and was mailed

to the trial court from Unit M-209 of the Berks County Jail at 1287 County

Welfare Road in Leesport, Pennsylvania. See Commonwealth’s Exhibit No.

14. Additionally, the letter was signed by Appellant and referenced specific

details of his case. Id. Based on the foregoing, we find that circumstantial

evidence provided a sufficient basis to authenticate the letter and discern no

abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in admitting it into evidence.

-8- J-A15045-25

In reaching this conclusion, we further reject Appellant’s contention that

the letter should have been excluded from evidence because it constituted an

offer to compromise and/or a plea negotiation under Pennsylvania Rules of

Evidence 408, 409, and 410. See Appellant’s brief at 12-15. Rules 408 thru

410 govern Compromise Offers and Negotiations, Offers to Pay Medical

and Similar Expenses, and Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related

Statements, and are inapplicable to the instant matter. Here, Appellant’s

pro se letter was not an attempt to negotiate a plea or an offer to pay medical

expenses, and was not mailed to the Commonwealth — the party with whom

he would have been negotiating. Rather, this letter was mailed directly to the

trial court judge in an attempt to have the court grant him leniency.

For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s October 3, 2024

judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/28/2025

-9-