J-S32035-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee :

 :

v. :

:

MAX BURNSWORTH, :

 :

Appellant : No. 2008 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on November 21, 2014 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, 

Criminal Division, No. CP-26-CR-0001255-2014 

BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JUNE 15, 2015 

 Max Burnsworth (“Burnsworth”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of receiving stolen property.1 

We affirm. 

 The trial court summarized the relevant facts underlying this appeal in 

its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion; we incorporate the court’s recitation herein by 

reference. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/13/15, at 2-4. 

 At the close of trial on November 5, 2014, the jury found Burnsworth 

guilty of receiving stolen property. On November 21, 2014, the trial court 

sentenced Burnsworth to serve 111⁄2 to 23 months in the Fayette County 

Prison, and ordered him to pay $2,000 in restitution to the victim of the 

 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a). 
J-S32035-15 

- 2 - 

theft, Ronald Martray (“Martray”). Burnsworth timely filed a Notice of 

Appeal. 

On appeal, Burnsworth presents the following issue for our review: 

[Whether] the Commonwealth did not present evidence beyond 

a reasonable doubt that [Burnsworth] was guilt[y] of receiving 

stolen property[,] in that the testimony of [Martray] was 

contradicted by another Commonwealth witness[,] and the jury 

would have to speculate on facts to base their verdict[?] 

Brief for Appellant at 7 (capitalization omitted). 

We apply the following standard of review when considering a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence: 

The standard we apply ... 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 [that of] 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. 

Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be 

evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. 

Finally, the finder of fact[,] while passing upon the credibility of 

witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to 

believe all, part or none of the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted). 
J-S32035-15 

- 3 - 

Burnsworth argues that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth 

was insufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was 

guilty of receiving stolen property. Brief for Appellant at 11-12. Burnsworth 

contends that the jury’s verdict was “based on speculation,” id. at 12, in 

light of conflicting Commonwealth testimony. See id. at 11 (arguing that 

“the jury was presented with the testimony of ... Martray ... and his son, 

Brandon Ozorowski [“Ozorowski”]. There is conflicting testimony as to what 

items were removed from the truck and what items were identified by both 

[Martray and Ozorowski].”). 

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court thoroughly addressed 

Burnsworth’s claim, set forth the relevant law, and determined that there 

was sufficient evidence to support Burnsworth’s conviction of receiving 

stolen property. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/13/15, at 5-9. The record 

supports the trial court’s sound rationale and determination, and we affirm 

on this basis in rejecting Burnsworth’s sufficiency challenge. See id. As an 

addendum, even if there were conflicts in the trial testimony presented by 

Martray and Ozorowski, it was solely within the province of the jury to 

resolve such conflicts and weigh the evidence. See Commonwealth v. 

Brown, 52 A.3d 1139, 1163 (Pa. 2012); see also id. at 1164 (stating that 

“in applying th[e] standard [of review concerning sufficiency of the evidence 

challenges], a reviewing court faced with a record of historical facts that 

supports conflicting inferences must presume – even if it does not 
J-S32035-15 

- 4 - 

affirmatively appear in the record – that the trier of fact resolved any such 

conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution.” 

(citation and quotation marks omitted)). We may not substitute our 

judgment for that of the jury or re-weigh the evidence. Melvin, supra. 

 Because we conclude that the trial court properly rejected 

Burnsworth’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we affirm his 

judgment of sentence. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

 Shogan, J., joins the memorandum. 

 Olson, J., concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/15/2015 
Page 1 of 9 

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a) [F3] 

filed a timely appeal from judgment of sentence with the Superior Court. 

two-thousand ($2000.00) dollars to the victim, Ronald Martray. Appellant thereafter 

until November 21, 2014. Appellant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of 

not more than twenty-three (23) months with credit for time served from May 16, 2014 

the Fayette County Prison for a period of not less than eleven and one-half (11 112) and 

November 5, 2014. On November 21, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to incarceration in 

Following a jury trial Appellant was convicted of Receiving Stolen Property' on 

December 11, 2014 by Appellant, Max Grant Burnsworth, hereinafter "Appellant". 

Before the Court is the "Concise Issue under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)" filed on 

Linda R. Cordaro) Judge 

Pa. R.A.P. 1925{b) Opinion 

Defendant. 

MAX GRANT BURNSWORTH 

vs. No. 1255 of 2014 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DMSION 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

. J-53~035-/5 

t' 

\ 

~ 

j ~ Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
Page 2 of 9 

On or about October 4, 2013, Mr. Ronald Doppelheuer, a mechanic and 

proprietor of Dopp's Garage.located at 710 East Crawford Avenue, Connellsville, Fayette 

County, Pennsylvania, arrived at his garage in the morning hours to find that a vehicle 

was missing from his lot. The missing vehicle was a green 1999 Ford Ranger pick-up 

truck that Mr. Doppelheuer had received from Mr. Ronald Martray in order to repair an 

issue with the engine overheating. Mr. Martray provided Mr. Doppelheuer with the one 

and only key to the vehicle. Mr. Doppelheuer noticed pieces of broken glass around the 

area where Mr. Martray's vehicle was parked. Mr. Doppelheuer contacted Mr. Martray 

to ascertain whether Mr. Martray had retrieved the vehicle himself. After learning Mr. 

Martray had not retrieved the vehicle, Mr. Doppelheuer contacted the Pennsylvania 

State Police to report the vehicle stolen. Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Cameron 

Craig responded to Dopp's Garage where he interviewed Mr. Doppelheuer and Mr. 

Martray and filed an incident report. 

On October 26, 2013, Trooper Craig recovered the vehicle in a wooded 

area adjacent to Wills Road and Isabella Road Extension in Connellsville Township, 

Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Trooper Craig observed a green Ford Ranger pick-up 

truck similar to the description of Mr. Martray's, and he used the vehicle identification 

number or "VIN" to confirm that said truck was the same one reported stolen. Trooper 

Craig observed that the vehicle had been "stripped," in that several parts of the interior 

and exterior of the vehicle had been removed. Further, the driver's side window had 

been broken and the steering column and ignition were damaged. Trooper Craig then 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
Page 3 of 9 

' 2 NOTE: "Burnworth Garage" in Uniontown is not the same garage owned by Appellant. The similarity in names is 

coincidental only. 

Brandon and Shawn Ozorowski, who verified that the radiator and fan shroud were the 

bench. Detective Koropal photographed the parts and contacted the victim's two sons, 

Inside the garage Detectives observed a radiator and fan shroud underneath a work 

Burnsworth gave consent to search the detached garage containing the red Ford Ranger. 

Edward Burnsworth, regarding the location of his son Max, the Appellant, and Edward 

On November 6, 2013, the Detectives interviewed Appellant's father, 

work on the red Ford Ranger. 

garage. They also observed a man, later identified as Appellant, performing mechanical 

Mr. Martray, located in the truck bed of a 1994 red Ford Ranger parked in Appellant's 

observed what appeared to be a diamond-plated toolbox, similar to that described by 

grandparents' residence on October 28, 2013. From a nearby alleyway, the Detectives 

Theft Task Force, began surveillance on Appellant's residence, as well as his 

the theft, Detectives Koropal and Hammerle, along with other members of the Auto 

After receiving information that Appellant may have been responsible for 

being attached to the bed of the 1999 Ford Ranger. 

several parts missing, including a diamond-plated toolbox Mr. Martray described as 

Burnworth's Garage2 in Uniontown. Detective Koropal investigated the vehicle, noting 

investigation. Both Detectives investigated the vehicle after it had been towed to 

County District Attorney's Office-Western Regional Auto Task Force to assist in the 

Detective Hammerle contacted Detective Paul Koropal with the Allegheny 

Police Department regarding the stolen vehicle and its recovery. 

notified Detective William Hammerle of the Auto Theft Task Force for the Connellsville 

(" 

\ 

~· 

Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
Page 4 of 9 

' 18 PaC.S. § 3925(a) [F3] 

'18 Pa.C.S. § 4911 (a) [M2] **Uismissed July 17, 2014** 

innocence, and the fact-finder is free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt 

finder. Id. Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude every possibility of 

The Court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact759, 773 (Pa.Super.2006) quoting Com. v. Smith, 863 A.2d 1172, 1176 (Pa.Super.2004). 

all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Com. v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish 

evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the 

The standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the 

ISSUE NO. 1: THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE 

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GUILTY 

OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY IN THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE 

ALLEGED VICTIM OF WHAT WAS MISSING WAS CONTRADICTED BY 

ANOTHER COMMONWEALTH WITNESS AND THE JURY WOULD HAVE 

TO SPECULATE ON THE FACTS TO BASE THEIR VERDICT. 

The Appellant's Concise Issue under Pa.R.C.P. 1925(b) is as follows: 

DISCUSSION 

Stolen Propertya and Tampering with Public Records or Informations. 

Following the investigation, Detective Koropal filed charges of Receiving 

stolen from their father's vehicle. 

Ranger was seized and transported to the Connellsville Police Department, where 

Brandon and Shawn Ozorowski further identified several other parts that had been 

same previously affixed to their father's stolen Ford Ranger truck. Appellant's red Ford 

Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
Page 5 of 9 

market, or post-purchase, radiator cap that Mr. Ozorowski had previously used to 

Appellant's garage was the same taken from the stolen truck because of the afterRanger prior to the vehicle being stolen. Mr. Ozorowski stated that the radiator in 

"millions of times," and performed regular maintenance on his father's 1999 Ford 

Ozorowski testified that he had worked several years as a mechanic, rode in the vehicle 

Appellant's garage, he contacted Brandon Ozorowski to identify the parts. Mr. 

Koropal testified that after he took pictures of the radiator and fan shroud found in 

Commonwealth is sufficient to convict Appellant of receiving stolen property. Detective 

In this case, there is little doubt that the testimony provided by the 

the property. 

"receiving" means acquiring possession, control, or title, or lending on the security of 

to restore it to the owner. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a). As used in this section the word 

probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent 

of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has 

A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes 

1997). 

established beyond a reasonable doubt. Com. v. Collins, 702 A.2d 540, 543 (Pa. Super. 

as verdict winner, the trier of fact could have found that the defendant's guilt was 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth 

Id. The test is whether, viewing all evidence admitted at trial, together with all 

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

supporting a finding of guilt may be drawn. Id. The fact-finder, when evaluating the 

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

Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
Page 6 of 9 

This Court notes that circumstantial evidence from which guilty 

origin of the parts found in or on Appellant's vehicle. 

with the stolen vehicle makes his testimony highly persuasive when determining the 

photographs. Mr. Ozorowski's history working as a mechanic and personal experience 

item individually and from his own recollection, prior to viewing the Commonwealth's 

had found in the tool box during their investigation. Mr. Ozorowski testified to each 

toolbox, as well as numerous items Detectives Koropal and Hammerle testified that they 

identified markings caused by using an acid-based solution to clean the diamond-plated 

by the manufacturer in the 1994 model owned by Appellant. Finally, Mr. Ozorowski 

those typically found on a 1999 Ford Ranger vehicle, and would not have been included 

shifter with cup holders, side view mirrors, and the plastic interior trim pieces were 

side visor. Mr. Ozorowski further stated that the bench seats, center console, gear 

fabric because their father had fastened pictures of their deceased siblings to the driver 

because of certain pinholes in the fabric. He testified that the holes were left in the 

father's vehicle. Mr. Ozorowski testified that he recognized the driver's side sun visor 

marks or wear and tear consistent with parts he had previously observed in and on his 

Mr. Ozorowski identified each item and was able to explain identifying 

1) driver's side sun visor; 2) bench seats with center console; 3) a gear 

shifter with cup holders; 4) a diamond-plated tool box; 5) the center 

console; 6) side view mirrors; and 7) plastic interior trim pieces. 

and were now found in or on Appellant's vehicle. These parts included: 

(7) different interior and exterior parts that had been removed from his father's truck 

replace the factory installed cap. Further, Mr. Ozorowski identified approximately seven 

Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
Page 7 of 9 

knowledge can be inferred is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the underlying 

circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong to support the inference beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Com. v. Thomas, 429 Pa. 227, 239 A.2d 354 (1968). Moreover, a 

permissible inference of guilty knowledge may . be drawn from the unexplained 

possession of recently stolen goods without infringing on an accused's right of due 

process or his right against self-incrimination, as well as from other circumstances, such 

as the accused's conduct at the time of arrest. United States v. Peterson, 522 F.2d 661 

(D.C.Cir.1975); United States v. Roberts, 483 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1973). The strength of 

the underlying evidence, in cases where the inference is drawn from unexplained 

possession of recently stolen goods, is dependent on whether possession is recent and 

how recent the possession is, as well as, an understanding of what is meant by 

unexplained. Com. v. Williams, 468 Pa. 357 (1976). 

This Court notes that 'Recent' is a relative term, and whether possession is 

recent, and how recent it is, are normally questions of fact for the trier of fact and 

require that the trier of fact consider the nature and kind of goods involved, the quantity 

of goods, the lapse of time from theft and possession, and the ease with which such 

goods can be assimilated into trade channels, as well as other circumstances relevant in 

any given case. Pendergrast v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 416 F.2d 776, 790 

(1969) cert. denied. 

A copy of the title acquired by Appellant stating that Appellant had 

purchased the 1994 red Ford truck on October 17, 2013, approximately two weeks prior 

to the victim's vehicle being stolen, was introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit Number 

3. The jury did not find Appellant's explanation of his vehicle purchase, nor the 

Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
Page 8 of 9 

surrounding Appellant's possession of the stolen parts allows a jury to reasonably infer 

originally manufactured for his vehicle. This Court finds that the circumstances 

testimony regarding the origin of the numerous parts on his vehicle that were not 

jury did not find Appellant's testimony credible as to the origin of his vehicle, nor his 

October 28, 2013, just two (2) days from the date the vehicle was recovered. Lastly, the 

garage and attached to his vehicle, and he possessed the stolen parts as recently as 

possession had been stolen. Appellant was observed possessing the stolen parts in his 

Appellant either had actual knowledge or at the very least, believed, that the parts in his 

Based on the above facts, this Court finds that a Jury can easily infer that 

"One of the elements that the Commonwealth must prove is that the 

Defendant either knew that the property had been stolen or believed that it 

had probably been stolen. If you choose to do so, you may infer that the 

Defendant had such guilty knowledge or belief from proof that he was in 

possession of the property, that the property had recently been stolen, and 

that his possession is unexplained. In deciding whether his possession is 

unexplained, you should consider all the evidence that might explain it, 

including evidence presented by the Commonwealth. You may regard the 

Defendant's possession as unexplained if you find the explanation 

unsatisfactory." 

Pennsylvania Criminal Jury Instruction No. 15.3925(c) stating in part: 

Consistent with case law, this Court instructed the Jury pursuant to 

origin of the toolbox, nor was he concerned that the toolbox would not fit on his vehicle. 

Appellant testified that despite the extremely low price, he did not inquire as to the 

proof of purchase or the identity of the individual who sold him the toolbox. Further, 

diamond-plated toolbox at the Perryopolis Flea Market, and was thus unable to produce 

purchase of the toolbox, to be credible. Appellant testified that he purchased the 

Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM
1_: 

, .. · .. ,; 

'. 

(J)-13-J.5 Lf'.00 

DIST/DATE 

DEF 

DA -r 

PO :::i::: 

PD .:t: 

WARD x: 

SHER 

CA .r: 

ATIY 

cc 

BKG.CTR __ 

PR.SLV.CRT._ 

Page 9 of 9 r-::A'/. <!.O . .6 AR. - f2- 

·-..---! 

C:l 

\--: 

Date: February ieth, 2015 

Attest: 

~M 

BY THE COURT: 

SUSTAINED. 

Appellant in this matter and respectfully recommends that Appellant's conviction be 

Commonwealth has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction against 

Based on the above facts and case law, this Court believes that the 

Appellant had knowledge that the parts were stolen. 

........ Circulated 05/19/2015 11:45 AM