J-S21039-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL SCOTT HARLON, SR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1505 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 3, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-55-CR-0000449-2019

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2023

Michael Scott Harlon, Sr. (Harlon) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County (trial court)

following his jury conviction of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen 

property (RSP).

1

 Harlon challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 

his conviction. We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3921(a) and 3925(a). The trial court granted Harlon’s motion 

for judgment of acquittal for conspiracy to commit burglary and found him not 

guilty of the summary offense of criminal mischief. See 18 Pa.C.S. 

§§ 903(a)(1) and 3304(a)(5). The jury found Harlon not guilty of burglary. 

See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(2).
J-S21039-23

- 2 -

I.

This case stems from Harlon’s theft of approximately $38,000 in cash 

from the residence of Daniel Troup (Troup) in April 2015. Troup owns multiple

rental properties and Harlon’s then-girlfriend, Crystal Hook, was one of his 

tenants.

The Commonwealth called five witnesses at Harlon’s January 31, 2022 

trial: Troup; Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Garrett Marvich; Lori Shull;

Linda Buttorff; and Harlon’s son, Michael Harlon, Jr. (Harlon Jr.). Ms. Hook 

was subpoenaed to testify but did not appear. Harlon elected not to testify 

and the defense called no witnesses.

Troup testified that when he arrived at his home after work on April 9, 

2015, he became suspicious that someone had entered it upon observing that 

a hatchet he stored near his back door for wood chopping was laying on his 

living room floor. Troup checked on the fireproof safe where he stored cash 

and it had been broken open and bank bags containing about $38,000 in cash 

were missing from the safe. (See N.T. Trial, 1/31/22, at 30-32).

Troup went on to testify that he owns rental properties and that Ms. 

Hook had rented a mobile home located within 15 yards of his house since the 

fall of 2014. Ms. Hook paid her rent primarily in cash and Harlon was living 

with her at the time of the incident. Troup testified that he had served Ms. 

Hook with an eviction notice on April 1, 2015, because she had not paid most 

of her rent from the previous month. Troup relayed that his kitchen window
J-S21039-23

- 3 -

had been damaged during the incident and he believed the intruder likely 

gained entry through the back door.

Corporal Garrett Marvich testified that he interviewed Harlon after the 

theft and Harlon denied any involvement in the incident. However, Harlon

indicated that Harlon Jr. may have been involved because, shortly after the 

theft, he showed up with a new car and several new baseball jerseys. (See

N.T. Trial, at 55). Harlon acknowledged that he recently bought a motorcycle 

and explained that he purchased it with money from Ms. Hook and his 

mother’s boyfriend.

Ms. Shull from Mifflinburg Auto Sales testified that on April 17, 2015,

Harlon and Harlon Jr. purchased a vehicle for $1,650. The title lists Harlon as 

the first purchaser and Harlon Jr. as the second purchaser. (See id. at 68). 

On cross-examination, Ms. Shull stated that she was unaware of whether it 

was a cash purchase. (See id. at 69). Ms. Buttorff of Buttorff’s Sales and 

Service testified that on April 11, 2015, Harlon paid $2,799.98 in cash for a 

motorcycle and related fees. (See id. at 72).

Harlon Jr. testified that during 2015, he was living at his grandmother’s 

residence and occasionally stayed with his father. When asked if he was aware 

of the April 9, 2015 incident at Troup’s home, he responded, “No.” (Id. at 

75). The Commonwealth then asked Harlon Jr. to read the statement he 

provided to police after the theft, stating:

My dad picked me up from my grams in Lewistown on April 

15, 2015. I came down to his place in Port Trevorton. I was 
J-S21039-23

- 4 -

sitting playing XBox when knocks came to the door. I heard it 

was police and I just came home from jail so I knew that they 

weren’t there for me. Then my dad came out with a blue bank 

envelope full of cash and told me if I help him get away with it, I 

can get a car and new stuff so I did that.

(Id. at 76).

He acknowledged that he purchased a car on April 17, 2015, but 

repeatedly indicated that his memory was vague because he was taking a lot 

of drugs at that time. Harlon Jr. stated that he paid for most of the car himself 

and that his father provided him with only some of the funds. (See id. at 78, 

82). Harlon Jr. then testified that he had pled guilty to criminal conspiracy to 

commit RSP as result of his participation in this matter, but that he was 

dissatisfied with the sentence he received. He advised that his testimony in 

this case was not part of his plea agreement and that he was testifying under 

subpoena.

On cross-examination, Harlon Jr. stated that when he provided the 

written statement to police, he hoped to receive favorable treatment by the 

Commonwealth. Harlon Jr. testified that he had just been released from jail

around the time of the incident and that he never talked to his father about 

committing any crime. (See id. at 92). Harlon Jr. recounted that Harlon did 

give him blue bank bags with cash in it, but averred that he did not know the 

amount of cash or where it came from and he did not ask. He indicated that 

when his father gave the bags to him, he ran into the woods and hid them. 

(See id. at 93).
J-S21039-23

- 5 -

The jury found Harlon guilty of theft by unlawful taking and RSP. On 

June 21, 2022, the trial court sentenced Harlon to a term of 3 to 7 years’ 

incarceration for each offense, to be served concurrently. Harlon filed a postsentence motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that 

the theft and RSP offenses merged for sentencing purposes. The trial court 

entered an order on October 3, 2022, denying Harlon’s sufficiency claim but 

ruling in his favor on the merger issue and modifying its sentencing order

accordingly. Harlon timely appealed and he and the trial court complied with 

Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b).

II.

On appeal, Harlon contends that the evidence presented at trial was 

insufficient to support his theft by unlawful taking and RSP conviction.

2

 Harlon 

____________________________________________

2

In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support a 

defendant’s conviction, we must review the evidence admitted 

during the trial along with any reasonable inferences that may be 

drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as the verdict winner. If we find, based on that 

review, that the jury could have found every element of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt, we must sustain the defendant’s 

conviction. 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. In conducting this 

review, the appellate court may not weigh the evidence and 

substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.

Commonwealth v. Hummel, 283 A.3d 839, 846 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations 

omitted).
J-S21039-23

- 6 -

maintains the Commonwealth failed to show that the money he allegedly gave 

to Harlon Jr. was solen from the Troup residence. (See Harlon’s Brief, at 13-

17). Harlon points to Harlon Jr.’s testimony at trial that he did not know where 

the money in the bank bags came from or the amount contained therein. 

Harlon also maintains that the fact that he resided with Ms. Hook, who had 

been evicted from her residence, does not establish that he lacked funds to 

make new purchases. (See id.).

A defendant is guilty of the offense of theft by unlawful taking 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). Similarly, 

an individual is guilty of RSP if he “intentionally receives, retains, or disposes 

of movable property of another knowing that it has been 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).

In this case, the record reflects that the bank bags containing $38,000 

in cash were taken from a fireproof safe in Troup’s home. Harlon resided with 

Ms. Hook on Troup’s adjacent rental property, Hook paid rent to Troup mostly 

in cash, and Troup served her with an eviction notice days before the theft. 

Harlon purchased a car and a motorcycle shortly after the incident and paid 

for the motorcycle in cash. During his interview with Corporal Marvich, Harlon

denied any involvement in the incident but implicated his son who had recently 

made new large purchases. Moreover, Harlon Jr. indicated that his father had 
J-S21039-23

- 7 -

given him bank bags full of cash and promised to reward him if he helped him

“get away with it.” (N.T. Trial, at 76). Although Harlon Jr. claimed that he 

did not know the amount of the cash or where it came from, he appeared to 

be willfully ignorant and “didn’t ask any questions.” (Id. at 94). Finally, 

Harlon never provided an alternative source of where the money was obtained 

to make the above described purchases.

Based on the foregoing and viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, see Hummel, supra at 

846, we conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Harlon 

committed the crimes of theft by unlawful taking and RSP. The jury as factfinder could reasonably infer from Harlon Jr.’s testimony, when considered in 

conjunction with the surrounding circumstances including Harlon’s close 

proximity to Troup’s residence, the eviction notice delivered to Ms. Hook and 

the relatively large purchases he made in the days following the theft, that 

Harlon took Troup’s cash from the safe and spent it on items for himself and 

his son. Accordingly, we discern no merit to Harlon’s sufficiency claim.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/13/2023