J

- A12001

- 20

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RONALD CHARLES BACHNER

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 414 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 19, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 02

- CR

- 0002239

- 2017

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J. *
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
Appellant, Ronald Charles Bachner, pro se , appeals from the judgment
of sentence of six months of probation, which was imposed after his conviction

at a bench tri al for unsworn falsification to authorities

– statements “under
penalty.” 1 Appellant claims, inter alia , that the evidence was insufficient to
sustain his conviction. After careful review, we agree with Appellant , and we

reverse his conviction and vacate his judgment of sentence.
The facts underlying this appeal are as follows:
On August 19, 2016, Appellant traveled to Island Firearms in Neville Township [, Allegheny County,] attempting to complete an online purchase of a Phoenix Arms semiautomatic pistol. Prior to completing the firearm purchase, Appellant was provided with two packets of forms, one being the ATF 4473 [(“ATF Form”)] and the other the Pennsylvania State Police [Form] SP 4

- 113 [(“PSP

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b).J

- A12001

- 20

- 2

-

Form”)] , both required by state law to be complete d prior to purchasing a firearm. Both forms place the buyer on notice that they must answer the questions truthfully

. . . When completing the forms, Appellant . . . answered in the negative when asked about whether he had prior convictions for a crime pu nishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, even if a shorter sentence was served. The clerk processed the forms and Appellant was denied by PICS (Pennsylvania Instant Check Syste m), to which he filed an appeal . . . The appeal was ultimately denied. Officer D. Ryan Ging, of the Ohio Township Police Department,
was assigned with the investigation of the matter and learned that Appellant was convicted in March 2013 for bribery (F2)[, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4701(a)(1),] and official oppression (M2), [ id. § 5301(1),] thereby disqualifying him from possessing and/or tr ansferring a firearm. [ 2 ] Trial Court Opinion, dated December 6, 2019, at 6

- 7.
On December 1, 2016, Officer Ging filed a criminal complaint against
Appellant, charging him with unsworn falsifica tion to authorities, as well as
knowingly and intentionally making materially false written statement,
including a statement on any form promulgated by Federal or State agencies,
in connection with the purchase, delivery or transfer of a firearm. 3 The
criminal complaint alleged that Appellant had falsely answered Question 11.c.
on the ATF Form and Questions 31 and 32 on the PSP Form.
ATF Form 11.c. asked: “Have you ever been convicted in any court of
a felony, or any other crime, for which the j udge could have imprisoned you
for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 Commonwealth v. Bachner , 153 A.3d 1110 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(4)(ii).J

- A12001

- 20

- 3

-

probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.) ” Appellant check ed the box
marked “No” but also wrote a question mark and his initials next to the

q uestion.
PSP Form Question 31 asked: “HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF

A CRIME ENUMERATED IN S ECTION 6105(B), OR DO ANY OF THE
CONDITIONS UNDER 6105(C) APPLY TO YOU? (READ INFORMATION ON
BACK PRIOR TO ANSWERING.) ” Appellant checked the box for “NO.”

PS P Form Question 32 asked:

ARE YOU NOW CHARGED WITH, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM EXCEEDING ONE YEAR? THIS IS THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE THAT YOU “ COULD HAVE RECEIVED, ” NOT THE ACTUAL SENTENCE YOU DID RECEIVE. (THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE FEDERAL OR STATE OFFENSES PERTAINING TO ANTITRUST, UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, OR REGULATION OF BUSINESS; OR STATE OFFENSES CLASSIFIED AS MISDEMEANORS AND PUNISHABLE BY A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED TWO YEARS .) (READ INFORMATION ON BACK PRIOR TO ANSWERING.) Appellant again checked the box for “NO.”
At Appellant’s bench trial o n October 10, 2017, Appellant was
represented by counsel, and the Commonwealth presented its case entirely
by stipulations. The parti es stipulated to Appellant’s 2013 conviction for felony
bribery. N.T. at 5. The Commonwealth also submitted Officer Ging’s affidavit
of probable cause as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 and the ATF Form and the
PSP Form combined as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2, all on stipulation. Id.J

- A12001

- 20

- 4

-

Appellant was the sole witness at trial, and he testified that he was

aware that he had been convicted of “some crimes” in 2013 and served three
years of probation. Id. at 7

- 8. He was asked about his understanding of
“what [he] could do and couldn’t do once [he] completed the probation and
paid the court costs and fines[,]” and he answered, “Well, I figured I was a
normal citizen again.” Id. at 9. He was then specifically a sked about the
impact of his 2013 convictions on his firearms license:

Q. With respect to

– let’s go back to 2013. As of 2013, did you have a license to carry a firearm?

A. Yes. Q. Subsequent to your conviction, did the sheriff’s department ever notify yo u that they were revoking that license to carry that firearm?

A. No.

Id. Appellant added that he had asked the attorney who was handling his
appeal from the 2013 matter how those convictions would “affect[ his] gun
rights[,]” but his counsel did not know. Id. at 11. He was then shown the

ATF Form and asked:

Q. All right. Can you explain to the [c]ourt on that form, Question No. 11

- C, do you see it?

A. Yes. Q. It asks you, “Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony or any other crime for whic h the Judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year even if you received a shorter sentence, including probation (see instructions for Question 11

- C).” Do you see that?

A. Yes.J

- A12001

- 20

- 5

-

Q. What did you put down?

A. Well, I answered no, but I also

-- I also put a question mark there with my initial because I wasn’t sure of the proper answer to that question, based on my understanding at that time of events in my life. . . .
Q. And how did you understand that?

A. Well, I thought I had my rights to vote re stored after I did my probation. I didn’t see

-- having known that, knowing that I had a permit from Allegheny County to carry a gun, I thought that was the appropriate answer . . . [Q.] What is your understanding of what happens if you just answer yes ev en if confused?

A. I answered the questions to the best of my ability. I’ m assuming that, you know, the decision whether or not I get a firearm is in somebody else ’ s hands.

Id. at 13

- 14. Appellant was then shown the PSP Form and asked:

Q. All right. Tha t form asks, “ Have you ever been convicted of a crime enumerated in Section 6105(b) or do any of the conditions under 6105(c) apply to you? Rea d infor mation on back prior to answering.” When you filled in “no” for that, did you read the instructions on t he back prior to answering?

A. Which question are you referring to?
Q. That would be Question No. 31.

A. Question 31, you know, you look at the back, and you go through the information on the back of the types of convictions that they determine

-- my copy is not readable, but they determine what individuals and what convictions cannot receive a gun. Q. When you read Question No. 31, which directs you to read the information on the back prior to answering, did you read the information on the back prior to an swering?

A. Yes. Q. All right. The same with Question No. 32, which asks, “ Are you charged with or have you ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year? ThisJ

- A12001

- 20

- 6

-

is the maximum sentence you could have received,” et cetera, et cetera. And then it goes on to talk about restraint in trade, regulation of business or state offenses being excludable, and that also tells you to read the information on the back prior to answering. Did you read the information on the back prior to answering those questions?

A. I believe so. Again, this form reminded me of the application for a firearm. I did read that. I never knew what I could be convicted for or what the penalty could have been for bribery and official oppression. No one ever told me that, and I couldn’ t find it anywhere.

Id. at 17

- 18. Appellant further explained: “After my conviction in 2013, okay,

in 2014 the sheriff’s office sent me a renewal. I filled out the renewal for that
permit, sent it in, and the sheriff’ s office reissued the firearms license. They

reissued me another one.” Id. at 22.

On cross

- examination, the Commonwealth again asked Appellant about
his understanding of Question 11.c. from the ATF Form:

Q. And we can agree that the Question 11

- C that y ou filled out on that form says that regardless of punishment, even including a period of probation, that you would have to check no

-- or you would have to check yes to that form, correct?

A. I don’t understand. . . .
Q. At the end of that question it say s “including a period of probation,” does it not?

A. That’s in the question?

THE COURT: It’s not a discussion. If you don’t understand the question

--
A. I don’t understand. I’m not following

– Id. at 23

- 24.
After counsel’s arguments, the trial court took the matter under

advisement. Id. at 36.J

- A12001

- 20

- 7

-

On October 19, 2017, the trial reconvened. The trial court found
Appellant guilty of unsworn falsification to authorities and not guilty of
knowingly and intentionally making materially false written statement. 4 The
court immediately sentenced Appellant to six months of probation.
On October 27, 2017, Appellant filed pro se post

- sentence motions. Th[e trial c]ourt did not rule on the motions, nor did the Department of Court Records issue an Order denying the post

sentence motions by operation of law. On March 21, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se Notice of Appeal.
On October 23, 2018, the [t]rial [c]o urt sent a letter to the Pennsylvania Superior Court Proth onotary indicating that it did not act on the Appellant’ s pro se Notice of Appeal as a result of there being no final order, which was required to properly perfect an appeal. On December 19, 2018, the Superior Court remanded jurisdiction to the [t]rial [c ] ourt for the entry of an order denying Appellant ’ s post

- sentence motions by operation of law and to determine the status of Appellant ’ s counsel, including whether counsel abandoned Appellant and whether Appellant retained counsel or intended to proceed pr o se pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). The Department of Court Records issued an Order denying the post

- sentence motions by operation of law on January 2, 2019. Appellant did not file a timely Notice of Appeal within thirty days

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

4 There is no explanation in the certified record as to why th e trial court found Appellant guilty of unsworn falsification to authorities but not guilty of making materially false written statement. Pursuant to our research, we found no cases where a defendant was charged with both crimes but only convicted of
one. Additionally, nowhere in the trial court opinion nor elsewhere in the record does the court state what question or questions on which of the two forms it found that Appellant answered falsely. See generally Trial Court Opinion, dated December 6, 2019. A dditionally, in its brief to this Court, the Commonwealth only references Question 11.c. from the ATF Form and makes no mention of any questions from the PSP Form. Commonwealth’s Brief at 18. This lack of precision by both the trial court and the Commonw ealth has encumbered our consideration of this appeal

.J

- A12001

- 20

- 8

-

of the date of that denial order. On May 20, 2019, the [t]rial [c] ourt sent another letter to the Superior Court Prothonotary indicating that chambers had been notified by Appellant in writing that he intended to procee d pro se and that prior counsel had been terminated. Additionally, the [t]rial [c] ourt indicated that the Department of Court Records had issued an Order denying the post

- sentence motions by operation of law, Appellant failed to properly perfect an appeal from that denial order, and as such, the [t]rial [c]ourt considered the March 21, 2018 pro se appeal terminated. On June 18, 2019, the Superior Court issued a Rule to Show Cause indicating that because Appellant had filed an appeal in excess of the thirty

- day time period, that Appellant was to file a letter with the Superior Court Prothonotary showing cause why the appeal should not be quashed. On June 28, 2019, Appellant filed his response. On July 12, 2019, the Superior Court issued an Order directing the [t]rial [c]ourt to determine if prior counsel had properly withdrawn as counsel of record and to schedule a hearing to determine whether counsel had abandoned Appellant and whether Appellant intended to proceed pro se pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazie r , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). On August 22, 2019, the [t]rial [c]ourt held a hearing on the matter and issued an Order on August 23, 2019, holding that: (1) prior counsel had not properly withdrawn his representation; (2) Appellant had initiated pro se post

- sentence proceedings without informing his counsel; (3) Appellant intended to proceed pro se , and, (4) that the [t]rial [c] ourt had conducted a colloquy with Appellant regarding his decision to represent himself and determined that his waiver of counsel wa s knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). On October 1, 2019, the [t]rial [c] ourt issued an Order directing Appellant to file his Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to [Pa.] R.A.P. 1925(b) within twenty

- one days of receipt of the Order. On October 21, 2019, Appellant filed his 1925(b) Statement.

Id. at 2

- 5. 5

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

5 The trial court entered its opinion on December 6, 2019.J

- A12001

- 20

- 9

-

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

[1.] Did Appellant make any knowingly false statements in violation of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904(b)? [2.] Is [PSP Form] unconstitutional and/ or flawed as the form did not inform [Appellant] of his Fifth Amendment constitutional right not to provide evidence or statements that could be used against [Appellant] in any pr osecution? [3.] Is [PSP Form] unconstitutional and/ or flawed as the form did not inform [Appellant] he did not have to provide any information other than identifying information in accordance with 18 Pa. C.S. § 6111(b) thus exposing [Appellant] to prosecut ion without notice? [4.] Is [PSP Form] unconstitutional and/ or flawed as the form did not inform [Appellant] that his 2013 conviction for bribery (18 Pa.C.S. §4701(a)(1)) is “disabling” under State and Federal law, as the Commonwealth claims, and is not li sted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(b) or 6105(c) which identifies prohibiting offenses thus denying [Appellant] constitutional protections and due process? [5.] Is [Appellant] within Question 32 of [PSP Form] as the question applies to those who are identified w ithin 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(b) and or 6105(c), which Officer Ryan Ging describes as deceptive? [6.] That all felonies are not disabling but character based as per the Commonwealth v. Baxter (decided August 28, 2008) case used to prosecute [Appellant]

. If [App ellant]’ s bribery conviction is disabling then [Appellant] was not put on notice of [Appellant] ’s disabling of his Second Amendment constitutional right and Pennsylvania rights under Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1, Section 21, to purchase a handgun fo r protection or when it (the disabling) would and or could be restored. Appellant’s Brief at 5

- 7 (issues re

- ordered to facilitate disposition) (suggested
answers omitted).
We first consider Appellant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to

sustain h is conviction. Appellant’s Brief at 49. Appellant asserts that heJ

- A12001

- 20

- 10

-

answered the questions and signed the forms at the end thereof (pursuant to

Section 4904’s unsworn falsification to authoritie s) to the best of his
knowledge, providing answers that he believed to be true. See id. at 51. He
adds: “The forms, either state or federal, cannot speak to Appellant[’]s
mindset and reasons for actions or reasons for placement of any answer.

There was no oral testimony from the Police Officer or the Island Firearms
clerk. There were no third party statements.” Id. Accordingly, “Appellant
asserts that [he] made no knowingly false statements[.]” Id.
This Court’s standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is as follows:
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasona ble doubt. Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail. The evidence established at trial need not preclu de every possibility of innocence and the fact

- finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the province of this Court to re

- weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact

- finder. The Commo nwealth’s burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact

- finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances. Commonwealth v. Rodriguez , 141 A.3d 523, 525 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Tarrach , 42 A.3d 342, 345 (Pa.Super. 2012)).J

- A12001

- 20

- 11

-

Commonwealth v. Izurieta , 171 A.3d 803, 806 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal
brackets omitted).

The trial court convicted Appellant of violating Section 4904(b), which
provides: “A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he makes

a written false statement which he does not believe to be true , on or
pursuant to a form bearing notice, authoriz ed by law, to the effect that false
statements made therein are punishable.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b) (emphasis
added).
Preliminarily, we note that Appellant has not been convicted of any of
the crimes enumerated in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(b) nor does he qualify f or any of
the categories listed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(c). Therefore, he answered PSP
Form Question 31 correctly.
As for ATF Form Question 11.c. and PSP Form Question 32, i t is
undisputed that Appellant had been convicted of felony bribery and thus

shou ld have answered “ Y es” to these two questions. The only issue for our

review therefore is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that
Appellant did “not believe” his answers “to be true” when he answered “No”
to both questions. 18 Pa.C.S. § 490 4(b).

In Commonwealth v. Kennedy , 789 A.2d 731, 732 (Pa. Super. 2001),
the appellant analogously was convicted of unsworn falsification to authorities

and contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction ; this
Court agreed and reversed his conviction. In Kennedy , id. , t he appellant had
completed an Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms, which,J

- A12001

- 20

- 12

-

like the forms at issue in the current action, required various questions to be

answered “Yes ” or “No.” The appellant answered “No” to a question asking if
he had ever been convicted of an offense under The Controlled Substance,
Drug, Device, and Cosmetic Act. Id. at 733. Following a PICS check, a
Cumberland County deputy sheriff discovered tha t the appellant had been
convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

Id. at 734. The appellant argued that he had answered the questions to the
best of his knowledge and that he had made a “mistake” when interpreting
the q uestion about his prior drug conviction due to his “confusion” over when
to reference the back of the application in answering the questions. Id.
Furthermore, this Court observed :
[I ] t is uncontroverted that the only evidence reflective of the state of m ind of the accused was generated by Appellant, who stated unequivocally his actions were the product of confusion and not a knowing intent to falsify information. Thus, evidence of Appellant (in answering [the question about prior drug convictions]) “mak[ ing a] written false statement

... not believ[ing it] to be true” is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

Id. Accordingly, this Court held that the fact

- finder “ignore d the unrefuted

account that Appellant’s act of fi l ling out [the form] was the product of a

mistake and not the knowing and intentional act of one seeking to deceive.”

Id.
Appellant in the current appeal likewise had completed a form related
to firearms that required various questions to be answered “Yes” or “No.”
Compare Kennedy , 789 A.2d at 732, with Trial Court Opinion, datedJ

- A12001

- 20

- 13

-

December 6, 2019, at 6. Appellant was simila rly convicted of unsworn

falsification to authorities based on answer ing “No” to questions about his prior

convictions. Compare Kennedy , 789 A.2d at 733, with Trial Court Opinion,
dated December 6, 2019, at 7. His negative answer s were proven to be false
following a PICS check. Compare Kennedy , 789 A.2d at 734, with Trial
Court Opinion, dated December 6, 2019, at 7. Appellant comparably testified
that he had answered the questions to the best of his knowledge and that any

mistake was due to his confusio n as to what the question s were asking.
Compare Kennedy , 789 A.2d at 734, with N.T. at 13, 15. In addition to
Appellant’s trial testimony about his confusion, he also contemporaneously
wrote a question mark on the ATF Form next to Question 11.c. while

c ompleting the form in the firearms store, further demonstrating his

confusion. N.T. at 13. Additionally, when the Commonwealth cross

- examined
Appellant about his comprehension of certain language in Question 11.c., he
repeatedly replied, “I don’t underst and[,]” further supporting his assertion

that he wa s confused about the question. Id. at 24.
Furthermore, as with the appellant in Kennedy , 789 A.2d at 734,
Appellant was the sole witness, meaning that it was also “uncontroverted” in

the current case “that the only evidence of the state of mind of the accused
was generated by Appellant, who stated unequivocally his actions were the
produc t of confusion and not a knowing i ntent to falsify information.” The
Commonwealth presented no direct evidence of A ppellant’s intent or belief inJ

- A12001

- 20

- 14

-

answering the questions, whereas Appellant testified that he thought that his
answers were “appropriate[.]” N.T. at 14.
Moreover, Appellant had several reason s for answering “No” to ATF
Form Question 11.c. and PSP Form Ques tion 32 in good faith . First, his

firearms license had been renewed sub sequent to his 2013 convictions; in
fact, the sheriff’s office had sent the renewal form to him. Id. at 9, 14, 22.
Thus, he had no reason to believe that his 2013 convictions disqual ified him

from anything relating to firearms or that he would not have the same rights
as a “normal citizen again.” Id. at 9.
Second, Appellant testified that he “never knew . . . what the penalty
could have been for bribery and official oppression[,]” t hat “[n]o one ever told
him[,]” and that he “ couldn’t find it anywhere. ” Id. at 18. If he genuinely did
not know that his convictions could have resulted in imprisonment for more
than one year

– and t he Commonwealth presented no evidence challenging
Appe llant’ s assertion , then his answers to ATF Form Question 11.c. and PSP
Form Question 32 , while misguided, were not deceitful. 6
Of course, the trial court was not required to believe Appellant’s denials.

Izurieta , 171 A.3d at 806 (“the fact

- finder is free to believe all, part, or none
of the evidence presented”). However, the trial court did not expressly

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

6 We further recognize that no one asked Appellant if he understood what a “felony” is, as the term is used in ATF Form Question 11.c., or if he comprehended that his bribery conviction qualified as a “felony.” See generally id.J

- A12001

- 20

- 15

-

address Appellant’s credibility. See generally Trial Court Opinion, dated
December 6, 2019.

In conclusion , even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner, Izurieta , 171 A.3d at 806, the evidence
that Appellant “ma[d]e[] a written false statement which he d[id] not

believe to be true ” pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b) wa s “weak and
inconclusive[,]” and, ergo, “as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be

drawn from the combined circumstances.” Kennedy , 789 A.2d at 734 ; see

also Izurieta , 171 A.3d at 806 (“ any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to
be resolved by th e fact

- finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive
that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined

circumstances ”) . Hence, as this Court did in Kennedy , we are compelled to
find that the trial court, as fact

- find er, ignored the unrefut ed account that
Appellant’s incorrect answers on the ATF Form and the PSP Form were “the
product of a mistake and not the knowing and intentional act of one seeking

to deceive.” Id. Appellant may have been negligent in answering

– or failing

to research how best to answer

– ATF Form Question 11.c. and PSP Form
Question 32 , but there is insufficient evidence to support a finding beyond a
reasonable doubt that Appellant believed his written false statements to be

untrue. See Izurieta , 171 A.3d at 806 (only “[w]here there is sufficient
evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been
established beyond a reasonable doubt,” can a “sufficiency of the evidenceJ

- A12001

- 20

- 16

-

claim . . . fail”). We are thereby constrained to reverse Appellant’s conviction
for violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 and to vacate his judgment of sentence. 7

Conviction for unsworn falsification to authorities reversed. Judgment

of sentence vacated.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothon otary

Date: 9/14/2020

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

7 As we find the evidence to be insufficient to sustain Appellant’s sole conviction, we need not reach his remaining appellate claims.