### J-S46039- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

DEBORAH McKISSICK, :

:

Appellant : No. 131 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on Octob er 24, 2012

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP- 41

- CR -0000081-2011;

CP

- 41

- CR -0001344- 2010

BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014

Deborah McKissick (“McKissick”) appeals from the judgment o f

sentence imposed following her convictions of theft by un lawful taking,

receiving stolen property, and unauthorized use of a m otor vehicle. 18

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(a), 3925(a), 3928(a). We affirm.

McKissick was convicted of various crimes in two concurrent cases

involving her job as a paralegal at a law firm. In CR-1344-2010, McKissick

used her position to have an elderly widow unknowingl y sign a document

granting McKissick Power of Attorney for the purpose of stealing from the

widow. Following a non-jury trial, McKissick was found guilty of two counts

each of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, iden tity theft, forgery, and

theft by deception and one count of criminal attempt.

### J-S46039- 14

- 2 -

In CR- 81 -2011, two clients of the firm that employed McKissick w ere

instructed to surrender their vehicle to Santander Ban k, as part of their

bankruptcy proceedings. The clients turned the vehicle over to McKissick, on

January 11, 2010, believing she would properly deliv er it to the bank.

Instead, McKissick assumed the vehicle as her own for mo re than eight

months. During this time, McKissick renewed the vehicle’ s registration,

began paying for insurance for the vehicle, and made p ayments to the bank

for the vehicle until it was seized by the Pennsylvania State Police, on

September 21, 2010. Following a non-jury trial, McK issick was found guilty

of theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen proper ty, and unauthorized use

of a motor vehicle.

For sentencing purposes, the trial court merged CR-1344- 2010 and

CR

- 81 -2011. On October 24, 2012, 1 

### the trial court sentenced McKissick to a

term of 16 to 32 months in prison for her convictions at CR- 81 -2011, and a

term of 35 to 70 months in prison for her convictions a t CR-1344-2010, for

an aggregate term of 51 to 102 months in prison.

McKissick filed a timely Notice of Appeal. The trial co urt ordered

McKissick to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. McKissick filed a

timely Concise Statement and the trial court issued an Opinion.

1 

### McKissick was initially sentenced on June 18, 2012; howev er, both parties

agreed that the sentence was based on incorrect calculat ions. The trial court

resentenced McKissick on October 24, 2012.

### J-S46039- 14

- 3 -

On appeal, McKissick raises the following question fo r our review:

“Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient t o sustain the court’s

guilty verdict under []CR- 81 -2011 for count 1, theft by unlawful taking[,]

and count 2, receiving stolen property?” Brief for Appe llant at 6

(capitalization omitted).

Our standard of review in sufficiency of the evidence ca ses is wellsettled:

[W]e consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as verdict winner. In that light, we de cide if the

evidence and all reasonable inferences from that eviden ce are

sufficient to establish the elements of the offense beyo nd a

reasonable doubt. We keep in mind that it was for t he trier of

fact to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility

of witnesses. The [fact-finder] was free to believe all , part or

none of the evidence. This Court may not weigh the e vidence or

substitute its judgment [f]or that of the fact[-]finde r.

Commonwealth v. West , 937 A.2d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation

omitted).

McKissick first contends that the evidence at trial was insu fficient to

sustain her conviction of theft by unlawful taking. B rief for Appellant 11-12.

McKissick argues that, because the victims voluntarily tur ned the vehicle

over to her with no expectation of its return, she di d not withhold the vehicle

from them, nor did she dispose of the vehicle so that th ey could never

recover it. Id . at 11. McKissick concedes that the vehicle was

misappropriated and that she did not have permission to use the vehicle.

Id

. at 12. McKissick argues, however, that the evidence is n ot sufficient to

### J-S46039- 14

- 4 -

show a permanence of her possession of the vehicle, despit e her renewing

the registration, insuring the vehicle, making paymen ts on the vehicle, and

possessing the vehicle for more than eight months months u ntil it was

seized. Id . McKissick further argues that her unlawful possession ma y have

benefitted the victims because she made payments on the vehicle while it

was in her posssession. Id

.

In its Opinion, the trial court addresse d McKissick’s claim and

concluded that it is without merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/18/14, at 2-3.

We adopt the trial court’s sound reasoning for the pur pose of this appeal and

affirm on this basis. See id

.

McKissick next contends that the evidence at trial was ins ufficient to

sustain her conviction of theft by receiving stolen pro perty. 2 

### Brief for

Appellant at 12- 13.

Again, in its Opinion, the trial court addressed McKiss ick’s second claim

and concluded that it is without merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/18/14, at

3-4. We adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court for the purpose of this

appeal and affirm on this basis. See id

.

2 

### We note that McKissick purports to support her second clai m by

incorporating her prior arguments regarding the suffic iency of the evidence

with regard to her conviction for theft by unlawful taking. See Brief for

Appellant at 13 (stating “[f]or the same reasons argued, supra , the

evidence was insufficient to establish that the vehicle wa s stolen from the

[victims]”). “ Incorporation by reference is an unacceptable manner of

appellate advocacy for the proper presentation of a cla im for relief to the

Superior [C]ourt of Pennsylvania.” Commonwealth v. Dodge , 77 A.3d

1263, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2013). However, despite McKissi ck’s deficient

argument, we have addressed the merits of the claim.

### J-S46039- 14

- 5 -

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/20/2014Circulated 07/21/2014 02:22 PM 

# A tCirculated 07/21/2014 02:22 PMCirculated 07/21/2014 02:22 PMCirculated 07/21/2014 02:22 PMCirculated 07/21/2014 02:22 PM