J-S63031-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

AMBER LESCHNER

Appellant No. 564 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 22, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County

Criminal Division at No: CP-42-CR-0000442-2017

BEFORE: OTT, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 14, 2018

Appellant, Amber Leschner, appeals from the March 22, 2018, judgment

of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County following

her conviction by a jury on two counts of forgery and two counts of theft by

deception.1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

her convictions. Upon review, we affirm. The trial court summarized the evidence presented as follows:

In this case Gail Wilson testified that she had employed

[Appellant] to clean her home. [Appellant] had advised her that

she was in need of funds including requesting payment for time

periods that she had not worked. She testified that, during the

time period that [Appellant] was employed by her, checks went

missing from a desk drawer in her home. She later noticed that ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a)(3) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1), respectively.
J-S63031-18

- 2 -

there were two OTC (over the counter) withdraws from her

checking account that she had not authorized. When she received

copies of the checks form (sic) her bank she knew that they were

forged / she had not signed them. [Appellant’s] name was on the

back of each of the checks. Mandy Anderson, an employee of the

victim’s bank, Mountain Laurel Federal Credit Union, testified that

[Appellant] came into the bank location on July 24, 2017[,] and

cashed a check that was purported to be written / authorized by

Gail Wilson. [Appellant] signed the check at the bank. Another

employee of the bank, Patricia Wilson, testified that [Appellant]

came into the bank and presented a check for $60 to her to be

cashed and also drawn on Gail Wilson’s account. Again, Gail

Wilson testified that she did not sign either of these checks. At

trial surveillance video from the Mountain Laurel Credit Union was

presented which also demonstrated that [Appellant] came into the

bank on two occasions and presented these checks to the teller

and obtained the cash. Trooper Daniel Nester testified that he

had interviewed [Appellant] about the checks and: “she advised

she had gotten them (two checks cashed) from Gail.”

Trial Court Opinion, 6/13/18, at 1-2 (citations to record omitted). Appellant was charged with two counts of forgery and two counts of

theft by deception. A jury trial was held on January 31, 2018, at which

Appellant was found guilty on all charges. Appellant was sentenced on March

22, 2018, to an aggregate of 48 hours to one year in prison, to be followed by

one year of probation. She filed a timely notice of appeal on April 20, 2018.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal, both of which are challenges to

the sufficiency of the evidence.

I. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that

Appellant forged the checks in question or had knowledge

that the checks were forged, in order to sustain a conviction

at both counts under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a)(3)?

II. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that

Appellant intentionally created or reinforced a false

impression in order to sustain a conviction at both counts

under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1)?
J-S63031-18

- 3 -

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

This Court’s standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence is well established:

Our standard of review is whether the evidence admitted at trial,

and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when

viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as

verdict winner, were sufficient to enable the fact[-]finder to

conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements

of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Crosley, 180 A.3d 761, 767 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Cruz, 71 A.3d 998, 1006 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation and

brackets omitted)). 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. . . .Furthermore, when reviewing a sufficiency claim,

our Court is required to give the prosecution the benefit of all

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

Crosley, 180 A.3d at 767 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274,

281 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citation omitted)).

Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient

evidence to sustain the conviction for forgery.

A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to defraud or injure

anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury

to be perpetrated by anyone, the actor:

(1) Alters the writing of another without his authority;
J-S63031-18

- 4 -

(2) Makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues

or transfers any writing so that it purports to be the

act of another who did not authorize the act, or to

have been executed at a time or place or in a

numbered sequence other than was in fact the case,

or to be a copy of an original when no such original

existed; or

(3) Utters any writing which he knows to be forged in

a manner specified in paragraphs (1) or (2) of this

subsection.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101.

In the matter sub judice, Appellant was convicted under

18 Pa.C.SA. § 4101(3). Appellant concedes that there was sufficient evidence

presented that she uttered a forged writing; however, Appellant argues that

the Commonwealth failed to prove that she had knowledge that the checks

were forged. In support of this argument, Appellant analogizes this matter to

Commonwealth v. Gibson, 416 A.2d 543, 544-45 (Pa.Super. 1979). In

Gibson, the defendant went to a bank and attempted to deposit checks. The

owner of the check, Kutz, testified that he had not written the check and some

of his checks were missing. Id. at 544-45. Gibson had no prior connections

to Kutz, and this Court held that Gibson’s “possession of the check, in itself,

does not justify a conclusion that he forged the check or knew it was forged.”

Id. at 545.

However, Appellant’s reliance on Gibson is mistaken as there are a

number of key factual differences between Gibson and the instant matter. Moreover, as discussed above, the Commonwealth may sustain its burden of

proof though wholly circumstantial evidence. See Crosley, 180 A.3d at 767.
J-S63031-18

- 5 -

Here, there was ample circumstantial evidence to show that Appellant had the

means, motive, and opportunity to steal the checks from Ms. Wilson. Unlike

in Gibson, Appellant had a preexisting relationship with the victim, Ms.

Wilson. Appellant was Ms. Wilson’s housekeeper. During the time Appellant

was working at Ms. Wilson’s home, Ms. Wilson kept her checks in a drawer in

an area of the home accessible to Appellant. Further, Appellant had previously

informed Ms. Wilson that she needed money, and she had requested to be

paid for times that she did not work. Except for one occasion, Appellant was

always paid by Ms. Wilson in cash. On that one occasion, Ms. Wilson wrote a

check to Appellant. Ms. Wilson testified that she did not sign or write the two

checks in question that Appellant cashed.

Based on the foregoing, the matter is distinguishable from Gibson since

there was ample evidence to show that Appellant stole the checks as well as

altered them. Viewing the evidence the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that

Appellant stole the blank checks and deposited them. Thus, there was a

reasonable inference that Appellant knew the checks were altered. For these

reasons, Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the forgery

convictions fail. Next, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of the theft

by deception-false impression convictions. A person is guilty of theft [by deception] if he intentionally obtains

or withholds property of another by deception. A person deceives

if he intentionally:
J-S63031-18

- 6 -

(1) creates or reinforces a false impression, including false

impressions as to law, value, intention, or other state of mind; but

deception as to a person’s intention to perform a promise shall not

be inferred from the face alone that he did not subsequently

perform the promise[.]

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1). Appellant argues that in order to be convicted of

theft by deception, the Commonwealth was required to prove that Appellant

had knowledge the checks were forged in order to establish the necessary

intent to deceive. Essentially, Appellant’s argument is identical to her previous

argument; however, this claim goes to the theft by deception counts. As

discussed in detail above, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant

knew the checks were forged. Thus, Appellant’s claim fails.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/14/2018