J. S09007/15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. :

:

DONALD W. QUEER, : No. 376 WDA 2014 

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 12, 2001, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County

Criminal Division at No. CP-65-CR-0000294-2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. :

:

DONALD W. QUEER, : No. 377 WDA 2014 

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 12, 2001, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County

Criminal Division at No. CP-65-CR-0000293-2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. :

:

DONALD W. QUEER, : No. 378 WDA 2014 

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 12, 2001, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County

Criminal Division at No. CP-65-CR-0000292-2000 
J. S09007/15 

- 2 - 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES AND ALLEN, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 10, 2015 

 Appellant appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

September 12, 2009, following appellant’s various convictions related to 

three separate arsons. Finding no merit in the issues on appeal, we affirm. 

 This court previously recounted the procedural history of this case 

during appellant’s appeal of the order dismissing appellant’s fourth petition 

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 9541 to 9546: 

 The procedural history of this case is as 

follows. On June 7, 2001, a jury found Appellant 

guilty of numerous counts of arson and related 

offenses. On September 12, 2001, Appellant was 

sentenced to an aggregate term of no less than 29 

and 1/3 nor more than 58 and 2/3 years’ 

imprisonment at a state correctional institution. 

Appellant’s post-sentence motions were denied on 

January 14, 2002, and no direct appeal was filed. 

On July 2, 2002, Appellant filed his first 

post-conviction petition, which was denied on 

February 24, 2003. This Court affirmed that order 

on April 7, 2004. On August 13, 2004, Appellant 

filed his second PCRA petition. The PCRA court 

dismissed this second petition as untimely in an 

order entered on March 22, 2005, and Appellant did 

not appeal this order. On April 11, 2005, Appellant 

filed his third PCRA petition in which he requested, 

for the first time, reinstatement of his direct appeal 

rights. The PCRA court reinstated Appellant’s direct 

appeal rights on August 3, 2005. This Court 

quashed Appellant’s appeal nunc pro tunc from the 

judgment of sentence on May 17, 2006, holding that 
J. S09007/15 

- 3 - 

the PCRA court did not have jurisdiction to order the 

reinstatement of direct appeal rights. Our Supreme

Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of 

appeal on September 29, 2006. 

 Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition, his 

fourth, on November 8, 2006. The PCRA court 

dismissed the petition on December 12, 2006. 

Commonwealth v. Queer, Nos. 147, 148, and 149 WDA 2007, unpublished 

memorandum at 2-3 (Pa.Super. filed December 12, 2007). 

 This court went on to affirm the dismissal of his fourth PCRA petition 

on the basis of untimeliness. Thereafter, appellant turned to the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for relief, filing 

a petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 1, 2008. Ultimately, the 

federal court granted relief, ordering the District Attorney of Westmoreland 

County to petition the appropriate court to reinstate appellant’s direct appeal 

rights. This timely appeal ensued. 

 Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: 

I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT 

TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICTS AT ALL THREE 

CASES? 

II. WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE GRANTED 

A NEW TRIAL BASED UPON TRIAL COUNSEL'S 

FAILURE TO REQUEST AN ALIBI INSTRUCTION 

ON ALL CASES? 

Appellant’s brief at 6. 

 Preliminarily, we note that we cannot review appellant’s second issue, 

pertaining to an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, on direct 
J. S09007/15 

- 4 - 

appeal. It is well-settled that such claims must await collateral review. 

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 563 (Pa. 2013). Consequently, 

we will not review appellant’s second issue. 

 As for appellant’s first issue, pertaining to the sufficiency of the 

evidence as to his various convictions, we find no error with the trial court’s 

holding. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it is our 

determination that there is no merit to the question raised on appeal. 

Judge John E. Blahovec’s meticulous, 15-page opinion, filed on January 14, 

2002, comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the sufficiency of 

the evidence question presented. We will adopt it as our own and affirm on 

that basis. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/10/2015 
ATTltCHMENT A 

at case number 294 C 2000 charged the Defendant as follows: 

Deny Township in Westmoreland Countv on March 14. 1999. The criminal information 

, ' 

These charges stem from a fire at the Auto Haven, Inc. located on Stare Route 30 in 

Count I: Arson in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §-3301 (a)(l )Ci). 

Count 2: Arson in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §330l(d)(lJ. · 

Count J: Arson in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §330 l (d)(:2). 

Count d: Criminal Mischief in violationofl8 Pa.C.S.A. §3304(a)(l). 

Count: 5: Criminal Solicitation in violation of 18 Pa.~.S.A. §902(a). 

2000 charged the Defendant as follows: 

Pennsylvania on February 28. 1999. · The criminal information at case number 293 C 

These charges stem from a house fire (Piper Residence) in Cook Township, Latrobe, 

Count I: .Arson in violation of 18 Pa. c.s.«. §330 l (a)( l )(t). 

Count 2: Arson in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A.. §330 I (a)(l }(ii). 

Count.Jr Arson in violation of L8 P_a.C.S.A .' §33()l(c)(2)., · 

Count 4: Criminal Conspiracy in violation of 18 Pa.C.SA. §90J(a)( I). 

Count 5: Recklessly Endangering Another Person in violation of 

18 Pa.CS.A. §2705. . . . 

Count 6: Recklessly Endangering Another Person in violation of 

18 Pa.CS.A. §2705. 

Count 7: Criminal Mischief in violation of 18 P.a,C.S.A. §3J04(a)(I ). 

the Defendant as follows: 

Post Sentence Motions. TI1e criminal information at case number 292 C 2000 charged 

The above captioned cases are before the Court for disposition of the Defendant's 

OPINION OF COURT 

DONALD W. QUEER 

) 

) 292 C 2000 

) 293 C 2000 

) 294 C 2000 

) 

vs. 

COtvlMON\VEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

fN THE COURT OF COlVI!YION PLEAS 

VlESTIYIORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV.ANIA 

CRJMl.L"{AL DIVISION 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
2 

294 C '.:WOO Count 1: Not Jess than l O nor more than 20 years incarceration 

at the Bureau of Corrections consecutive to 293 C 2000. 

Count 2: No further sentence. 

Count 3: Merges with Count 2. 

Count 4: Merges with Count 2. 

Count 5: Not less than 3 nor more than 6 years incarceration at the 

Bureau of Corrections consecutive to Count l. . 

293 C 2000 Count 1: Not less than 2 nor more than 4 years incarceration at 

the Bureau of Corrections consecutive to 292 C 2000. 

Count 2: No further sentence. 

Count 3: No further sentence. 

Count 4: merges with Count 3. 

Count 5: Not less than 16 months nor more than 32 months 

incarceration consecutive to Count l. 

292 C 2000 Count 1: Not less than 10 nor more than 20 years incarceration 

at the Bureau of Corrections. 

Count 2: No further sentence. 

Count 3: Merges with Count 2. 

Count 4: Not less than 3 nor more than 6 years incarceration at 

· the Bureau of Corrections consecutive' to Count l. 

Count 5: Merges with Count · l. 

Count 6: Merges with Count L 

200 I and the Defendant received the following sentence: 

guilty at the abo~e captioned cases at all counts. Sentencing occurred on. September 12. 

June 7. 2001 The Defendant was acquitted at case number 519 C 2000 bur was found 

A jury trial at the above captioned cases began 011 May 29. 200 I and ended on 

five cases. 

case number 5l 9 C 2000 (arson related charges) and bis cc-defendant, David Ferguson's, 

Westmoreland County on April 9, 1999. All three cases were consolidated along wtth 

These charges stem from a mobile home fire (Loveridge residence) in De1Ty Township. 

Count t · Arson in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §330l(a)(l)(i). 

Count 2: Arson in violation of 18 Pa.CS.A. §330l(a)(l)(ii). 

Count 3: Arson in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §330 l(c)(2). 

Count 4: Arson in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §330l(d)(2). 

Count 5: Criminal Solicitaucn of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §902(a). 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
3 

(Citations omined) CommonweaJth v. Malone, 281 A.2d 866~ 867 (Pa. 1971) 

that he defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he bas been convicted." 

properly have based the verdict, it is sufficient in law co prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

reasonable inferences arising therefrom upon which, if believed, the trier of facts could 

"whether. accepting as true all of the evidence, be it direct or circumstantial, and all 

The standard of review in determining the sufficiency of the evidence. is 

( l) The Defendant avers that the Commonwealth failed to 

establish. with sufficient evidence, the Defendant's guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt at all counts at the above captioned 

cases. 

(2) TI1e Defendant avers that the Court's sentence went outside 

the applicable aggravated ranges of sentencing and that the 

same was excessive and therefore requests reconsideration of 

sentence. 

counsel. The Defendant filed the following two motions: 

This Opinion will address the original post sentence motions filed by trial 

receiving anything additional from counsel. 

and an accompanying brief. The 120-day time limit bas been reached without this Court 

Pa.Rule.Crim.Proc., and again was ordered to submit to the Court supplemental motions 

29. 200 J. counsel was reminded of the l'.20-dn.y time constraints of Rule 720(3)(a). 

supply a brief in support of said motions to the Court. By Court Order, dated November 

New counsel was instructed to file supplemental post sentence motions and 

appointed after trial counsel, filed post sentence motions on September ! 4, 200 l 

trial counsel co file post sentence motions to roll the appeal statute. New counsel was 

new counse! be appointed co represent rum in furure proceedings. This Court ordered 

At the sentencuig hearing on September 12, 200 I, the Defendant requested that 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
4 

18 Pa.C.S.A. §J30l(d)(l) and (2). 

A person commits a felony of the third degree if he intentionally starts a 

fire or causes an explosion, or if he aids, counsels, pays or agrees to pay 

another to cause a fire or explosion. whether on his own property or on 

that of another, and thereby reck.Jessly: · 

· ( 1) places an uninhabited buildrng or unoccupied structure of another in 

danger of damage or destructioo;or 

(2) places any personal property of another having a value chat exceeds 

$5,000 or if the property is an -automobile, airplane, motorcycle 

motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle in danger of damage or 

destruction. 

(d) Recklessly burning or exploding. 

18 Pa.CS.A. §J30l(c)(2). 

. _ A person commits a felony of the second degree if he intentionally starts a 

fire OT causes an · explosion, whether on his own property or that of 

another. or if he aids, counsels, pays or agrees to pay another to cause a 

fire or explosion, and if: 

(2) he thereby recklessly places an inhabited building or occupied 

structure of another in danger of damage or destruction; 

(b) Arson endangering property . 

18 Pa.C.S.A. §330 I (a)( I )(i) and (ii) . . 

( l) A person commits a felony of the first degree if he intentionally Starrs 

a fire or causes an explosion, or if he aids, counsels. pays or agrees to 

pay another to cause a fire or explosion. whether on his own property 

or on that of another, and if: 

he thereby recklessly places another person in danger of death 

or bodily injury. including bur not limited to a firefighter. 

police officer OT other person actively engaged in fighting the 

fire; or 

11. he commits the act with the purpose of destroying or damaging 

an inhabited building or occupied structure of another. 

(a) Arson endangering persons. 

follows. 

of 18 Pa CS .l... §3301(a)(1)(i). (a)(l)(ii). (c)(2), and (d)(2). These sections read as 

The Defendant at. the above captioned cases was charged with arson In v iolation 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
5 

Trooper Leslie Myers, a fire marshal for the Pennsylvania State Police. 

investigated the fire at the Piper residence. Trooper Myers testified that he found two 

Molotov cocktails at the Piper residence. The first was m a beer bottle found in the yard. 

The bottle coruauied a liquid that smelled like gasoline and had a piece of ctoth as a wick 

through the cop of the bottle The second one was a Gold Schlagger bottle that contained 

BBs and gunpowder. (Trial Transcript. pp. 313-315, 331-332). 

, .. 

February 27, 1999. (Trial Transcript, pp. 239-245). 

Miss Piper also testified that tbe evening before the fire, on February 27. l 999, 

around 8:00 p.m. that a white truck with a zigzag design on the side pulled into her 

driveway. Ano th er vehicle. pull yd in beside the truck. There were three men; one in the 

truck and two in the other vehicle. The man got of the truck and spoke to one of the 

individuals in the other car. After· a short period of time. the vehicles both te.ft her 

driveway. At trial she identified the Defendant's truck as. the truck in her driveway on 

1999 she was at home with her daughter, daughter-in-law, so11. and boyfriend. She heard 

a loud noise like chat of an explosion. At first she thought something was thrown through 

her glass window. Her daughter yelled that there was a fire. (Trial Transcript. pp. 229· 

232). 

following evidence: Pam Piper testified that in the early morning hours of February :2S, 

doubt chat (I) there was a fire, (2) it was maliciously set. and (3) the defendant was the 

guilty parry Commonwealth v. Hardcastle. 546 A.2d l 101, 1108 (Pa. 1988). 

AI case number 291 C 2000 (Piper Fire) the Commouwealth presented the 

ln order to convict a person oi arson, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasouable 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
6 

Trooper Myers aJso testified rhar the dryer vent 111 the back of the house had been 

burnt. What appeared co have been a warer bottle was actually in the vent and had 

melted. The bottle smelled like gasoline. (Trial Transcript. pp. 318-324). Near the dryer 

vent was located the fuel ptpe for the oil rank for the furnace. The lid for, the oil rank had 

been removed. There was a wick on the ground and matches i11 the pipe. (Trial 

Transcript, p. 326). The Trooper concluded that the fire had been intentionally set by use 

of the Molotov cocktails and incendiary devices placed in tile dryer vent and the oil 

tank's fuel pipe. (Trial Transcript, p. 336). 

Connie Knauer, the ex-fiance of David Ferguson. the Defendant's co-defendant. 

testified that she heard the Defendant tell Ferguson that he knew someone who wanted a 

house burned and would pay money for it. The Defendant, Ferguson, and Don Phillips 

left together to go see the house on Piper Ridge. The Defendant took bis truck while the 

other two went in Ferguson's red tirebird. Miss Knauer identified the Defendants truck 

as tilt: same one seen by Miss Piper on February 27. 1999. She also overheard the 

Defendant cell Ferguson that he was waiting for the money to pay for the job. (Trial 

Transcript, pp. 711-715). 

Miss Knauer also testified that she knew what a Molotov cocktail was because 

she had seen them at Ferguson's apartment and had seen Ferguson making them. She 

had also helped Ferguson siphon gas out of one of bis vehicles on the nigbc of the fire at 

the Piper residence. Ferguson also told Miss Knauer that he had emptied out shotgun 

shells to be used for the fire on the Ridge. (Trial Transcript, pp. 732-736). 

Donald Phillips tesnfied that he overheard the Defendant tell Ferguson char he 

needed' him to do a job: Toe Defendant indicated that he would show him where to go. 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
7 

Phillips testified chat he went co Ferguson's house. While there Ferguson pulled 

out a beet bottle with gasohne in it. Ferguson then asked how to rake a shotgun shell 

apart, The gunpowder obtained was placed in the gasoline. Ferguson also grabbed a · 

Golden Schlager bottle. Phillips took Ferguson back to the Ridge. Ferguson crawled 

under the trailer and when he came out handed Phillips a Budweiser beer bottle with o 

wick hanging our of it. Phillips gave Ferguson a lighter and Ferguson used the lighter to 

light another bottle chat he threw at the house and ii caught fire. Phillips dropped his 

bottle in the yard. They went back to Ferguson's place and Ferguson commented that he 

could not wait lo get paid. (Trial Transcript, pp. 785-794). 

This Court finds that this evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of 

arson m violation of 18 PaC.S.A. §330J(a)(l)(i)(ii) and (c)(.2) has charged at 292 C 

2000. The evidence clearly es~ablishes that there was a fire, that the fire was 

intentionally set. and that the Defendant was responsible for the fire. The Defendant may 

not have been the torch but he acquired someone co burn the house and showed him 

where co find the house. 

785). 

Ferguson then asked Phillips co go for a nde. Ferguson drove his red Carnaro and the 

Defendant took his truck. Phillips idenufied the Defendant s truck as the same! truck seen 

by Miss Piper. (Trial Transcript. pp. 777-781 ). Phillips testified that they went up on the 

Ridge and took some back roads and stepped at the end of dead end street, There was a 

house on the comer. The Defendant and Ferguson exited their vehicles and Phillips 

heard the Defendant tell Ferguson that that was the house. (Trial Transcnpt, pp 78~- 

r 

i. 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
8 

testimony of two individuals, Miss Knauer and Mr. Phillips. who overheard the 

18 Pa,C.S.A §903(a)( l). The evidence presented by the Commonwealth included the 

(a) A person rs guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to 

commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating res 

commission he 

(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or 

more of them will engage .in conduct which constitutes such 

crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; 

violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §903(a)( l ). This section is as follows: 

Finally the Defendant was also charged with one count ·of Criminal Conspiracy in 

sufficiently established. 

that the Piper residence suffered damage due to the fire. Criminal mischief was 

The evidence, as stated above, clearly established that the fire was intentionally set and 

{l) damages tangible property of another intentionally, recklessly. or by 

negligence in the employment of fire, explosives, or other dangerous 

means listed in section 3302(a) of this title (relating to causing or 

risking catastrophe). 

is guilty of criminal mischief if be: 

The Defendant was also charged with one count of Criminal Mischief A person 

occupants of the house could have been killed or suffered serious bodily injury. 

early morning hours when Pam Piper and her family were at home. Anyone of the 

burning of the Piper Residence. The evidence further established tbat th.is occurred in the 

. 

Pa.C.S.A. §2705. The evidence sufficiently established that the Defendant ordered the 

places or may place another person 111 danger of death or senous bodily injury. l 8 

commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if be recklessly engages in conduct which 

Recklessly Endangering Another Person in violation of 18 Pa.C.S A. §2705 A person 

At this case number the Defendant was also charged with two counts of 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
9 

Trooper Myers testified that the point of origin in the Jaguar w2.s the from seet 

and that i1: his opinion the fire had been intentionally set. There was an AMC Eagle that 

was also badly burnt The Trooper found a piece of cloth down the gas tank of the 

vehicle. It W2S his opinion cha .. the tire that damaged the AMC Eagle had beer. 

intentionally set as we!l. Also found was an Isuzu Trooper that had been damaged by cl 

fire. A partially burnt wick was found in the ¥as cap area of the vehicle. Again. the 

Trooper indicated that the fire had been intentionally set. (Trial Transcript, pp. 350-359). 

Connie Knauer testified that the Defendant believed that the Auto Haven 

dealership had "screwed him over on a car." The Defendant had stated char he didn't 

want them in business anymore. Knauer indicated that the Defendant told this to 

(Trial Transcript, pp. 346 -348). 

Defendant talking to Ferguson about buming a house on the Ridge. Phillips offered the 

testimony that he drove up to the Ridge with Ferguson and the Defendant and overheard 

the Defendant telling Ferguson which house. The Defendant's truck was identified by 

Miss Piper as the truck she saw in her driveway the evening before the fire. Phillips 

testified as TO lus part in the fire at the Piper residence. This evidence was sufficient to 

establish that the Defendant conspired with Ferguson to bum the Piper residence. 

AT case number 293 C 1000 (Auto Haven Fire) the Commonwealth presented the 

following evidence: Trooper Leslie Myers testified that on March 14, 1999 thar he was 

instructed to respond to the Auto Haven Dealership on State Rome 30 in Latrobe. 

Pennsylvania. He observed a green Jaguar had been burnt out. Specifically the Jaguar's 

: .. · . inside passenger compartment had sustained most of the damage.' A vehicle next to the 

·, Jaguar was also ds . rnaged 25 well as the carport that the vehicles were parked under. 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
10 

A person is guilty of solicnation to commit a crime if wuh the intent of 

promoting or facilirating its commission he commands, encourages or 

violanon of 18 Pa.C.S.A §902(a). 

At this case number the Defendant was also charged with Criminal Solicitation in 

§330t(a)(!)(i), (d)(l), and (d)(2). 

fire. Th.is evidence sufficiently established Arson iri violation of t8 PaC S.A 

another and damaged by the fire. There were also a nwnber of vehicles damaged in the 

the use of an incendiary device. The Auto Haven was an uninhabited building owned by 

maliciously set. and that the Defendant ordered the fire to be sec. Tbe fire was set with 

evidence established that a fire had occurred, that the tire was intenuouatly and 

Thrs evidence sufficiently established arson as charged at this case number The 

time he need a job done. (Trial Transcript, pp. 605-606). 

Ferguson $200.00. Ferguson at that point told the Defendant to let him know the next 

dealership. After the Auto Haven fire, Sprock testified that he saw the Defendant give 

down the Auto Haven because he was upset with a vehicle that be obtained from the 

Mr Shawn Sprock testified that the Defendant asked him and Ferguson to burn 

fire (Tnal Transcript, pp.716-721, ?34). 

also helped siphon gasoline out of Ferguson's one vehicle on the night of the Auto Haven 

went back to t~e Auto Haven. He returned shortlv and they drove back home. Knauer 

small flame under one of the vehicles under the tank. Ferguson again parked his car and 

been successful starting- the fire, so he drove back around. Knauer testified that she saw a 

come back. When Ferguson came back co the car be was unsure whether or nor be bad 

left be: in the car and advised her to wait for a period of rime and then leave if be did not 

Ferzuson She drove with Ferzuson to the Auto Haven on the nizht of rhe fire. Ferzuson 

- - - - 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
I l 

evening of April 9, 1999 asleep. He woke up and smelled smoke. He initially walked 

Transcript. pp 176. 17S- l 79). Gerald Loveridge testified that he was ar home on the 

together for a period of four years. She also identified the Defendant s truck, (Trial 

Miss Loveridge also testified that she knew the Defendant because they bad lived 

that they saw flames when they got outside. (Trial Transcript pp. 170-174). 

noise and then her room began to fill up with smoke. All three got out of the trailer and 

sleeping in his room and she was in her room with her boyfriend. She heard a "pop" 

son. Gerald, and her boyfriend. On April 9, 1999 everyone was at home. Her son was 

following testimony: Jacquelyn Loveridge testified that she lived in her trader with her 

At case number 294 C 2000 (Loveridge Fire) the Commonwealth presented the 

evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant committed criminal mischief 

Haven. Ferguson used incendiary devices in the vehicles, which resulted in a fire. The 

the evidence established that the Defendant requested that Ferguson bum down the Auto 

one damages the tangible property of another by means of fire or explosives. In this case 

violation of l 8 Pa.C.S.A §3304(a)( I). As defined above, criminal mischief occurs when 

Finally at this case number the Defendant is charged with Criminal Mischief in 

crime of criminal sohcitation. 

out of business This evidence sufficiently established chat the Defendant comm med the 

the vehicle that he bought from the dealership. The Defendant wanted the Auto Haven 

Derendant asked Ferguson to bum down the Auto Haven because he was unhappy with 

18 Pa.C S A. §903(a) The evidence presented by the Commonwealth was that the 

requesrs another person Lo engage 10 specific conduce which would 

consutute such crime or an attempt co comrmt sucb crime or wluch 

establish bis complicity ia its commission or attempted commission. 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
12 

Miss Loveridge kept holiday decorations in a cardboard cylinder under rhat pan 

of the trailer. (Trial Transcript. p. 169). The owner of the trailer, Mr. Merle Ray, testified 

that the trailer had no electrical problems and thar tt was valued at .$5,000.00. (Trial 

Transcript, pp. '.210-122). Trooper Myers also testified that the fire was intentionally set. 

(Trial Transcript. pp. 360-363). 

Connie Knauer testified that she overheard the Defendant telling Ferguson that be 

wanted his ex-wife's trailer burned. The three of them drove past the trailer and the 

Defendant pointed it out. Knauer identified the Loveridge trailer as the trailer pointed om 

by the Defendant. A week or two later Knauer went back to the trailer with Ferguson. 

Aga.m she remained in the car at Fergusons request and did not see what Ferguson did 

when he left the car. Knauer further testified thar the Defendant was upset that the fire 

v.. 

our co the living room and saw smoke and then returned to his bedroom. In the bedroom 

he reached for bis shoes chat were on the grate of the register and it looked hke the grate 

was melting on the bortom of his shoes. He returned co the living room and was told by 

hi: mother's boyfriend to go om tae from door. (Tti31 Transcript. P?· 2J2-213). 

Trooper Kevin Karwarsky testified chat the fire was the fire was concentrated uudernearh 

the trailer. He found no problems with the underground electrical sen/lee or the breaker 

panel. These items suffered no fire damage in or around them and they had nothing to do 

with the tire. The fire had come up from underneath the trailer through the ductwork 

underneath the boy's bedroom. The fire went up through the ve~t in the boy's bedroom 

and the flames came in contact with the side of the boy's bed. The mattress and box 

·:,· spring were damaged The Trooper testified that the fire was intentionally started with 

the available combustibles underneath the trailer. (Trial Transcript, pp. 459-469). 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
13 

considered the presentence investigation in reference to the above captioned cases. the 

sentenced to incarceranon for a period up ro 20 years. 18 PaC.S.A. § l l 03(1). This Court 

counts were first-degree felonies. A person convicted of a first-degree felony may be 

292 C 2000 (Piper Fire) and count l at 294 C 2000 (Loveridge Fire). Both of these 

sentencing The Defendant was sentenced to l O to 20 years incarceration at count l at 

contends that the sentence was excessive and outside the applicable aggravated ranges of 

Next the Defendant seeks reconsideration of sentence and in support thereof 

was sufficient co convict the Defendant of criminal solicitation. 

Ferguson to the location and identified which trailer he was talking about The evidence 

Loveridge trailer burned down. that be asked Ferguson. to do the job, and that he took 

crime. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth was that the Defendant wanted tne 

"commands, encourages or requests". another engage in an activity that would constitute a 

violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §902(a). As stared above. cnminai solicitation occurs if one 

At this case number the Defendant was also charged with Criminal Solicitanon in 

§330l(a)( l )(i)(ii). (c)(2), and (d)(2). 

evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of Arson in violation of l 8 Pa.CS.A 

asked Ferguson lo set the tire for him. The trailer was also valued at S5.000.00. The 

mtentionally ser in disregard for whether or not people were inside, and the Defendant 

The evidence presented showed that there was indeed a fire, chat the fire was 

This evidence was sufficient: co establish arson as charged at this case number. 

pp. -r· -,-) /_J-/_/ . 

had been set with people inside. He bad nor wanted anyone to get hurt. (Tnal Transcript. 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
14 

Defendant received a sentence of three to six years at this count. 

range applied at count 5 (Criminal Solicitation) at case number 294 C 2000. Tbe 

The Defendant received a sentence of three to six years at this count. The same standard 

was twelve to twenry-four months with thirty-six months being the aggravated range. 

sentence at count 4 (Criminal Conspiracy). The standard range applicable at this counr 

sentencing guidelines. At case number 292 C 2000 the Defendant also received a 

It is further evident by the record that this Court took in to consideration the 

lives. The actions of the Defendant could have resulted in eight potential homicides. 

. . 

Loveridge trailer was caught on fire. No consideration was given to the value of their 

home when the Piper residence was caught on fire and three people were home when the 

at night and that the residences were occupied at the time of the fires. Five people were 

included the fact that the Defendant paid someone else to set.the fires, the fires were set 

Sentencing Guidelines on September 12. 2001. (Please see attachments). The reasons 

This Court also filed a Written Statement of Reasons ·for Deviation from the 

(Sentencing Transcript. p.20). 

night. Such action lacked any grounds for mitigation and deserved a maximum sentence. 

imagine anything worse than setting an occupied structure on fire in the middle of the 

offenses against humanity." (Sentencing Transcript, pp. l 8-20). This Cou11 could nor 

law, that certain crimes. including arson, were considered "tremendously serious onerous 

overwhelming as for as guilt. Also placed on the record was the belief under common 

This Court placed on the record the belief that the evidence in these cases was 

Transcript. p. l 8) 

different counts. the sentencing guidelines. and the law of merger. (Sentencing 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM
15 

cc: Leo Ciaramitaro, ADA 

Ron E. Valasek. Esq. 

Clerk of Courts 

Attest: 

Date·ro 

BY THE COURT: 

rnent. 

For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the Defendant's appeal lacks 

on the Defendant a: the above captioned cases was appropriate. 

Defendant recei ved a sentence of sixteen to thirty-two months. TI1e sentencing imposed. 

of rwo to four years. A.: count 5 the standard range was nine to sixteen rnoaths and the 

standard range was twelve lo twenry-four months and the Defendant received a sentence 

C ~000 the Defendant received a sentence within tbe standard range. At count l the 

Finally a: count 1 (Arson) and count 5 (Criminal Solicitaticc) at case number 293 

Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM