### 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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF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 en tered September 12, 2009, following appellant’s various c onvictions related to three separate arsons. Finding no merit in the iss ues on appeal, we affirm. This court previously recounted the procedural his tory of this case during appellant’s appeal of the order dismissing a ppellant’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, Appellan t filed his third PCRA petition in which he requested , for the first time, reinstatement of his direct app eal rights. The PCRA court reinstated Appellant’s dire ct 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 t he 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, 200 7). This court went on to affirm the dismissal of his fourth PCRA petition on the basis of untimeliness. Thereafter, appellan t turned to the United States District Court for the Western District of P ennsylvania for relief, filing a petition for writ of habeas corpuson April 1, 2008. Ultimately, the federal court granted relief, ordering the DistrictAttorney of Westmoreland County to petition the appropriate court to reinsta te 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 appel lant’s second issue, pertaining to an allegation of ineffective assistan ce of counsel, on direct

### J. S09007/15

- 4 -

appeal. It is well-settled that such claims must a wait 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, th e briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of th e trial court, it is our determination that there is no merit to the questio n raised on appeal. Judge John E. Blahovec’s meticulous, 15-page opinio n, filed on January 14, 2002, comprehensively discusses and properly dispos es 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: 7/10/2015ATTltCHME N T A

at case number 294 C 2000 

### ch arg e d th e Defe n d an t as fo ll o w s: Deny Township i n Westm orelan d Countv o n M arc h 14 . 1 9 99. Th e crimi nal 

### in fo rm atio n , ' These charges stem fro m a fire at th e A ut o H av en , In c. l oc ate d on Stare R o ute 30 i n

Count I: Ar son i n vio lati on of 1 8 P a . C.S.A. § -3 30 1 

### ( a)( l ) Ci). Count 2: Ar so n i n v i o latio n of 1 8 

### P a.C. S . A. § 3 3 0 l ( d )( l J . · Co un t 

### J : A r son in v i o lati o n o f 1 8 Pa.C.S.A. § 33 0 l ( d )(:2 ) . Count d: C ri mi nal Misc hi e f 

### in violation o fl8 P a.C . S .A. §3304(a) ( l ) . C o unt: 5: Cri mi n al So l i cit ati o n in vi o lati o n of 1 8 P a . ~. S . A . §90 2 (a ). 2000 ch ar ged the De fen d an t a s follo ws: Pennsylvania on Feb ruary 28. 19 99 . · The criminal inform ati on at c ase nu mber 29 3 C T he se charges s te m fro m a h ous e fire ( Piper Residence ) in C ook Townsh i p , Latrob e,

Count I: . Ar so n in v iolation of 18 Pa. 

# c .s . « . §330 l ( a)( l )(t ). 

### Co un t 2 : Ars o n in vi o lati on of 18 Pa.C . S . A.. §33 0 I 

### (a )( l }( ii ) . Cou n t. J r Ars on i n v iolati o n of L8 P

_ a.C.S . A .' § 3 3()l(c) ( 2). , · Co unt 4 : Criminal C o nspira c y in vio l ati on of 18 Pa.C.SA. §90J ( a)( I) . Co u nt 5: Reckless l y Endangeri n g Another Pe r so n in vio l ation of

18 Pa . CS.A. §2705 . . . . 

### Count 6: Re c klessl y Endangeri ng Another Pe r son in v i olati o n of

1 8 P a.CS . A. §2705. Coun t 7: 

### C ri mi nal M ischief in violation o f 1 8 P . a,C.S . A. §3J04(a )( I ). 

### the Defen d ant as follo w s: Post Sentence Motions . 

### TI 1e crimin al 

### inf o rmati o n at case n umb er 292 C 2 0 0 0 char ged The above capti o ned c as es are b e fore th e C ou rt for d i s po si ti o n o f th e D efendant's 

### OPINION OF COURT DONALD W. QUEER ) 

### ) 292 C 2 000 ) 293 C 2 00 0 ) 29 4 C 200 0 ) 

## vs . C OtvlMON\VEALTH OF PENNSYLVAN I A



## fN THE CO URT OF CO lV I!YION PLE AS Vl E S T IY IOREL AN D C OUNTY , PENN SYLV. ANIA

CRJM l.L "{AL D I V I S IO N Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM

### 2 294 

### C '.:WOO Coun t 1: No t J ess than l O nor more th an 2 0 ye ar s incarcerati on at the Bureau o f C orrections consecu tiv e to 29 3 C 20 00 . Co unt 2: No further se ntence . 

### Co u nt 3: Merges with 

### Co unt 2 . Co unt 4: M er g e s with 

### Co unt 2 . Co unt 5: 

### Not l e s s 

### than 3 n or more 

### than 6 ye ar s incarceratio n 

### at th e 

### B ureau of Correction s consecu ti ve to 

### C o unt l. . 293 C 2000 

### Count 1: Not less than 2 nor mo r e than 4 years incarcerati on at the Bureau of 

### Correcti o n s consecutive to 292 C 

### 200 0 . C o un t 2: N o further sentence . 

### C o unt 3 : No further 

### sentence . C o unt 4: merge s 

### with Count 3 . Count 5: Not 

### les s than 1 6 m o nths nor mo r e th an 3 2 month s

incarcer ati on c o nsecuti v e t o Count l. 

### 2 9 2 C 20 00 

### Count 1 : Not l ess than 10 

### nor m ore th an 20 years i n car cerati on at the Bureau of 

### Corre ctions. Count 2 : No further sentence . 

### Count 3: Merges w i th Count 

### 2 . Count 4 : Not less than 3 no r more 

### than 6 years 

### i nc arceration at · the Bureau of Co rre c tio n s co n secutive' t o 

### Count l. Count 5 : Merges with Count · l. Count 6 : Merges wit h 

### Count 

### L 200 I and th e Defe n d an t rece iv ed the fol l owin g sentence : guilty at th e abo~e cap tione d cas e s 

### at all 

### co u nts. S e ntencing occ u rred on . Sep t e mber 1 2. June 7. 2001 Th e D efend ant was acqui tted at case n u mber 5 1 9 C 2000 bu r was foun d A 

### jury trial at 

### th e ab o v e cap ti oned cases began 011 

### M ay 29 . 2 00 I and e nded o n fiv e cas e s. c ase numb er 5l 9 C 2000 ( ars on r e late d ch arge s ) an d bis c c -defendant , 

### D av i d Fe rgu son's, Wes tmoreland County on Ap ri l 9, 199 9. A ll thre e c a s es were 

### consolidated al ong w tth These charges stem fr om a mobile ho me fi re (Lo ve ri d g e residence ) in De1T y Towns h ip.

Count 

### t · Ars on in vi o lation o f 18 Pa . C.S.A. § 33 0l( a )(l ) ( i ) . 

### Count 2 : Ar s o n in v iol ation o f 18 Pa.CS . A . § 3 3 0 l ( a) (l) ( i i) . 

### Count 3: Ars o n in vi o latio n of 

### 18 Pa. C.S.A . §33 0 

### l (c)(2 ) . Co un t 4: Arson in v iol ati o n o f 

### 1 8 Pa . C . S .A . 

### §33 0l( d) ( 2). Count 5: Criminal So l icit au cn of 1 8 P a.C . S. A . §9 0 2(a ) . Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM3



### (Citations omined) 

### Commo n we aJth v. M al o n e, 28 1 A.2d 866~ 86 7 (P a. 1971) 

### that he defe n dan t is guilty of the crime or c rime s of w hic h he bas been conv i cted." pro p erl y have based th e verdi ct , it 

### is su fficient in l aw 

### co pro v e 

### b eyond a reaso n abl e doub t reasonable inferenc e s 

### aris i ng th erefrom up on w h ich , i f believ e d, th e tri er o f fa c ts co u ld 

### "whe th er. acc e ptin g as true al l 

### of the e vid e n ce , be 

### i t di rect or ci rc umst antial, and all Th e stan d ard of re vie w in d e termining th e s ufficien cy 

### o f th e evi d ence. i s ( l) The D efe ndant 

### av e rs th at th e Commonwealth failed to

e s tabl i sh. w i th sufficient e v i dence, th e Def e ndant's 

### g u il t bey o nd a reasonabl e doubt at all count s 

### at the above capti oned case s . (2) TI 1 e Def

e ndant av ers that th e Co urt' s se n tence w e nt o uts ide th e applicable aggravated ranges of 

### sentenc i ng and that 

### the s am e 

### was excess i v e 

### and th ere fo re requ e st s recon s iderati on 

### of sentenc e . 

### cou n sel . The D ef

endan t filed 

### the fo ll o wing tw o motions: Th i s 

### Opinio n will 

### a ddr es s the o rigin al 

### post s entenc e moti on s fi led by 

### trial re c ei vin g anyth i ng 

### ad di ti o nal from co unsel. 

### an d an a c compan y ing 

### brief. Th e 120 -day 

### ti me li mi t b as been reac hed w ith o ut this Court P a. Ru le . C rim.Proc ., an d ag ai n was 

### o r d ered t o s ubmit 

### to the C ourt 

### s uppl e m en tal m otio n s 29. 200 J. counsel w as remin d e d o f the l'.2 0 -dn.y time c onstrai n ts of Ru l e 720(3)(a). supply 

### a brief in su p po rt of s ai d 

### m o tions to the C o u rt . 

### By Co urt Ord er, dated November New couns el 

### was in s tructe d t o file s upplem e ntal p os t se ntenc e m o tion s an d 

### appointed after trial counsel, filed 

### post sente nce 

### moti o ns on Se ptembe r ! 

### 4, 200 l trial counsel co file po st sen tenc e m oti o n s to ro ll the app e al s t atu te . Ne w co u nsel was new counse! be ap p ointed co represent 

# rum in 

### furure pro ce e dings. T h is Cou rt ord ered At the sentencuig hearing on S ep tembe r 12, 200 

### I, the Defe ndant requested that Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM

### 4

1 8 

### Pa.C . S.A. § J3 0l ( d )( l ) an d ( 2 ) .

A person c o mmits a felony o f the third degre e 

### if he intentionally starts a fire o r causes an expl o s i on, o r 

### if he ai ds , counsels, p ays or ag rees t o pay another t o cause a fire or exp l os i on . wh e ther o n hi s own pr op erty o r on that o f an o ther , and thereby reck.Jessly: · · ( 1 ) plac e s an uninhabited buildrng o r un o ccupied s tructure o f ano ther 

### in danger o f damage o r de s tructi o o ; o r ( 2 ) places any pe r sonal pro p erty of anoth er h aving a valu e 

### ch at exceeds $5 , 0 0 0 o r 

### if the property is an

- aut o m o bile, airplane, m o to rcycl e mot o rboat 

# or o ther mot o r-propelled veh i cle i n d an ger of damage o r destruction. ( d ) Recklessly burni n g o r explodi n g . 1 8 Pa . CS . A. §J3 0 l ( c) ( 2 ).



### . _ A p e rson c o mmits a felo n y of 

### the se c ond d e gree i f he inte ntionally starts 

### a fire OT causes an · explo s ion, wh e th e r o n his own pro p erty o r that of ano th e r. o r 

### i f h e aids , co un sels, p ay s or agre es t o pay an o th e r to cause a fire or e xplosion, and 

### if: ( 2 ) 

### he thereby recklessly places an inhabited building or occupied structure of another in dange r o f damage o r destruc ti o n ; (b ) Ars o n e n d an ge ri ng pr operty . 

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



# . ( l ) 

### A person commi ts 

### a felony of th e 

### firs t de gree i f h e 

### intenti o n ally 

### Starrs a fire o r c auses an ex pl os i o n, o r 

### if he aids, counsels. pays o r a grees to pay another t o cause a fire or exp l os ion . whether on his o wn pr o perty o r on that of anothe r, an d 

### i f: he thereby recklessly pla c es anothe r pe r son i n dange r o f de ath o r bodily injury. including bur not limite d to a firefighter. poli c e officer OT o the r p e rson ac ti v ely eng age d in fighting the 

### fire; or 1 1. he commits the ac t with th e purpose o f des tr oy in g o r damaging an inhabite d building or occupied s tructure of another. 

### ( a ) Arso n endangering 

### persons. foll o w s. o f 18 Pa CS .l.. . §3 3 0 1 ( a )( 1 )(i) . ( a )(l) (ii). (c)(2 ), and (d) ( 2 ). T hese se c ti ons re ad as 

### The D e f endant at. the ab o v e capti o n ed 

### c ases was char ged 

### with arson In 

### v io lation Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM5 Trooper Leslie Mye r s, a fire marsh al for th e Penn s y lvani a State Police. investigated the fire at the Piper residence. Troo p er Myers testified that he found two Mo lo tov cocktai l s at the Piper resid e nce . The fir s t w as m a beer b ottl e fo u n d in the yard . The b o ttl e 

### coruauied a liquid that smelled like gasoline an d h ad a piece of 

### c t oth as a w i ck through the cop of the bottle The second o n e was a Gold Schlagger bo ttle th at con t ained BBs and gunpowder. ( Trial Transcript. pp. 313-315, 33 1

- 332). , 

## . . February 27, 1999. (Tri al Transcript, pp. 2 3 9

- 245). Miss Piper also testifi e d that tb e e veni n g b e fore the fire , o n February 27 . l 999, around 8:00 p . m. that a whi te truck with a z i g za g d e s ign on th e s i de p u lled into her driveway. Ano th er vehicl e. p ull yd i n b esi d e the tru ck . T here were thre e men ; o ne i n the truck and two in the other v e hicl e. Th e m an g o t of the truck an d s poke to on e o f the indi v i duals in the oth er car. After· a short p e riod of ti me . th e v e h i cles both te.ft her driveway. At trial she identified the D e fe nd an t's tru ck as . th e tru ck in h er dri vew ay on 1999 she was at ho me with her daughter , daughter

- in-law, so 1 1. and boyfriend . She heard a l oud noise like chat of an e xplosion . A t first sh e thought so m ethin g was throw n thro u gh her g l ass window. Her d aughte r ye ll ed that th ere 

### was a fire. ( Tri al Trans cript. pp . 229· 232). f ol lowing evidence: Pam Piper testified that in the early mo rn ing h ours of Febru ary :2S, d o ubt chat ( I) there was a fire, (2) 

### it was malicious l y set. and (3) the defendan t was the gui l ty parry C o mm o nwealth v . Hardcastle. 546 A.2d l 1 01 , 1 108 (Pa. 1988) . 

### AI case number 291 

### C 2000 (Pipe r 

### Fire) the 

### Commouwealth presented th e ln order to conv ic t a person 

### oi arson , the prosecution must es t ablish 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 gro un d 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 te ll 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 P i p er Ridge. The Def en d ant took bi s 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 . S h e al so ove rhe ard 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 

### nigb c 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 PM7 Phi ll ips tes tified chat he we nt co F e rg uso n ' s house. Whi l e the re 

### Fer g uso n pull e d out a b e et bo ttle wi th g aso hne in 

### it. F e r gu son the n as ked ho w to r ake a sho tgu n sh e ll apart, Th e g unpo wd e r o btain e d w as p lace d in th e gas o l i ne . F er g u s on al s o grabbed a · Go lden S chl ager 

### bottle. Phillips took F erguso n back to th e 

### Ri dge . Ferg u s on c r awled und er th e tr ai le r and when he came o u t h anded Phi ll ips a B u dwe ise r beer bo ttl e 

### w i th o w i ck h ang ing ou r of 

### i t. Philli ps gav e Ferg uso n a l i g hte r an d Fergus on u s ed the l ighter t o lig ht an o th e r b ottle chat he threw at the hous e and i i cau ght fire . Phi l lip s dro pp ed hi s bottl e in the y ar d . Th ey went ba ck t o Fe r g uso n ' s p l ac e an d Fer gu so n c ommen ted that h e co ul d no t w ait lo g et p ai d. (Trial Tran s crip t, p p . 7 85 -7 9 4 ). Th is C ou rt find s that th is ev i d e n c e w as s uffic i en t to co n v i c t th e Defendan t o f arson m viol ation of 18 Pa C.S . A. §3 3 0 J( a)( l) ( i )( i i) an d (c ) (.2) has ch ar g e d at 292 C 

### 2000 . The evidence cl earl y 

### es~ablish e s th at there w as a fire, that th e fire w a s in ten t i o na lly se t. and th at th e De fe ndant was re s pon s ib l e for the fire . The Def e n dan t may not h ave be e n 

### the to rc h b u t he acqu i red 

### s o meo ne c o burn th e h ouse and s h o we d him 

### where co fi n d th e h ouse. 785). 

### F erguson th e n 

### asked Phi ll ips co go fo r a nd e . Fer guso n dr o v e hi s 

### re d C arnaro and th e Def e n dant took 

### his tru c k. Phil li ps 

### idenu fie d the D e f endan t s truck as th e same! truck s e e n 

### by Miss Pipe r . ( Trial Transcript. pp. 777-78 1 ). Phillips testi fi e d that the y went u p on th e Ridge and took some b ack ro a ds an d s t epp e d at the e nd of de ad end stree t, T h e re w as a ho us e on th e comer. The D e fe n d ant and 

### Ferg u so n exited th e ir v e hi cl e s 

### an d Phi llips heard the D ef

endant tell 

### F er g uson th at th at w as 

### th e house. (Trial 

### Tr anscnpt , pp 78~ -

r

i. Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM

### 8

tes tim o n y o f two indivi duals, Mi ss Knau er an d 

### Mr. Phillip s . who o v erh e ard the 18 P a ,C . S . A §90 3 ( a )( l). Th e 

### evid e n c e pre sente d 

### b y the Comm o nweal th in cl u de d th e

( a ) A pe r so n rs g u ilty o f c onsp ira cy w i th an othe r perso n or p e rs o ns t o c ommit a crim e 

### if with th e intent of prom o ting o r fa cilit ating res c ommis s i o n 

### h e ( 1 ) agre es w i th such oth e r p e r s on or p e r sons th at th ey or o ne o r m o re of them will engage .in co ndu ct which consti tutes s u c h crime o r an atte mpt o r so li c it ati o n t o co mmi t s uch crim e; v i o l ati on o f 18 Pa. C .S.A. § 9 03( a )( l ) . Th is s ecti o n i s as fo llow s: 

### Fi nal ly the 

### Defe n dant was also c har ged 

### with o n e co un t 

### · o f Crimin al Consp irac y i n s uffici e n tl y e s tab l ish e d . th at th e Pipe r re s i d ence s uffered damage due t o th e fi re. Criminal mis c hief w as T he ev id e n ce , as s tated abo ve, cl early establis h e d th at the fire was i n t entionally se t an d



### {l) damag e s tangib l e property o f another i ntenti o nall y, r e c kl ess ly . o r 

### by n e gli g ence 

### in the employ m ent 

### o f fire , ex plos i v e s , o r o th e r d an gerous means lis ted i n se c tio n 3302 (a) of this titl e (re lati ng to causing o r ri s king c atastr op he ) . i s g uilty of crimin al mischi e f 

### i f be: Th e D efendant was also charg e d with on e 

### c o un t of C riminal M i sch i ef 

### A person occup ants o f the ho use c o ul d h ave been killed o r suffe re d se rious bodily i n j u ry . e arly mo rn ing hours whe n P am P iper and her famil y were at h om e . Anyon e o f the burning of the P ip e r Res ide n ce . Th e evi d e nc e furth er e s tabli shed tbat th. is occurre d 

### in the 

# . Pa.C.S . A. §2705 . T h e ev id enc e s ufficiently es tab li she d 

### that th e Defe ndant o rde red th e 

### places or may pl ac e an oth e r per s on 111 dan ger o f death or 

### se n o u s bodil y i nj u ry . l 8 

### commits a misd e meanor of the second deg ree if be re c kless l y eng ages in conduct whi c h Recklessly Endangeri n g 

### Anoth er P er son in violati on of 18 Pa . C . S A. § 27 05 A person At 

### this case 

### numb er the D e f endant w as al so char ged 

### wi th two 

### c ou nts of Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM

### 9 Trooper Mye r s tes tified that th e po in t of ori gin in the Jagu ar w2.s th e fro m seet and that 

### i1: his o pi n ion the fire h a d b een i n t enti o n all y s e t. T here w as an A MC E a g le th at was also badly burnt The Trooper foun d a p i ec e o f cl o th d ow n the gas 

### t ank o f th e vehicle. It W2S his opi n ion cha .. the tire that dam ag e d th e A M C E ag le h a d b eer. intentionally set a s we! l. Also fou n d was an Is uzu Tr oope r that had bee n d am aged by cl fire . A partially burnt wick 

### was fo u n d i n the ¥ a s cap area o f th e ve hic l e. Again. the 

### Trooper i ndi c ated 

### that the fi re had been inte n tion all y se t. 

### ( Trial Transc ript , p p. 350-359). Conn i e Knauer testified that the Defendant b el i eved that th e A u to Have n d ealership had " screwed him over o n a car." The Defendant h ad state d 

### c h ar he 

### didn't want 

### them i n business 

### anymore . Knauer indi cated that th e 

### Defen d ant to l d this to ( Tri al Transcript, pp . 346

- 348). Def e nd an t t al ki ng to Ferguson 

### abou t buming a 

### h o use on the 

### Ridg e. Ph il lip s offered the testim on y that he 

### dro ve up t o the Ridge with Ferguson and the D efendan t an d overh eard the Defen dan t tel li ng Fer g uson whic h house . The D e fendant's truck was identified 

### by M is s P i pe r as the truck she saw 

### in her driveway the eveni n g before the fire . 

### Phi ll ips tes ti fi e d as TO l u s part 

### in the fire at the P i p er residence . T hi s evide n ce was sufficient t o e stab lish that the D efendant c onspired with F erguson to bum th e Piper res i d ence . 

### AT case numbe r 293 C 

### 1000 (Auto Haven Fi re) th e Co mmonweal th pres ented the following evidence: T r ooper Lesl i e Myers te s tifi ed that on March 1 4 , 1 9 99 t h a r he was instru cted to re spond to the Auto 

### Hav en D eale r s hi p 

### o n State Rome 

### 3 0 in L atrob e . Pennsy l vania. He o b served a g reen J a g u ar had bee n 

### b u rnt ou t. S pe c ifi c ally the Ja g u ar's : .. · . inside passenger compartment had s u st ai ne d 

### m o s t o f the damage. ' A vehi cl e n ext t o the

· , Jagu ar w a s also ds .rnag e d 25 well as the carpo rt th at th e v e hi cles we re parke d u nder . 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 l eft 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 asle e p . 

### He w o ke u p and s m e lled 

### s m o ke. He 

### initi al ly w alked Transc ri pt. pp 1 76. 17S- l 79) . Ge r ald Loveridge testified th at he was ar home 

### on the togethe r 

### f

o r a 

### pe ri od of four years . She also i de n tified the 

### Defendant s truck, ( Trial Mi ss Loveridge also t esti fied that s h e kne w the D efe n d ant 

### becau se th ey 

### b ad lived that they saw flames when they got o utside . (T rial 

### Tran script pp. 170-174). n o ise and then her room began to fill up with smoke. All three got out of the tr ailer and slee p ing 

### in his roo m and s h e 

### was i n 

### her room 

### wi th h er 

### boy frie n d. S he hear d 

### a "po p " son. 

### Gerald, and her boyfriend. On Ap ril 9, 1999 everyone was at ho me. H e r son was 

### following testim o ny: J acquelyn 

### Loveridge tes ti fied that s h e lived in 

### her trader wi th 

### her At cas e numbe r 294 C 2 000 ( L ov e rid g e Fire) the C o mm onwealth p re sented the ev i de n ce was sufficien t to establish that th e D efe ndant co mmi tted crimin al misch ie f Haven. Ferguson use d incen di ary d e v i ces in the vehicl es, which res u lte d in a fire. The the e vid enc e es tablish ed that the Defe ndant re qu este d that 

### Fer g u son bum down th e Au t o 

### one damages the tangible prop erty of another by mean s 

### o f fi re or explo si ves . In this case violation of l 8 Pa.C . S.A §3304(a)( I ) . As defi ne d above, criminal mischief occurs w h en Finally 

### at th i s case number th e D ef endan t 

### i s c h ar ge d 

### wi th Cri mi n al M is chief in 

### c rime o f criminal s ohcitation. out of bu s iness T hi s evidence 

### sufficiently established 

### chat the Defendant comm med 

### the the v e hicle th at he bo u ght from th e de al ership . T he 

### De f endant wanted the A u to Haven 

### D erend an t asked Ferguson 

### to bum dow n th e Au t o 

### H aven because h e 

### was u nhappy with 1 8 Pa.C S A . §903(a) The evidence presented 

### by the Comm o nwealth was that the

requesrs 

### another p er son Lo 

### engage 10 

### spe c i fic con du c e wh i ch w o u l d co n s utute such crime or an attemp t 

### co comrmt sucb crime o r wluc h establish bis complicity ia 

### its commiss i on or attempted commission . Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM12 

### Miss Loveridge kept holiday decorati ons 

### i n a cardbo ard cyli n der under rhat p an o f 

### the tr ailer. (Trial 

### Transcript. p . 169) . T he o wner of the trai ler, Mr . Merle Ra y, 

### testi fied th at the trailer had n o e l ec trical problems and thar tt 

### was valued at .$5,000.0 0 . ( Trial Transcrip t , pp . '.2 1 0

- 12 2 ). Troope r Myers also 

### testified that the fire 

### was intentionally set. ( T ri al T ranscript. pp . 3 60-363). 

### C o nnie Knau er testified that she ov erheard the Defend an t te ll ing F er guson th at be wanted hi s ex-w i fe ' s trailer 

### burned. The three of them dro v e p ast th e trai l er and the Defendant pointed it o ut. Knauer identifie d th e L overidge trai l er as th e trai ler pointed o m by the Defendant. A w e ek o r two l ater Knauer went back to the trai l er with Fergu so n. Aga. m she remained in the c ar at Fergus o ns request and did not s ee what Fer g us o n di d when he left the c ar . Knauer further te stified thar the Defendant was up s et that the fire v . . 

### our co th e li vin g ro om and saw s moke and th e n returned to his bedro o m . In the bedro o m he reac he d fo r bis shoes chat were on the grate of the register and i t 

### l o oked hke the grate was m e ltin g 

### o n th e 

### bort o m of his 

### sh o es . He 

### r eturn e d c o the 

### liv i ng r oom 

### and was 

### t ol d b y hi : m o th er ' s b o yfri e nd t o g o o m tae 

### from do o r. ( T ti 31 Tr anscript. P?· 

### 2J2-213 ). Tro o per Ke vi n K arwarsky 

### testified chat the fire 

### was the fire was co ncentrated uudernearh th e tr ai l e r . He fo und 

### no pr o blems with the undergr o und elec trical sen/lee o r 

### th e bre aker panel . T hese 

### items s uff

e re d no fire damage in or around the m and th ey h ad noth in g to d o w i th the tire. The fi re h ad come up from un dern eath th e trailer thro u g h th e du ctwo rk unde rn eath th e boy's b e droom. The fire w en t up thro u g h the v e~ t in the b oy ' s bedroo m and the flames came i n c ont a ct with the si de o f th e b oy's be d. T he m attress and box

· : , · spring were 

### damaged T he Trooper te s tified th at th e fire was intenti o nall y st arted w ith the av ailable combus tibl e s un de rneath 

### the tr ailer. (Trial Trans cri p t, pp . 45 9- 469) . Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM1 3

co nsidered th e presentenc e investigati o n in reference t o th e above cap ti o ned cases. th e 

### s enten c e d t o incarc eranon for a peri o d up ro 20 years. 18 P aC . S.A . § 

### l l 03( 1 ) . This 

### C o urt co un t s were 

### first

- degree f e l o nies. 

### A person convicted 

### of a firs t -deg re e fe l ony m ay 

### be 2 9 2 C 2000 ( Pip er Fire ) and co unt l at 294 C 

### 2 0 0 0 ( L o v e ridge Fire ) . B o th o f the s e 

### s enten c i n g The Defendant was senten ce d to l O to 

### 20 years i ncar ce rati on 

### at c ount l at c o ntends that the s e nten c e 

### was excessive 

### and o ut side th e applic ab l e 

### ag gravated ranges of Next the Defendant seeks reconsideration of sentence an d i n s upport thereof 

### was sufficient co convic t the Defendant 

### of c rimi nal solici t atio n. Fergus o n to the l o cation 

### an d i de ntified 

### which trail er he w as 

### talki ng ab o ut Th e 

### e v i dence Lo verid g e trailer burned d o wn. that b e asked Ferguson. to do the 

### j o b, an d 

### that he took crime . The evidence p resented 

### by the Commonwealth w as that the De fe n dant wanted tne 

### "commands , e ncoura ge s o r 

### re quests". ano ther e n g age in an ac ti v ity that wou l d c ons titute a v i o lation of 18 Pa . C.S.A . §9 0 2(a ) . As stared above. cnminai solici t ati on occ u rs if one At this case nu mber the Defen d ant was also charged w i th C riminal Solicitan o n 

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

### evidenc e was suffi c ient t o 

### convi c t the Defendant of Arson i n violatio n of l 8 Pa.CS . A asked Fer gu s o n l o set the tire for him . The trailer was also valu e d 

### at S5.000 . 00 . T h e 

### mtenti o n all y ser in 

### disregard for whether or not peop l e 

### were ins i de, 

### an d the Defendant Th e evidence presented 

### s howed that there was 

### indeed a 

### fire, ch at the fi re was Th i s e v id e nce was suffi c ient: c o es t abl ish ar s on as c harge d at this c ase n umb er. 

## - r· - ,-) pp. /_J

- /

_ / . 

### had bee n s e t 

### wi th people i nside . 

### He bad nor wanted anyone to get hurt . (Tnal Trans c ript. Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM

### 14

Def e ndant re c eived a senten c e of three to six years at this count. ran g e applied at c o unt 5 ( Criminal 

### Solicitation) at 

### case nu mber 294 C 2 000 . 

### Tbe The Defen d ant received a senten c e of three to six years at this c ount. The same standard wa s twelve t o twenry - four months with thirty-six mon th s being th e aggravat ed ran g e. senten c e at c ount 4 (Criminal Conspiracy) . The s t andard ran ge app li c able at th is counr sentencing guidelines . At case numbe r 292 C 2000 th e De fe n dan t al so received a 

### It is further evi d ent 

### by the reco r d that thi s Cou rt t o o k in t o c on s ider ati o n th e lives . The a c tions of th e D e fendant could h ave re s ulted 

### in e i g h t 

### p ote n ti al h o mi cides.



### . 

# . Loveri dge trai ler w as c aught on fire . No c on si deration was give n t o th e v alu e o f thei r home when the Pip er residenc e was c aught o n fire an d three p e ople w e re h o m e when th e at night and that the r esidences wer e o c c up ie d at the tim e of th e fire s. F iv e pe o pl e we re i nc luded th e fact that th e D e fend an t p ai d som e o ne e ls e to s e t. the 

### fire s , the fi res we re s e t Sentencing Gu i d e lin e s on S e p te mber 12 . 2001 . ( Plea se s ee att a c hments ). T he reas o n s 

### This Court also fil e d 

### a Writt e n 

### State ment of Re a s on s · for D e viati on fr o m th e (Sentencing Transcript. p .2 0 ). n ig ht. Such action 

### l acke d an y g roun d s for miti g ati o n and d e s erv ed a max i mum sen t ence . i magine anything worse than setting an occ u pie d stru c tu re on fire i n th e mi d dle of th e o ffe n ses against humanity . " ( Se n te n cing Tr anscript, p p . l 8

- 20). T hi s Cou11 co u ld nor law , th at c ert ain c rimes . including arson , we re co n sidere d "treme n dously se ri ous onerous overw h e l ming as for 

### as guil t. Also p l aced on the reco r d was th e belief un d er common 

### Th i s C ourt placed on 

### the reco r d 

### the be li ef 

### that the e v idence i n th ese cases 

### was Trans c rip t. p . l 8 ) different c o unts. the sente n cing guideline s. an d the law of me r ge r. (Sentencin g Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM

### 1 5

cc: Leo 

### Ciar ami taro, ADA Ron E. Val asek . Esq. C le rk o f C o urts A tt est: 

# Date·ro BY 

### THE CO U R T: rnent . 

### For the reas o ns set fo rth above, this Court finds th at the Defendant's appeal lacks on the Defendant a : the ab o ve cap tioned cases was appropriate. Defendant re cei ved a sentenc e 

### of sixteen t o 

### thirty

- two months. TI1e sen tencing imposed. o f rwo to 

### four years . A.: c ount 5 the standard range wa s nine to six tee n rno aths and the standar d 

### range was 

### twelve lo twenry -four 

### m o nths and th e 

### Defendant recei v ed a 

### s e ntence C ~ 000 the Defendant received 

### a s entenc e 

### within tbe s t an d ard range . At count 

### l the Finall y a: c ount 1 ( Arson) and count 

### 5 (Criminal Solicitaticc) at case nu mb er 293 Circulated 06/17/2015 03:58 PM