J-S54009-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LAWRENCE P. TOOMBS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1507 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 19, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000708-2015

BEFORE: OTT, J., MOULTON, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED OCTOBER 13, 2017

Lawrence P. Toombs appeals, nunc pro tunc, from the judgment of 

sentence imposed May 19, 2016, in the Washington County Court of 

Common Pleas. The trial court sentenced Toombs to an aggregate term of 

16 to 32 months’ imprisonment following his bench conviction of forgery and 

related charges.1 On appeal, Toombs challenges the weight and sufficiency 

of the evidence supporting his convictions. For the reasons below, we

affirm. 

The relevant facts underlying Toombs’s arrest and conviction are 

summarized by the trial court as follows:

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101(a)(3).
J-S54009-17

- 2 -

On October 23, 2014, [Toombs,] a member of the 

Washington Community Federal Credit Union, now known as 

CHROME Federal Credit Union (hereinafter “credit union”), 

appeared at the Griffin Avenue branch office to complete a 

financial transaction. According to Susan Guffey, a teller at the 

credit union, [Toombs] presented himself to her with a check 

payable to him dated October 15, 2014[,] for six thousand eight 

hundred and eighty dollars and thirty cents ($6,880.30). The 

teller testified that the check was a “non-recognized check,” 

meaning that it was not a local paycheck, a social security check, 

a pension check, or a check from “companies in the area.” In 

addition, the check was not drawn on a bank doing business in 

Washington County. Consequently, the teller inquired about the 

type of check [Toombs] was presenting. [Toombs], however, 

did not understand the teller’s question. She, therefore, asked 

[him] where he got the check, to which he responded “the mail” 

because “he won a sweepstakes.”

[Toombs’s] response drew the teller’s concern that the 

check may be a scam. As a result, the teller asked [Toombs] 

what kind of sweepstakes had he won, but [Toombs] was unable 

to answer the question. [Toombs] gave the teller a letter (that 

accompanied the check) which she described as “bogus” looking 

because “there were cut and paste icons at the top.” The teller 

then informed [Toombs] that the check looked fraudulent and 

advised him to report this matter to the police so that they could 

investigate. This answer did not satisfy [Toombs]. Therefore, 

the teller left her station to inquire with the deposit process 

department.

The teller showed the check and letter to the head of the 

deposit process department. That person also believed that the 

check was fraudulent and advised the teller not to accept it for 

deposit. Again, the teller informed [Toombs] that the credit 

union was unable to accept the check and suggested that he 

notify the police because this was a scam. [Toombs] then left 

with the check and the letter. 

The following day, [Toombs] presented himself to the 

Racetrack Road office of the credit union to deposit the same 

check. A teller at this branch accepted the endorsed check and 

put a two-business day hold on the amount for deposit into 

[Toombs’s] savings account. A hold is customary for a large 

check deposit. The hold should have been for five days, 
J-S54009-17

- 3 -

according to credit union policy, because the check was greater 

than $5,000. 

On October 28, 2014, $6,500 was withdrawn from 

[Toombs’s] credit union savings account at the Racetrack Road 

office. The withdrawal receipt for the $6,500 included the 

driver’s license number for the person making the withdrawal 

request. The number belonged to [Toombs’s] Pennsylvania 

Driver’s License. [Toombs] ultimately depleted all $6,880.30 

from his savings account.

After these withdrawals, the credit union received notice 

from Mid-Atlantic, the clearinghouse company used for 

processing checks, that the $6,880.30 check that [Toombs] 

deposited on October 24, 2014[,] was fraudulent. More 

specifically, on October 29, 2014, Mid-Atlantic returned the 

check with the words “altered or fictitious” stamped thereon.

 Anthony Vincequerra, a collector for the credit union, 

contacted [Toombs] after being notified by Mid-Atlantic that the 

check was “altered or fictitious.” [Toombs] informed Mr. 

Vincequerra that he had already spent the money on a car. 

Thereafter, Mr. Vincequerra attempted to schedule several 

meetings with [Toombs] to discuss converting the $6,880.30 

into a car loan with the credit union having a lien on the title. 

Each time[, Toombs] responded that he was unable to make the 

meeting. Consequently, Mr. Vincequerra contacted the 

Pennsylvania State Police. 

Trooper [Douglas] Arndt was assigned to the case to 

investigate and he contacted [Toombs] by telephone on 

December 11, 2014[,] to discuss the matter. [Toombs] stated 

that he did not purchase a car with the $6,880.30 check. 

Further, [he] told Trooper Arndt that he won the Publisher’s 

Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. The check that [Toombs] received, 

however was from ROAR Logistics. The trooper informed 

[Toombs] that he must contact the credit union by December 19,

2014[,] to make payback arrangements. [Toombs] never 

contacted the credit union. 

Trial Court Opinion, 11/17/2016, at 1-4 (record citations omitted).

On January 8, 2015, Trooper Arndt filed a criminal complaint charging 

Toombs with forgery, theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, and bad 
J-S54009-17

- 4 -

checks.2 An additional count of receiving stolen property (“RSP”)3 was later 

added by information. On January 8, 2016, Toombs entered a plea of nolo 

contendre to all charges except RSP. However, on April 18, 2016, the trial 

court granted Toombs’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw the plea. The case 

proceeded to a non-jury trial on May 19, 2016. The trial court found 

Toombs guilty of all charges, and sentenced him, that same day, to three 

concurrent terms of 16 to 32 months’ imprisonment on the charges of 

forgery, theft by deception, and bad checks.4 The court also found Toombs 

was RRRI5eligible, which reduced his minimum sentence to 12 months’ 

imprisonment. 

Toombs filed a timely post-sentence motion challenging the weight of 

the evidence. The trial court denied the motion on July 11, 2016, but 

Toombs failed to file a timely appeal. Thereafter, on September 29, 2016, 

Toombs’s attorney filed a petition for reinstatement of his direct appeal 

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4101(a)(3), 3921(a), 3922(a)(1), and 4105(a)(1), 

respectively. 

3 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).

4 The trial court found the charges of theft by unlawful taking and RSP 

merged for sentencing purposes with the count of theft by deception. See

N.T., 5/19/2016, at 95.

5 Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive, 61 Pa.C.S. § 4501, et seq.
J-S54009-17

- 5 -

rights nunc pro tunc, which the trial court granted that same day. This 

timely appeal followed.6

Based on our disposition, we will address Toombs’s claims together. 

In his first issue, Toombs argues the evidence was insufficient to support his 

convictions.7 With respect to the charges of forgery and bad checks,8

Toombs contends the evidence did not establish he either forged the check, 

or knew it was fraudulent when he presented it for payment. See Toombs’s 

Brief at 14-15. Toombs emphasizes that Ms. Guffey could not pinpoint “a 

____________________________________________

6 On October 14, 2016, the trial court ordered Toombs to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. Toombs complied with the 

court’s directive, and filed a concise statement on November 3, 2016. 

7

 Our review of a sufficiency claim is well-settled. We must

examine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the 

jury’s finding of all the elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden 

by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.

Commonwealth v. Biesecker, 161 A.3d 321, 326 (Pa. Super. 2017) 

(quotation omitted). Furthermore, we will not “re-weigh the evidence and 

substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.” Commonwealth v. 

Ford, 141 A.3d 547, 553 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation omitted), appeal 

denied, 164 A.3d 483 (Pa. 2016). 

8 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4101(a)(3) (a person commits forgery if, “with the 

intend to defraud ... or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud ... the 

actor ... utters any writing which he knows to be forged[.]”), and 4105(a)(1) 

(a person commits the crime of bad checks if he “passes a check ... for the 

payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee.”).
J-S54009-17

- 6 -

single defect” on the check that would identify it as fraudulent, and she “did 

not confiscate the check as an attempt to pass a fraudulent check, but 

instead returned the check to Toombs.” See id. at 14, 16. With respect to 

the theft and RSP charges,9 Toombs maintains the evidence failed to prove 

he had the intent to deprive the credit union of its property. See id. at 17-

18. Although he did withdraw the proceeds of the check from his savings 

account, Toombs points out that he was paying the money back via a “direct 

deposit which was made monthly on [his] behalf.” Id. at 17. 

In his second issue, Toombs challenges the weight of the evidence 

supporting his conviction.10 Specifically, he claims the trial court “afforded 

too much weight on the stamp ‘altered/fictitious’[, that appeared on the 

____________________________________________

9 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3921(a) (a person is guilty of theft “if he unlawfully 

takes, or exercises control over, moveable property of another with intent to 

deprive him thereof”), 3922(a)(1) (a person is guilty of theft by deception if 

he “intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by ... [creating or 

reinforcing] a false impression”), and 3925(a) (a person is guilty of RSP if he 

“intentionally receives[ or] retains ... moveable property of another knowing

that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen”).

10

 When reviewing a weight of the evidence claim, 

an appellate court does not substitute its judgment for the finder

of fact and consider the underlying question of whether the 

verdict is against the weight of the evidence, but, rather, 

determines only whether the trial court abused its discretion in 

making its determination. 

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 

134 S. Ct. 1792 (U.S. 2014). We note Toombs properly preserved his 

weight of the evidence claim by raising the issue in a timely post-sentence 

motion before the trial court. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(3).
J-S54009-17

- 7 -

returned check,] in making its ultimate determination of the issues.” Id. at 

18-19.

Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant 

statutory and case law, we conclude the trial court properly disposed of 

Toombs’s issues on appeal in its opinion filed on November 17, 2016. See

Trial Court Opinion, 11/17/2016, at 6-12 (finding (1) evidence was sufficient 

to support Toombs’s convictions of forgery, bad checks, and theft by 

deception when Toombs presented the check for deposit the day after two 

employees - at another branch - informed him the check was fraudulent, and 

instructed him to take the check to the police; (2) when Toombs presented 

the check for deposit, he knew he was facilitating a fraud and the check 

would not be honored; (3) “the mere presentment and deposit of a 

fraudulent check” supports a conviction of theft by deception;11 (4) the fact 

that a small electronic deposit was transferred monthly into Toombs’s 

account did not demonstrate he lacked the intent to defraud the credit union 

because the deposit was “established before [Toombs] deposited the 

fraudulent check”12, 13; and (5) Toombs’s subsequent behavior in (a) failing 

____________________________________________

11 Trial Court Opinion, 11/17/2016, at 9.

12

 Id. at 10.

13 We note the trial court did not specifically address the evidence supporting 

Toombs’s convictions of theft by unlawful taking and RSP because it found 

those charges merged with theft by deception. See id. at 8, 10. However, 

based upon the evidence outlined above, we find Toombs’s actions in 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S54009-17

- 8 -

to show up for two scheduled meetings with Vincequerra, (b) providing two 

different stories as to how he spent the money, and (c) failing to contact the 

credit union to make payment arrangements after being instructed to do so 

by police, evidenced his “guilty knowledge” so that the verdict was not 

against the weight of the evidence). Accordingly, we rest on the court’s 

well-reasoned bases. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/13/2017

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

depositing a check he knew was fraudulent, then withdrawing the funds and 

refusing to repay them, supports those convictions as well. 
J-S54009-17

- 9 -
Circulated 10/04/2017 04:14 PM