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 senten ced 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 (herei nafter “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, therefo re, 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 wo n, 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 che ck 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 c heck 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 a t 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 ma king 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 clearingh ouse 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, M r. 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 Arnd t 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 badJ

- S54009

- 17

- 4

-

check s. 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

- sentenc e 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 forg ery, theft by deception, and bad checks. 4 The court also found Toombs
was RRRI 5 eligible, 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
Toomb s 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 c laim 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 o ffense 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 che cks 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 pr ove 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 mon thly 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 inte nt 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 pro bab ly be en 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

-

re turned 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 it s 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 afte r 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) “t he 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 u nion 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, 11/1 7/2016, 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 spen t 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