J-A07007-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LEONARD CHAMBERS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 424 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 27, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0009387-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2022

Leonard Chambers appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after 

his bench trial convictions for theft by deception and three counts of home 

improvement fraud.1 He raises claims of double jeopardy and due process 

violations and alleges two of his convictions should have merged for 

sentencing purposes. We affirm.

In September 2019, Chambers was charged by criminal complaint with 

four counts: theft by unlawful taking,2theft by deception, theft by receiving 

stolen property,3 and home improvement fraud. Home improvement fraud can 

be committed in several ways, only three of which are relevant here. These 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a) and 73 P.S. §§ 517.8(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a)(1).

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a).
J-A07007-22

- 2 -

three are, in very general terms, the making of false and misleading 

statements, the receipt of advance payment without performing, and the 

misrepresentation or concealment of certain information: 

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the offense of 

home improvement fraud if, with intent to defraud or injure 

anyone or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or 

injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the actor: 

(1) makes a false or misleading statement to induce, 

encourage or solicit a person to enter into any written or 

oral agreement for home improvement services or

provision of home improvement materials or to justify an 

increase in the previously agreed upon price;

(2) receives any advance payment for performing home 

improvement services or providing home improvement 

materials and fails to perform or provide such services or 

materials when specified in the contract taking into 

account any force majeure or unforeseen labor strike that 

would extend the time frame or unless extended by 

agreement with the owner and fails to return the payment 

received for such services or materials which were not 

provided by that date; [or]

(3) while soliciting a person to enter into an agreement for 

home improvement services or materials, misrepresents 

or conceals the contractor’s or salesperson’s real name, 

the name of the contractor’s business, the contractor’s 

business address or any other identifying information[.]

73 P.S. §§ 517.8(a)(1), (a)(2), & (a)(3). 

The criminal complaint was based on allegations that Chambers

fraudulently induced LaShelle Thompson to enter into two separate contracts 

for home improvement services and to pay Chambers $975 for work he did 

not perform. Relevant to the charge of home improvement fraud, the 

complaint asserted that Chambers had committed home improvement fraud 
J-A07007-22

- 3 -

in three ways: by making false and misleading statements, receiving advance 

payment and failing to perform, and misrepresenting or concealing his real 

name, the name of his business, or other identifying information. See Criminal 

Complaint, filed 9/13/19, at 2 (unpaginated). 

The Commonwealth followed up in December 2019 by filing an 

information (“Information”), again charging theft by unlawful taking, theft by 

deception, theft by receiving stolen property, and home improvement fraud. 

The Information gave the statutory citation for the home improvement fraud 

count as 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1) (making false and misleading statements). 

However, the Information used language relevant to both that subsection and 

subsection (a)(2) (receiving advance payment and failing to perform). 

The Commonwealth later moved to amend the Information to more 

explicitly allege violations of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3). The 

motion stated, “To the extent the bill of information is unclear, the 

Commonwealth, consistent with the criminal complaint, moves to correct 

and/or amend the bill of information to clarify that the defendant is charged 

with violating 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1), (2), and (3).” Motion to Amend/Correct 

Bills of Information, filed Mar. 16, 2020.

On the day of trial, immediately before the trial started, the 

Commonwealth obtained a ruling on its motion to amend the Information. 

Defense counsel said he had “no objection,” and the court granted the 

amendment:
J-A07007-22

- 4 -

[The Commonwealth]: Your Honor, there is one thing I just 

want to put on the record, and I just am clarifying that count 

four is a home improvement fraud, the Commonwealth

subsection A.1., the language -- the bill actually refers to 

subsection one, two and three, we are proceeding under 

subsection A.1, 2 and three of Title 73 75172.8 [sic], and, 

in addition, Your Honor, the date of the Bills of Information 

is April 8th. I also am moving to amend it to April the 6th 

and 8th?

[Defense counsel]: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The motion is granted.

N.T., Jan. 27, 2021, at 12. 

The court then conducted a stipulated trial. Afterward, the trial court 

said it was finding “Chambers guilty of theft by deception, false statement to 

induce home improvement services. As to the remaining charges, the Court 

finds [Chambers] not guilty.” N.T. at 39. Minutes later, however, the court 

explained its verdict and made findings of fact supporting guilty verdicts for 

all three of types of home improvement fraud charged:

Mr. Chambers had a written contract with Ms. Thompson to 

install carpets in multiple rooms for $800 and another for 

$175. It was a valid contract. Per Ms. Thompson’s 

testimony, the work was to be done within the two to three 

day period. Which never happened. Ms. Thompson relied on 

the fact that Mr. Chambers had a valid contracting company 

and was a bona fide contractor. A Clear Search showed that 

there was no such business or company registered as 

Perfect Home Improvement Company which is an indication 

of intent to engage in a fraud. Also, Ms. Thompson was 

given a false business address by Mr. Chambers. And the 

check was cashed by [Chambers] that Ms. Thompson gave 

to him. [Chambers] did not start the job in a reasonable 

time. When Ms. Thompson called and texte[d] Mr. 

Chambers to ask him to do the job, he promised to do it but 

never followed up. [Chambers] never gave money back to 

Ms. Thompson in fact he never offered to give money back 
J-A07007-22

- 5 -

which is evidence of intent to commit fraud. There was no 

proof that Mr. Chambers used any portion of the money that 

Ms. Thompson gave him to buy supplies, the carpets or 

materials, and this evidence also shows intent to commit a 

fraud. After more than two months of inaction on the part 

of Mr. Chambers, [Ms.] Thompson called the police, at that 

point an arrest was made.

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, there was 

more than mere nonperformance indicated to show Mr. 

Chambers inten[ded] to defraud Ms. Thompson. . . . 

[Chambers] intentionally withheld Ms. Thompson’s money 

and created a false impression that he intended to install 

carpets at her house. Simply put, he took Ms. Thompson’s 

money, did not do the job within a reasonable time and 

repeatedly broke promises to do the job over the course of 

two months. [Chambers] did not offer to give the 

complainant her money back, also there was no legitimate 

excuse for failing to do the job, nor was there any evidence 

that he had purchased any materials for the job.

Id. at 39-41.

The case proceeded immediately to sentencing. When imposing 

sentence, the court stated the “sentence is going to be 11 and a half to 23 

months, to run concurrently on the three charges. A one[-]year probationary 

tail on the felony charge, consecutive to the jail portion of the sentence.” Id.

at 54-55. 

That very day, the court entered a written sentencing order. Although 

the court had said it was imposing sentence on three charges, the written 

order was for four charges. It imposed four identical, concurrent sentences of 

111⁄2 to 23 months in jail followed by one year of probation. Relevant to this 

appeal, the headings for the counts listed convictions for theft by deception 

and all three types of home improvement fraud charged: 
J-A07007-22

- 6 -

• “18 § 3922 §§ A1 - Theft by Decep-False impression”

• “73 § 517.8 §§ A1 – False Stmt to Induce Agreement for Home 

Improvement Services” 

• “73 § 517.8 §§ A2 – Receives Advance Payment For Services 

and Fails to Perform” 

• “73 § 517.8 §§ A3 – Misrepresents or Conceals Contractor 

Identifying Information”

Order, entered 1/27/21, at 1-2 (unpaginated). 

Chambers appealed and raises the following issues:

1. Was not the appellant subjected to a violation of his state 

and federal rights against double jeopardy when he was 

informed in open court that he had been convicted of two 

offenses and promptly received two sentences on those

charges, only to learn weeks later that following the 

adjournment the judge had recorded four guilty verdicts 

plus sentences on the four verdicts, thereby increasing the 

punishment he had received?

2. Did not the trial court violate appellant’s right to counsel 

and due process of law by entering additional convictions 

and sentences on the docket for which he had never been 

charged in the absence of both the defendant and his

attorney?

3. Did not the trial court violate appellant’s state and federal 

rights against double jeopardy by imposing multiple 

convictions and punishments for his singular culpability of 

violating the home improvement fraud statute, which by its

terms establishes a single offense subject to multiple forms 

of proof and/or enhancements?

4. Should not the sentence imposed on theft by deception 

have merged with any sentence imposed on the offense of 

home improvement fraud enhanced as a felony based on 

the age of the victim?

Chambers’ Br. at 3.
J-A07007-22

- 7 -

We will address Chambers’ first two issues together. Chambers 

maintains he did not know that he had received four separate sentences until 

after he filed an appeal and “learned that four separate sentences had been 

recorded on an expanded docket and on the ‘Order of Sentence’ prepared in 

[his] absence following the adjournment of his trial and sentencing hearing.” 

Id. at 10. He points out that at trial the court referenced the language of only 

one subsection of the home improvement fraud statute when stating the 

verdict and found him not guilty of “the remaining charges.” Id. He argues 

the court impermissibly increased the number of convictions and sentences 

after the trial adjourned, and he had a “legitimate expectation of the finality 

of his sentence and his verdicts of acquittal and conviction.” Id. He maintains 

this was a double jeopardy violation. He further contends the court violated 

his due process rights by entering verdicts on two counts that had not 

previously existed. 

The trial court explains in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that it intended 

what it wrote in the sentencing order, not what it said on the record at trial. 

It states that its explanation of its verdict “made it abundantly clear that 

[Chambers] was guilty of § 517.8(a)(1), (2) and (3).” Trial Court Opinion, 

filed June 25, 2021, at 8. 

Chambers’ arguments stress the conflict between the court’s on-therecord statements about the verdict and sentence with the terms of its 

sentencing order. When a court’s oral statements conflict with a written 

sentencing order, there is a rebuttable presumption that the written order 
J-A07007-22

- 8 -

controls. See Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 A.3d 543, 548 (Pa.Super. 

2019).

Chambers highlights the inconsistency between the court’s oral 

statements and the sentencing order. However, he does not attempt to rebut 

the presumption that the written sentencing order controlled. Moreover, even 

if we were to examine the court’s oral statements alone, we think the record 

establishes that the court intended to find Chambers guilty of three counts of 

home improvement fraud, and the court therefore properly sentenced on all 

three counts. 

Chambers’ arguments train on the court’s announcement of the verdict 

in isolation. But when we look at that statement in context – taking into 

account the court’s on-the-record findings in support of the verdict within

minutes of the disputed statement, and its sentencing order issued that same 

day – the record paints a different picture. The court’s findings follow the 

relevant statutory language closely and evince an intent to convict under each 

subsection. The court’s findings set forth that the complainant relied on 

Chambers’ purportedly valid contracting company to enter into the contract, 

which corresponds to subsection (a)(1); that Chambers misrepresented 

himself as a bona fide company and gave a false business address, which 

corresponds to subsection (a)(3); and that Chambers cashed the 

complainant’s checks without performing in a reasonable time, which 

corresponds to subsection (a)(2). As for the sentencing order, the fact that 

the court issued it shortly after the verdict is strong evidence that the court 
J-A07007-22

- 9 -

meant to find Chambers guilty of all three subsections charged but misspoke 

on the record. Had the court imposed sentence weeks or months later, we 

might reach a different conclusion. 

Accordingly, this is not a situation where the court altered its verdict 

after its entry. Rather, when the record is viewed as a whole, it is clear the 

trial court intended to find Chambers guilty of three subsections of the home 

improvement fraud statute. Because the court found him guilty of three home 

improvement fraud counts, in addition to one count of theft by deception, it 

properly sentenced him for four separate convictions. Chambers’ double 

jeopardy and due process claims lack merit.

In his third issue, Chambers argues that the home improvement fraud 

statute defines a single offense, and the various subsections represent 

alternate means of proving the offense or of determining the grading. He 

contends that the multiple convictions and sentences here violated double 

jeopardy. He argues the statute stated that a person commits “the offense,” 

in the singular form, and provides alternate methods of proving the 

commission of that singular offense.

This claim also fails. The case on which Chambers relies –

Commonwealth v. Given, 244 A.3d 508 (Pa.Super. 2020) – is inapposite. 

There, we concluded that “a defendant should not be subject to separate 

sentences for multiple convictions under 75 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 3802(d)(1), where 

the defendant committed a single act of driving while his blood contained a 

parent compound and a metabolite of the same controlled substance.” Id. at 
J-A07007-22

- 10 -

510 (emphasis omitted). We reasoned that a defendant should not be subject 

to more than one sentence for a single criminal act—driving after using 

marijuana—that results in multiple convictions under the same subsection of 

the DUI statute. Id.

Here, Chambers’ multiple convictions and sentences were based on 

findings he committed different acts, pursuant to different subsections of the 

statute. He was convicted of making false and misleading statements, 

pursuant to subsection (a)(1); receiving advance payment without 

performing, pursuant to subsection (a)(2); and misrepresenting or concealing 

certain information, pursuant to subsection (a)(3). The Given court’s concern 

about a defendant being subject to multiple convictions based on different 

forms of proof for a single criminal act does not arise here. 

The Commonwealth thus did not use the same proof to establish the 

convictions under the separate subsections. Rather, each subsection contains 

different elements and the Commonwealth established guilt of each with 

different evidence. There was no double jeopardy violation. See 

Commonwealth v. Talley, 236 A.3d 42, 52-54 (Pa.Super. 2020) (holding 

conviction for stalking under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709.1(a)(1)4 and (a)(2) did not 

merge for sentencing purposes because they did not arise from a single 

criminal act and all elements of the subsection are not included in the other), 

____________________________________________

4 The stalking statute also uses the singular “the crime” when defining the 

offense. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709.1(a).
J-A07007-22

- 11 -

affirmed, 265 A.3d 485 (Pa. 2021);

5 Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 

912, 918 (Pa.Super. 2010) (holding because two aggravated assault 

subsections – 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1) and (a)(4) – contain different 

elements, it was not error to find that the convictions did not merge for 

sentencing purposes).

In his fourth issue, Chambers claims the theft by deception conviction 

should have merged with the home improvement fraud false statement 

conviction for sentencing purposes. He argues the crimes included the same 

elements and that theft by deception is a lesser-included offense to the crime 

of home improvement fraud false statement. 

The court convicted Chambers of theft by deception under Subsection

3922(a)(1) of the Crimes Code. Under that subsection, the Commonwealth 

must prove that the defendant “intentionally obtain[ed] or with[e]ld[]

property of another” by “intentionally . . . creat[ing] or reinforc[ing] a false 

impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other 

state of mind[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1).

The trial court also convicted Chambers of home improvement fraud 

under Subsection 517.8(a)(1). Under that subsection, the Commonwealth 

must prove that the defendant, “with intent to defraud or injure anyone,”

“ma[de] a false or misleading statement to induce, encourage or solicit a 

____________________________________________

5 The appellant in the Supreme Court’s decision was the defendant, and he

did not challenge this court’s disposition of his sentencing claim. See Talley, 

265 A.3d at 505 n.7.
J-A07007-22

- 12 -

person to enter into any written or oral agreement for home improvement 

services[.]” 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1).

Merger only occurs if two distinct circumstances are present: 1) the 

crimes arise from a single criminal act, and 2) all the statutory elements of 

one of the offenses are included in the statutory elements of the other. 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9765. When determining whether the crimes arose from a single 

act, we examine the Commonwealth’s charging documents. Commonwealth 

v. Martinez, 153 A.3d 1025, 1031 (Pa.Super. 2016).

The trial court explained that the Information listed different dates of 

commission of each crime. The Commonwealth averred that Chambers

committed home improvement fraud on April 6 and April 8, 2019, and theft 

by deception on April 8, 2019. See Trial Ct. Op. at 10-11; Criminal 

Information, filed 12/24/19, at 1 (charging Chambers with, inter alia, theft by 

deception “on or about: 04/08/2019”); N.T. at 12 (granting Commonwealth’s 

motion to amend information to reflect commission of home improvement 

fraud on April 6 and 8, 2019). Thus, the two convictions arise from different 

criminal acts and do not merge. Moreover, the statutes that define each 

conviction contain an element that the other lacks. Theft by deception requires 

that the defendant obtain or withhold the property of another while home 

improvement fraud has no such requirement. Similarly, home improvement 

fraud requires misrepresentation to induce the victim to enter a contract for 

home improvement services while theft by deception includes no such 

requirement. Compare 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1) with 73 P.S. § 
J-A07007-22

- 13 -

517.8(a)(1). Accordingly, the offenses do not merge for purposes of 

sentencing.

Because the charges did not arise from a single criminal act and neither

offense encompasses all the statutory elements of the other, the trial court 

properly declined to merge for sentencing purposes Chamber’s conviction for 

theft by deception and home improvement fraud false statement.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judge King joins the memorandum.

Judge Dubow files a dissenting memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/27/2022