J-S68025-16

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 

v.

ROBERT DEAN ROBINSON,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 78 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 19, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0006516-2015

BEFORE: SHOGAN, SOLANO, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 9, 2017

Robert Dean Robinson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered November 19, 2015, after he was convicted of one count 

of unsworn falsification to authorities relating to his application to obtain a 

firearm license. Upon review, we affirm.

We summarize the facts underlying this case based upon the affidavit 

of probable cause, which was entered into evidence by stipulation at trial. 

See N.T., 11/19/2015, at 5. On October 21, 2014, Appellant completed an 

Allegheny County application for a Pennsylvania license to carry firearms. 

Appellant checked the box marked “no” to the following relevant questions:

30. Do you meet any of the following prohibiting criteria 

under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(e)(1)? []

B. Have you ever been convicted of an offense 

under the ... Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and 
J-S68025-16

- 2 -

Cosmetic Act (CSDDCA)? (As provided in 18 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6109(e)(1)(ii), any Pennsylvania drug conviction 

under the CSDDCA is prohibiting for a license to 

carry).

***

E. Have you ever been involuntarily committed 

to a hospital/health care facility for a mental health 

condition or other treatment, or adjudicated 

incompetent/incapacitated?

Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms, Commonwealth’s 

Exhibit 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In addition, Appellant signed the following certification:

33. I have never been convicted of a crime that prohibits 

me from possessing or acquiring a firearm under Federal or 

State law. I am of sound mind and have never been committed 

to a mental institution or mental health care facility. I hereby 

certify that the statements contained herein are true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that if I 

knowingly make any false statements herein, I am subject to 

penalties prescribed by law. I authorize the sheriff, or his 

designee ... to inspect only those records or documents relevant 

to information required for this application. If I am issued a 

license and knowingly become ineligible to legally possess or 

acquire firearms, I will promptly notify the sheriff of the county 

in which I reside.... This certification is made subject to both the 

penalties of § 4904 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S., relating to 

unsworn falsifications to authorities and the Uniform Firearms 

Act.

Id.

Appellant’s application was processed, which included a query to the 

Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS). The PICS returned a denial of 

the application because Appellant had prior mental health commitments. 

Per policy, the clerk then queried the National Crime Information Center 
J-S68025-16

- 3 -

database and learned that Appellant had several criminal charges filed 

against him in the past. 

Specifically, in 2007, Appellant pled guilty to three offenses of the 

Controlled Substance, Drug, Device, and Cosmetics Act: two counts of 

possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia. Appellant was placed on probation without verdict by 

agreement.1 

Appellant was then arrested on May 13, 2011 by the Plum Borough 

Police Department and charged with possession of a controlled substance 

and disorderly conduct. Those charges were nolle prossed. On May 29, 

2011, the Pennsylvania State Police charged Appellant with two counts of 

possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia. On February 8, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to one count of 

possession of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to one year of 

probation. 

On November 22, 2013, the New Kensington Police charged Appellant 

with theft. That case did not have a disposition. In addition, the NCIC check 

 

1

“[T]he court may place a person on probation without verdict if the person 

pleads nolo contendere or guilty to any nonviolent offense under this act and 

the person proves he is drug dependent.” 35 P.S. § 780-117. “Upon 

fulfillment of the terms and conditions of probation, the court shall discharge 

such person and dismiss the proceedings against him.” Id. at (3). The 

record does not reflect whether these charges were actually dismissed after 

successful completion of probation. 
J-S68025-16

- 4 -

revealed a probation/parole detainer from Crawford County from April 3, 

2012 to April 3, 2013.

Based on this information, Detective Ronald N. Stokes, Jr., an officer 

with the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Department, began an investigation, and 

Appellant was charged with one count of unsworn falsification to authorities. 

A non-jury trial was held on November 19, 2015. At trial, the 

Commonwealth presented its case by stipulation, entering into evidence the 

aforementioned affidavit of probable cause, Appellant’s certified convictions 

from 2007 and 2012, Appellant’s involuntary commitment in 2011, and the 

application filled out by Appellant.

Appellant called his father, Robert Robinson, Sr., to testify. Robinson 

testified that he helped Appellant fill out the application at issue. Robinson 

testified that Appellant had a permit to a carry a weapon, it was about to 

expire, and that is why Appellant was filling out a new application.2 

Robinson testified that he “was under the impression that ... [Appellant] had 

signed himself in and wasn’t committed” for mental health treatment. N.T., 

11/19/2015, at 9. Robinson also testified that he knew Appellant had been 

charged with and convicted of drug possession in 2007 and 2012. 

Appellant testified that he was “a little iffy” about a few things on the 

application, and “should have looked into to it further since all of this 

happened.” Id. at 17. However, he “figured [he] was renewing it, so ... it 

 

2 According to Appellant, the permit had already expired when he applied for 

the new one. N.T., 11/19/2015, at 16.
J-S68025-16

- 5 -

was all right.” Id. Appellant testified that he asked Robinson whether he 

had been committed involuntarily, and Robinson told Appellant he was not. 

Additionally, Appellant “was under the impression that [he] wasn’t 

[committed involuntarily] and that [he] checked [himself] into the hospital.” 

Id. 

With respect to the criminal charges, Appellant testified that his 

attorney had told him that since Appellant “got [Accelerated Rehabilitative 

Disposition program (ARD)] for [the drug charges] it wouldn’t be on [his] 

criminal record.” Id. at 18. In addition, Appellant testified that he “was a 

little confused” in answering questions about his criminal history, and he 

“assumed [he] had to have been convicted and [have] served over a year in 

prison.” Id. at 20. 

Based on the foregoing, the trial court convicted Appellant of unsworn 

falsification to authorities and sentenced him to one year of probation. The 

trial court specifically found that Appellant had falsely answered question 

30(B), supra. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and both Appellant 

and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant sets forth one question for our review: “Was the 

evidence insufficient in that it was uncontroverted that the evidence 

reflective of [Appellant’s] state of mind was his own testimony and that of 

[Robinson], who both stated unequivocally that [Appellant’s] actions were 
J-S68025-16

- 6 -

the product of confusion and not a knowing intent to falsify information?” 

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

We set forth our well-settled standard of review for a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. “[W]e must determine 

whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, 

viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict 

winner, are sufficient to establish all the elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 789 A.2d 731, 732 (Pa. 

Super. 2001). “The facts and circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with the defendant’s 

innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the fact finder unless the 

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability 

of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.” Id.

Appellant was convicted of unsworn falsification, which provides the 

following, in relevant part: “A person commits a misdemeanor of the third 

degree if he makes a written false statement which he does not believe to be 

true, on or pursuant to a form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the 

effect that false statements made therein are punishable.” 18 Pa.C.S. 

§ 4904(b). 

Appellant argues that the “uncontroverted evidence reflecting on 

[Appellant’s] state of mind was his own testimony that his actions were the 

product of confusion and not a knowing intent to falsify information.” 
J-S68025-16

- 7 -

Appellant’s Brief at 20. Appellant claims that this situation is similar to that 

in Kennedy, supra. 

In that case, Kennedy was charged with violating section 4904 after 

answering “no” to certain questions on an application to carry firearms. On 

that application, questions 29, 30, and 32 required Kennedy to look at the 

back of the form for additional information about criminal charges, but 

question 31 did not. Kennedy was convicted for answering question 31 

falsely. Kennedy testified that he mistakenly looked to the back of the form 

for question 31, and therefore answered it incorrectly. This Court concluded 

that the form had “internal consistencies, which leaves the reader in a 

quandary when to examine the back of the document in advance of 

answering questions on the face of the application.” 789 A.2d at 734. Thus, 

this Court reversed the conviction because Kennedy’s actions were “the 

product of a mistake and not the knowing and intentional act of one seeking 

to deceive.” Id.

Here, Appellant testified that he, too, was “confused” about some of 

the questions. First, Appellant testified that he was confused about question 

30(G).3 

 

3 Question 30(G) states: “Are you now charged with, or have ever been 

convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one 

year? This is the maximum sentence you could have received, not the 

actual sentence you did receive.” Application for a Pennsylvania License to 

Carry Firearms, Commonwealth’s Exhibit 4 (unnecessary capitalization 

omitted).
J-S68025-16

- 8 -

Q. Were you asked in the form if you had been convicted 

of a crime that subjected you to a penalty of greater than one 

year of incarceration? Do you remember that question?

A. Yes. That’s where I was a little confused. I must have 

misread the question. I assumed that I had to have been 

convicted and served over a year in prison.

N.T., 11/19/2015, at 20.

Appellant also testified he was confused about Question 30(B), which 

states: “Have you ever been convicted of an offense under the ... Controlled 

Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (CSDDCA)? (As provided in 18 

Pa.C.S. § 6109(e)(1)(ii), any Pennsylvania drug conviction under the 

CSDDCA is prohibiting for a license to carry).” Appellant testified that he did 

not believe his 2007 situation was relevant because he believed that he 

received ARD for that conviction.4 However, Appellant’s testimony about the 

2011 charges and 2012 conviction do not reveal any confusion on 

Appellant’s part. 

[Commonwealth:] Then moving to 2011, you were before 

Judge Mark Stevens. Do you recall that?

[Appellant:] Yes.

[Commonwealth:] You pled guilty to possession of drugs in 

2011.

[Appellant:] Yes.

N.T., 11/19/2015, at 22-23. 

 

4 Appellant is correct to some degree, because probation without verdict is 

similar to the ARD program, and therefore is not a conviction. 
J-S68025-16

- 9 -

Accordingly, Appellant knew he had been convicted of a drug-related 

crime and should have answered “yes” to question 30(B). Because 

Appellant answered “no,” we hold the evidence is sufficient to sustain 

Appellant’s conviction. Moreover, Question 30(B) does not implicate the 

“internal inconsistencies” found in Kennedy because that question on the 

form comes ahead of the only question on the page (Question 30(C)) that 

asks the applicant to look at the back of the form for additional information. 

Based on the foregoing, we hold the evidence is sufficient to sustain 

Appellant’s conviction for unsworn falsification to authorities.5

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judge Shogan joins.

Judge Solano files a dissenting memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/9/2017

 

5 Because the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction based 

upon his criminal record, we need not reach any issues with respect to the 

involuntary mental health commitment.