Court Opinion

ID: 9905965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 17:10:11.756695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:02.427115
License: Public Domain

J-S33007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KIMBERLY ANN WILLIAMS                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1252 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 14, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-62-CR-0000472-2020

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                      FILED: NOVEMBER 30, 2023

       Appellant, Kimberly Ann Williams, appeals from the judgment of

sentence of three years’ probation and $7,080 in restitution, imposed after a

jury convicted her of theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, and

receiving stolen property.1 Herein, Appellant solely challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence to sustain her convictions. After careful review, we affirm.

       The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history of

Appellant’s case, as follows:

       Kristie Bednez, [Appellant’s] sister, was the power of attorney for
       her mother, JoLee Hamm, from 2012 to 2018. [Appellant]
       became power of attorney for her mother in July 2018. Bednez
       testified that she gave [Appellant] all … the checkbooks associated
       with their mother’s account in 2018. [Appellant’s] mother died on
       January 10, 2020. Jodi Sterling, another sister of [Appellant],
       became the executor of the mother’s estate after her death.
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3921(a), 3922(a)(1), and 3925(a), respectively.
J-S33007-23

      Sterling testified that she never gave [Appellant] permission to
      access the mother’s finances after her death. Between March 18,
      2020 and June 29, 2020, [Appellant] wrote thirty-one checks from
      her mother’s estate account with a total value of $7,080. As a
      result, [Appellant] was charged with … theft by unlawful taking[,]
      … theft by deception[,] and … receiving stolen property.

      A jury trial occurred on August 22, 2022. Ten of the checks were
      written out to Shonda Filiatrault, [Appellant’s] daughter, who lived
      with [Appellant] during the time the checks were written. Two of
      the checks were deposited into [Appellant’s] PNC checking
      account.     The expert handwriting analysis was inconclusive.
      However, Bednez, who claimed familiarity with [Appellant’s]
      handwriting as she had seen [Appellant] write over the years and
      was familiar with her signature, testified that the writing on the
      checks matched [Appellant’s] handwriting. This court denied
      [Appellant’s] motion for acquittal[,] as this court found that the
      jury could draw an appropriate inference that the Commonwealth
      met the burden of proof. All … the checks had [Appellant’s] name
      on them, the sister gave her opinion on the handwriting, and two
      of the checks were deposited into [Appellant’s] bank account.

      The jury found [Appellant] guilty on all three charges. The jury
      also determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of
      money stolen was more than $2,000. All three charges merged
      for the purposes of sentencing. On October 17, 2022, this court
      sentenced [Appellant] to three years[’] probation and ordered that
      she pay $7,080 in restitution to the Estate of JoLee Hamm.
      [Appellant] filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 2022.
      [Appellant] filed a [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] concise statement alleging
      that “[t]he evidence was insufficient to sustain [Appellant’s]
      convictions on all three charges because there is no direct
      evidence that [Appellant] authored, endorsed, or otherwise signed
      any of the checks the Commonwealth submitted into evidence.”

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 11/28/22, at 1-2 (unnumbered; unnecessary

capitalization and footnotes omitted). The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a)

opinion on November 28, 2022.

      Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review: “Was the evidence

insufficient to support [Appellant’s] convictions for theft by unlawful taking[,]

                                      -2-
J-S33007-23

theft by deception[,] and receiving stolen property?” Appellant’s Brief at 2

(unnecessary capitalization omitted). We review Appellant’s issue under the

following standard:
      In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must
      determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all
      reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light
      most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all
      elements of the offense. Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d
      133[, 136] (Pa. Super. 2011). Additionally, we may not reweigh
      the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact
      finder. Commonwealth v. Hartzell, 988 A.2d 141[, 143] (Pa.
      Super. 2009). The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as
      long as it links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable
      doubt. Moreno, supra at 136.

Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011).

      Here, we first address the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant’s Rule

1925(b) statement “insufficiently preserved the sufficiency of the evidence

issue for appeal….” TCO at 3 (unnumbered). The court reasoned that “[t]he

[c]oncise [s]tatement fails to identify which element of which convictions were

based on insufficient evidence, and therefore, the sufficiency of the evidence

claim has been waived for appeal.” Id. We are compelled to agree with the

trial court. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa.

Super. 2008) (“If Appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was

insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or

elements upon which the evidence was insufficient.”).

      However, we note that, even if not waived, we would conclude that

Appellant’s sufficiency challenge is meritless. Appellant contends that,

                                     -3-
J-S33007-23

       there was no direct evidence that [she] signed or endorsed the
       checks in question. No eyewitness testimony was presented to
       establish that [Appellant] cashed any of these checks. Multiple
       other people, one of whom had a conviction for forgery and one
       of whom had previously stolen from [Appellant’s] account, had
       ready access to the checkbook in question and [were] equally as
       likely to have forged the cashed checks. And no expert testimony
       was presented to establish that the handwriting on the checks in
       question could be ascribed to [Appellant]. Consequently, the jury
       was left to speculate as to [Appellant’s] guilt, and as such, the
       evidence was insufficient to establish any elements of the crimes
       [for which Appellant] was convicted … because it was not shown
       that she is the one who wrote the checks. Reversal is warranted.

Appellant’s Brief at 5-6.

       In rejecting Appellant’s argument, the trial court stressed that Appellant

made “[n]o assertion … that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient.”

TCO at 3 (unnumbered; emphasis added).             It then concluded that the

following evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions:

       The checkbook was located in [Appellant’s] home. All … 31 checks
       have [Appellant’s] name[ (i.e., her signature as power of
       attorney)] on them. Two checks were endorsed by [Appellant]
       and deposited into her bank account.         [Appellant’s] sister
       identified her handwriting as someone familiar with [Appellant’s]
       handwriting under 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6111(a)(1).[2] The record
       contains both direct and circumstantial evidence of [Appellant’s]
       guilt at all counts.

____________________________________________

2 That provision states:

       (a) Opinion evidence as to handwriting.--Where there is a
       question as to any writing, the opinions of the following persons
       shall be deemed to be relevant:

          (1) The opinion of any person acquainted with the
          handwriting of the supposed writer.

42 Pa.C.S. § 6111(a)(1).

                                           -4-
J-S33007-23

Id. at 3-4 (unnumbered). To the trial court’s opinion, the Commonwealth

adds that “[t]he record also reflects that two checks were made payable to

[Appellant], executed by [Appellant], endorsed by [Appellant], deposited into

[Appellant’s] bank account at an ATM using [Appellant’s] check card[,] …

[Appellant] indicated she was not aware that her check card was ever

missing[,] and her bank statement reflects she used her check card in and

around the day of the deposits.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 8.

      We agree with the trial court and the Commonwealth that the totality of

this circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient to prove that Appellant

wrote the at-issue checks. Therefore, we would conclude that her challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence is meritless, even had she preserved that

issue for our review.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DATE: 11/30/2023

                                    -5-