Court Opinion

ID: 9554633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 16:10:59.01051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:59.392447
License: Public Domain

J-A15033-23

  NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JORDAN BAILEY HEIM                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 497 WDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 6, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-02-CR-0000530-2021

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                       FILED: August 9, 2023

       Jordan Bailey Heim (Heim) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court)

resulting from his conviction for making a materially false written statement

in connection with the transfer of a firearm and unsworn falsification to

authorities.1 He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the mens rea

elements of his offenses and the denial of his post-sentence claim addressing

the weight of the evidence. We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6111(g)(4)(ii) and 4904(b), respectively.
J-A15033-23

                                               I.

       The facts of this case were established at a preliminary hearing held on

February 17, 2021.2 Detective Scott Rick testified that on January 14, 2021,

he began investigating Heim for an attempted firearm purchase that he

attempted at the Keystone Shooting Range in Marshall Township in Allegheny

County on the afternoon of November 7, 2019. P.D.T. 2/17/21, 2. At the

time of the purchase, Heim filled out the requisite forms for the purchase. As

follows, he responded, “No” on a Pennsylvania State Police Application/Record

of Sale Form (Form # SP 4-113) in response to a question about whether he

had ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term

exceeding one year:

____________________________________________

2 The certified record for this appeal does not contain notes of testimony for

this hearing that were prepared by a court reporter. Instead, the record
includes a transcript of the hearing prepared by the Allegheny County Public
Defender’s Office that was attached to a pre-trial habeas corpus motion. As
the parties do not appear to contest the contents of that transcript and the
Commonwealth explicitly relied on it below, see N.T. 8/9/21, 5, we will rely
on them for purposes of this appeal.

                                           -2-
J-A15033-23

Application/Record of Sale Form, 11/7/19, attached as Exhibit A to Stipulation

to Supplement Certified Record on Appeal, 12/16/22; see also P.D.T.

2/17/21, 3-4; N.T. 8/9/21, 5; N.T. 9/28/21, 12.        As follows, he similarly

answered, “No” to a question on a United States Department of Justice

Firearms Transaction Record asking him about whether he had he ever been

convicted of a felony or any other crime for which a judge could have

imprisoned him for more than one year, even if he was sentenced to a shorter

sentence including probation:

Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473), 11/7/19, attached as Exhibit

B to Stipulation to Supplement Certified Record on Appeal, 12/16/22; see

also P.D.T. 2/17/21, 3-5; N.T. 8/9/21, 5; N.T. 9/28/21, 12.3

____________________________________________

We note, however, that Heim was responsible for assuring the completion of
the record for this appeal and the omission of a volume of notes of testimony
that is necessary for our review could have provided a basis for waiver. See
Commonwealth v. Midgley, 289 A.3d 1111, 1120 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“it
ultimately is the duty of the appellant to ensure that the certified record is
complete … The appellant’s failure to carry out that duty results in waiver of
any claim for which a needed item is absent from the certified record.”)
(citations omitted). For the sake of clarity, we will cite the transcript for the
preliminary hearing that was prepared by the Public Defender’s Office as
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-A15033-23

       Heim’s answers about his lack of any conviction for offenses punishable

by more than one year of imprisonment were contradicted by his criminal

record.    He was twice adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for separate

charges of indecent assault as a felony of the third degree and aggravated

indecent assault as a felony of the second degree. On August 9, 2016, he

entered a guilty plea to theft by unlawful taking as a misdemeanor of the

second degree. Counsel later stipulated that Heim received a term of one

year of probation for the theft conviction.

       On January 27, 2021, after the administration of a Miranda4 warning,

Detective Rick spoke to Heim about the attempted firearm purchase. P.D.T.

2/17/21, 3.     Heim admitted that he attempted to make the purchase and

indicated that he did not understand the line of questions in the forms about

“having a criminal record.” Id. at 3, 5-6. Detective Rick testified that, “[h]e

also said that he knew that he had been convicted of a crime but was going

to try and purchase a gun.”        Id. at 6.

____________________________________________

“P.D.T. 2/17/21,” and, in doing so, we are referencing the transcript that was
attached to Heim’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that was filed with the
lower court on May 25, 2021.

3 The state and federal forms addressed supra were not included in the record

below until a hearing on Heim’s pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus.
See N.T. 8/9/21, 5.

4 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

                                           -4-
J-A15033-23

      The above-referenced charges were held for trial after the preliminary

hearing and Heim unsuccessfully litigated a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

seeking the dismissal of the charges. At a non-jury trial, the parties stipulated

to the existing evidence of record which included the defense-prepared

transcript for the preliminary hearing, an affidavit of probable cause, the

above-referenced forms filled out by Heim when he attempted to purchase the

firearm, and information concerning Heim’s prior criminal record.           N.T.

9/28/21, 11-13. The court found Heim guilty of the above charges. Heim

timely filed a post-sentence motion challenging the sufficiency and weight of

the evidence. The trial the court denied a post-verdict motion for judgment

of acquittal and sentenced Heim to 24 months’ probation for making a

materially false written statement with no further penalty for unsworn

falsification to authorities.

      Following the denial of that motion, Heim timely filed a notice of appeal

and a court-ordered statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

      Heim presents the following questions for our review:

      I.   Whether the evidence [was] insufficient to convict [Heim] of
      Sale or Transfer of Firearms and Unsworn Falsification to
      Authorities where the Commonwealth did not prove the requisite
      mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt?

      II.   Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse[d] its discretion by
      denying [Heim’s] post-sentence motion for a new trial where the
      weight of the evidence overwhelmingly showed that [Heim] was
      confused by the vagueness of the application in question, and,
      therefore, his convictions for Sale or Transfer of Firearms and

                                      -5-
J-A15033-23

       Unsworn Falsification        to   Authorities   shocked   the   judicial
       conscience?

Heim’s Brief at 5 (omitting suggested answers).

                                               II.

                                               A.

       In his first issue, Heim challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,

asserting that the Commonwealth failed to sustain the mens rea elements for

his offenses, i.e., that he knowingly and intentionally made a materially false

statement in the firearm transaction forms 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6111(g)(4)(ii) and

18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b).5

____________________________________________

5 Our standard of review for a sufficiency claim is as follows:

       The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
       is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
       most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
       to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
       a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above test], we may not
       weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-
       finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
       established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
       possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt
       may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak
       and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may
       be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
       may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
       beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
       evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
       must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
       considered. Finally, the [trier] of fact while passing upon the
       credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
       is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A15033-23

       18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6111(g) provides, in relevant part:

       (4) [a]ny person, purchaser or transferee commits a felony of
       the third degree if, in connection with the purchase, delivery or
       transfer of a firearm under this chapter, he knowingly and
       intentionally:

                                               …

             (ii)  makes any materially false written statement,
       including a statement on any form promulgated by Federal or
       State agencies[.] (emphasis added.)

18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(4)(ii).

       Section 4904, which governs his unsworn falsification to authorities

conviction, provides in pertinent part that: “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).

       The Crimes Code further provides as follows regarding the relevant kinds

of culpability:

       (1) A person acts intentionally with respect to a material
       element of an offense when:

             (i)   if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a
       result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of
       that nature or to cause such a result; and

____________________________________________

Commonwealth v. Chisebwe, 278 A.3d 354, 358 (Pa. Super. 2022)
(citation omitted).

                                           -7-
J-A15033-23

             (ii)  if the element involves the attendant circumstances,
       he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes
       or hopes that they exist.

       (2) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element
       of an offense when:

             (i)   if the element involves the nature of his conduct or
       the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of
       that nature or that such circumstances exist; and

             (ii)  if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is
       aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such
       a result.

                                               …

18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b). The intent to commit a specific crime “may be inferred

from the actions of the defendant in light of all attendant circumstances.”

Commonwealth v. Chance, 458 A.2d 1371, 1374 (Pa. Super. 1983);

Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004, 1010 (Pa. Super. 2001).

       Because the plain language of questions posed on the form addresses

“conviction” and not juvenile offenses that resulted in an adjudication and not

in a conviction, and the only offense Heim needed to admit on the form was

the theft conviction6 which, as a misdemeanor of the second degree, under 18

____________________________________________

6 Our Supreme Court has held that the concept of convictions for purposes of

the grading provision of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 does not encompass juvenile
adjudications. See Commonwealth v. Hale, 128 A.3d 781, 785 (Pa. 2015);
see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 6354(a) (the Juvenile Act does not treat an adjudication
as a conviction: “An order of disposition or other adjudication in a proceeding
under this chapter is not a conviction of crime and does not impose any civil
disability resulting from a conviction or operate to disqualify the child in any
civil service application or appointment.”); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 743
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -8-
J-A15033-23

Pa.C.S. § 1104(2), he could have been theoretically sentenced for up to two

years’ imprisonment on that conviction.

       In making his sufficiency argument that the Commonwealth has not

established the requisite mens rea, Heim principally relies on this Court’s

decision in Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 789 A.2d 731 (Pa. Super. 2001).

In that case involving the answers on a different state police form, we held

that no probability of fact could be drawn as to the defendant’s mens rea

where the only evidence of his state of mind was his own assertion that his

actions “were the product of confusion.” Id. at 732-35.

       In Kennedy, the defendant answered “no” to the following questions

on an application for a license to carry a firearm that was used by Cumberland

County:

       29. Have you ever been convicted of a crime enumerated in
       Section 6106(b), or do any of the conditions under Section
       6105(c) apply to you? (READ INFORMATION ON BACK PRIOR TO
       ANSWERING). ___ Yes ___ No.

       30. Are you now charged with, or have you ever been convicted
       of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
       year? (This does not include federal or state offenses pertaining
       to antitrust, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or
       regulation of business; or state offenses classified as
____________________________________________

A.2d 460, 465-66 (Pa. Super. 1999) (declining to treat juvenile adjudications
as convictions for purposes of the “three strikes” sentencing enhancement
provision under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(2)); 18 Pa.C.S. § 6102 (the VUFA does
not include juvenile adjudications in its definition of “conviction” which is
defined as “a finding of guilty of the entering of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere, whether or not judgment of sentence has been imposed, as
determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the prosecution was held.)

                                           -9-
J-A15033-23

      misdemeanors and punishable by a term of imprisonment not to
      exceed two years). (READ BLOCK 30 INFORMATION ON BACK
      PRIOR TO ANSWERING). ___ Yes ___ No.

      31. Have you ever been convicted of an offense under act of April
      14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance,
      Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act? ___ Yes ___ No.

      32. Are you an individual who, within the past ten years, has been
      adjudicated a delinquent for a crime enumerated in Section 6105
      (REFER TO INFORMATION ON BACK), or for an offense under The
      Controlled Substance, Drug, Device, and Cosmetic Act? ___ Yes
      ___ No.

Kennedy, 789 A.2d at 733. Kennedy was charged with unsworn falsification

to authorities after a Cumberland County deputy sheriff realized that he had

been convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana and drug

paraphernalia. Id. at 733-34.

      At a jury trial, Kennedy testified that he answered the questions to the

best of his knowledge and that the erroneous answer was a mistake. Id. at

734 (“His actions were the product of ‘confusion’ over when to reference the

back of the application in answering the questions.”). In particular,

      his response to Question 31 was influenced by the content of
      Question 29, which directed him to the back of the application
      before answering whether he had been convicted of any of the
      thirty-five offenses under Section 6105(b) or Section 6105(c),
      which prohibits licensure when, inter alia, a person has been
      convicted of an offense under The Drug Act “punishable by a term
      of imprisonment exceeding two years.”

      [Kennedy] interpreted subsection (c)(2) of Section 6105 to be
      applicable to Questions 29 and 31. In other words, because
      Kennedy had not been convicted of anything that carried a term
      of over two years, he answered no to Question 31.

Id. at 734 (emphasis in original).

                                     - 10 -
J-A15033-23

      We found that the application completed by Kennedy contained “internal

inconsistences, which le[ft] the reader in a quandary when to examine the

back of the document in advance of answering questions on the face of the

application.” Id. We also found it “uncontroverted that the only evidence

reflective of the state of mind of the accused was generated by [Kennedy],

who stated unequivocally his actions were the product of confusion and not a

knowing intent to falsify information.” Id. Thus, the evidence of Kennedy

making a written false statement while not believing it to be true was “so weak

and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn

from the combined circumstances.” Id. As a result, we vacated Kennedy’s

judgment of sentence and reversed his conviction because we concluded that

“the jury ignored the unrefuted account that [Kennedy’s] act of filling out [the

form] was the product of a mistake and not the knowing and intentional act

of one seeking to deceive.” Id. (citation and footnote omitted).

      Because he testified that he did not understand the questions on the

forms he signed, Heim argues that Kennedy should apply and mandate

reversal. He also argues that there was no evidence showing that Heim knew

the sentencing exposure for his prior theft conviction or that his juvenile

delinquent adjudication “would apply” for purposes of the questions on the

forms.

      The Commonwealth argues that Heim’s statement to the detective about

him knowing that he had been convicted of a crime “but was going to try and

                                     - 11 -
J-A15033-23

purchase a gun” was evidence of a “deceptive statement of mind” and

adequate to sustain the mens rea elements for the offenses. Commonwealth’s

Brief at 6-8.   The Commonwealth suggests the statement was functionally

equivalent to Heim saying, “I know I’m in the wrong here, but let me see if I

can get away with it.” Id. at 8. The Commonwealth asserts that the outcome

in Kennedy was decided by the fact that the testimony of the defendant’s

confusion with the form questions was uncontradicted by anything of record,

and that we may distinguish Kennedy here where Heim stated, in addition to

a statement about a lack of understanding, that he knew that he had a criminal

record but, in spite of that, he “was going to try and purchase a gun.” We

agree.

      Unlike in Kennedy, where the defendant’s assertion of his confusion

was unchallenged, in this case, while he did say that he didn’t fully understand

the form, Heim “said that he knew that he had been convicted of a crime but

was going to try and purchase a gun.” P.D.T. 2/17/21, 6. The stated interest

in “going to try and purchase a gun” was interpreted by the trial court as Heim

acting with an intent to deceive to complete the gun purchase, stating when

it announced the verdict:

      I find the case [Kennedy] submitted by the defense
      distinguishable in that information submitted in this case is a little
      bit different, one of which is there’s additional information. As the
      Commonwealth pointed out, there’s a statement given by the
      defendant. And what I find persuasive, at least in this case, and
      it sticks with me, is the defendant made a statement to the
      detective that he knew that he had the record and was -- and
      specifically, I’m going to point to the preliminary hearing

                                     - 12 -
J-A15033-23

         transcript. He knew he’d been convicted of a crime, but he was
         going to try and purchase the gun. He also said he -- was saying
         he didn’t understand the forms, which I don’t find persuasive.

N.T. 9/28/21, 25.

         To start, ignorance of the law does not immunize an individual from the

consequences of criminality.      See Commonwealth v. Homer, 928 A.2d

1085, 1090 (Pa. Super. 2007). Next, even assuming that Heim glossed over

the terms on the firearm application or, separately, was actually unaware of

the lengths of his prior offenses’ sentences, the affixing of his signature at the

end of the document constitutes a complete understanding that he has read

the form in its entirety and submitted accurate information. He knew that he

was convicted of a crime and presumably was informed of the maximum

sentence for that crime.      Finally, a person knowing that they have been

convicted of a crime cannot rely on his or her willful ignorance in claiming they

did not know the maximum length of the sentence for that crime, and if he or

she was truly unaware, they had an obligation to find out what the maximum

sentence to answer the form truthfully. If they did so, they acted at their

peril.

         Accordingly, we find that Heim has not demonstrated that the evidence

presented at trial was insufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

                                        B.

         In his second issue, Heim asserts that the trial court abused its

discretion when it denied the challenge to the weight of the evidence included

                                      - 13 -
J-A15033-23

in his post-sentence motion.7           He argues that the verdict was shocking

because the trial court did not afford proper weight to the testimony alleging

that his answers on the form were the result of his misunderstanding or

confusion with the questions about his prior criminal record.

       Heim asserts that the trial court did not give proper weight to his

testimony because it inappropriately conflated his knowledge of having a

____________________________________________

7 Our standard of review for appellate challenges to the weight of the
evidence:

       The weight given to trial evidence is a choice for the factfinder. If
       the factfinder returns a guilty verdict, and if a criminal defendant
       then files a motion for a new trial on the basis that the verdict was
       against the weight of the evidence, a trial court is not to grant
       relief unless the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock
       one’s sense of justice.

       When a trial court denies a weight-of-the-evidence motion and
       when an [Appellant] then appeals that ruling to this Court, our
       review is limited. It is important to understand we do not reach
       the underlying question of whether the verdict was, in fact,
       against the weight of the evidence. We do not decide how we
       would have ruled on the motion and then simply replace our own
       judgment for that of the trial court. Instead, this Court determines
       whether the trial court abused its discretion in reaching whatever
       decision it made on the motion, whether or not that decision is
       one we might have made in the first instance.

       Moreover, when evaluating a trial court’s ruling, we keep in mind
       that an abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment.
       Rather, it involves, bias, partiality, prejudice, ill-will, manifest
       unreasonableness or a misapplication of the law. By contrast, a
       proper exercise of discretion conforms to the law and is based on
       the facts of the record.

Commonwealth v. Arnold, 284 A.3d 1262, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2022), quoting
Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2007).

                                          - 14 -
J-A15033-23

criminal record with knowledge that he had a record that made him ineligible

to purchase a firearm. As a result, he alleges that the court failed to properly

consider and afford adequate weight to the testimony that his answers on the

purchase form were the result of confusion or a misunderstanding.            Id.

However, the trial court did not find Heim’s assertions about his confusion on

the form to be persuasive.       (“He also said he -- was saying he didn’t

understand the forms, which I don’t find persuasive.” N.T. 9/28/21, 25).

      The court interpreted the detective’s testimony about Heim admitting

that he “knew that he had been convicted of a crime but was going try and

purchase a gun” anyway as proof of an intent to deceive for the purpose of

completing the gun purchase:

      And I think when you look at all of the facts and circumstances in
      this case, the defendant knew he had a record and figured, well,
      I’m going to go ahead and see if I can go ahead and kind of beat
      the system and see if I can get this firearm, and in this case it
      didn’t work.

Id. at 2.

      Here, Heim has not demonstrated that the verdict was the result of bias,

partiality, prejudice, ill-will, manifest unreasonableness or a misapplication of

the law, which is necessary for finding an abuse of discretion. His claim simply

amounts to a request for this Court to reweigh the credibility finding of the

trial court which we cannot do under our standard of review. As the factfinder,

the trial court was free to “believe all, none or some of the evidence and to

determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Clemons,

                                     - 15 -
J-A15033-23

242 A.3d 659, 667 (Pa. Super. 2020). We cannot simply reweigh the evidence

in Heim’s favor in the absence of a demonstrated abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 914 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“The

Superior Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for

that of the finder of fact.”). We also hold that this claim lacks merit.

         Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial

court.

         Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/9/2023

                                        - 16 -