Court Opinion

ID: 9915534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 17:08:22.82709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:24.373433
License: Public Domain

J-A29044-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 FREDERICK D. BAKER, JR.                 :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 769 WDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 13, 2023
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County
               Criminal Division at CP-04-CR-0001711-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                      FILED: January 5, 2024

     Frederick D. Baker, Jr. (Appellant), appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of retail theft. See 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 3929(a)(1). We affirm.

     The Commonwealth initially charged Appellant with retail theft as well

as defiant trespass. The Commonwealth alleged

     that on October 2, 2022, [Appellant] walked out of the Walmart
     located at 100 Chippewa Town Center in Beaver Falls with a
     hoverboard without paying for the item. Walmart Asset Protection
     showed responding officers video surveillance footage which
     depicted [Appellant] walking past the last point of sale with the
     hoverboard without paying for it. After watching this surveillance
     video, officers placed [Appellant] under arrest.          Officers
     subsequently discovered that [Appellant] had a criminal history of
     numerous prior retail theft convictions.

          [Appellant] was held for trial on the Retail Theft and Defiant
     Trespass charges after a Preliminary Hearing on October 14,
     2022, ….
J-A29044-23

              The [trial c]ourt held a jury trial … on March 13-14, 2023.
       Following trial, on March 15, 2023, the jury found [Appellant]
       guilty of Retail Theft (F-3) and Defiant Trespass (M-3). On April
       12, 2023, the [c]ourt sentenced [Appellant] to serve a term of
       imprisonment of 16 months to 7 years for Retail Theft, and 6 to
       12 months for Defiant Trespass, to run concurrent to the Retail
       Theft sentence.

             Counsel for [Appellant] filed a Post-Sentence Motion on April
       17, 2023. In his Motion, [Appellant] raised the following issues:
       (1) [Appellant’s] conviction of Retail Theft at Count 1 was against
       the weight of the evidence, and (2) [Appellant’s] conviction of
       Defiant Trespass at Count 2 was not supported by sufficient
       evidence. As to the second issue, [Appellant] argued specifically
       that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence at trial
       to show that [Appellant] defied an order to leave the premises
       that had been personally communicated to him by the property
       owner or another authorized person.

             Following Oral Argument on [Appellant’s] Motion, the [trial
       c]ourt issued an Order on June 13, 2023, in which it granted
       [Appellant’s] request for judgment of acquittal for Defiant
       Trespass at Count 2 and vacated [Appellant’s] sentence for that
       conviction. In that Order, the [c]ourt also denied [Appellant’s]
       request for a new trial for the Retail Theft conviction at Count 1,
       and stated that [Appellant’s] sentence on that conviction
       remain[ed] in effect.

             [Appellant] filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court on
       July 3, 2023.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/23, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).1

       On appeal, Appellant presents the following question:

       WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED
       AS BEING AGAINST THE WIEGHT [sic] OF THE EVIDENCE?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

____________________________________________

1 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

                                           -2-
J-A29044-23

      Our standard of review of a weight claim is well-settled:

      The weight of the evidence is a matter exclusively for the finder
      of fact, who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence
      and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. A new trial is
      not warranted because of a mere conflict in the testimony and
      must have a stronger foundation than a reassessment of the
      credibility of witnesses. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to
      determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so
      clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal
      weight with all the facts is to deny justice. On appeal, our purview
      is extremely limited and is confined to whether the trial court
      abused its discretion in finding that the jury verdict did not shock
      its conscience. Thus, appellate review of a weight claim consists
      of a review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion, not a review
      of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the
      weight of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 255 A.3d 565, 580 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 723 (Pa. Super. 2015)).

      When a weight challenge “is predicated on the credibility of trial

testimony, [appellate] review of the trial court’s decision is extremely limited.

Generally, unless the evidence is so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make

any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not

cognizable on appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254,

1262 (Pa. Super. 2012). Any conflicts in the evidence or contradictions in

testimony are exclusively for the fact-finder to resolve. Commonwealth v.

Sanders, 42 A.3d 325, 331 (Pa. Super. 2012). “Because the trial judge has

had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate

court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced

                                      -3-
J-A29044-23

by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination [as to whether]

the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id.

       Appellant argues his conviction of retail theft was “clearly against the

weight of the evidence” given Appellant’s “plethora of interaction[s] with

Walmart employees and his multiple attempts to complete transactions that

day.” Appellant’s Brief at 11.2 According to Appellant,

       [h]e tried and failed to complete his purchases at the first self-
       checkout line. [Appellant] finally partially completed a transaction
       at the next self-checkout line, but mistakenly failed to include the
       hoverboard in his purchase. Despite being accused of theft by
       Walmart security, [Appellant] waited for and voluntarily spoke to
       police once they arrived. While a reasonable jury could conclude
       that [Appellant] is a terrible shopper, a finding of guilt in regard
       to retail theft under these facts is clearly against the weight of the
       evidence. As the verdict, given the weight of the evidence, should
       clearly shock the [conscience] of the court, the trial court abused
       its discretion in denying Appellant’s Post-Sentence motion for a
       new trial based on the weight of the evidence claim.

Id. at 11-12.

       Instantly, the jury found Appellant guilty of retail theft as defined in

Section 3929(a)(1) of the Crimes Code. Retail theft occurs when a person:

       (1) takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be
       carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held,
       stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile
       establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the
       possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the
       full retail value thereof; …

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(1).

____________________________________________

2 The Commonwealth has advised it “does not intend to file a brief in response

to the brief filed on behalf of Appellant in [this] case.” Letter, 10/16/23.

                                           -4-
J-A29044-23

      At trial, the Commonwealth presented testimony from three witnesses:

Lilyana Risolio, an asset protection investigator at the Chippewa Walmart;

Mitchell Krovisky, a Walmart “check-out host”; and Chippewa Township Police

Officer Thomas Paranuik.    Appellant did not testify or present any defense

witnesses.

                                   Evidence

      Ms. Risolio stated that her job is to “protect merchandise from customer

theft.” N.T., 3/13/23, at 47. Ms. Risolio was working on October 2, 2022,

when the assistant store manager asked her to observe Appellant. Id. at 48.

Ms. Risolio saw Appellant go to the self-checkout line with a dirt bike and

hoverboard. Id. at 53-54. According to Ms. Risolio, she “just observed” and

“couldn’t hear anything.” Id. at 61. However, she saw Appellant “ring up”

and pay for the dirt bike, but not the hoverboard.         Id. at 58.     Without

objection,   the   Commonwealth      introduced    video   surveillance      which

corroborated Ms. Risolio’s testimony. Id. at 59; Commonwealth Exhibit 3.

      Ms. Risolio’s co-worker, Mr. Krovisky, also testified to working at the

Chippewa Walmart on October 2, 2022. Mr. Krovisky stated that as a check-

out host, his job was to

      basically patrol the whole entire self-checkout area, make sure
      everyone is okay. If any customer needs assistance, then I go up
      and I can help them, and we’re also checking to make sure that
      everything’s going well, everything’s scanned, everyone is
      scanning their stuff and things are ringing up correctly, like right
      prices and everything like that.

N.T., 3/13/23, at 86-87.

                                     -5-
J-A29044-23

      With respect to Appellant, Mr. Krovisky testified that he encountered

Appellant when Appellant

      came up to the self-checkout and scanned the [dirt bike], and then
      [Appellant] called me over and he said, “This bike is the wrong
      price.” I was like, “Okay.” So then I asked him how much it was
      … and he tells me that it’s a certain price online, and I check that.
      It’s true. [I g]o in and I change the price of the bike, and once I
      do that, then I ask [Appellant], “Is everything else in the cart paid
      for?” There was a bike, there was a bow, and there was also a
      hoverboard, and he says, “Yes.”

Id. at 88.

      The trial court summarized the evidence regarding Appellant’s attempt

to exit the store.

              After paying for the [dirt] bike at the grocery self-checkout,
      [Appellant] proceeded to leave the Walmart. [Appellant] walked
      past Walmart’s receipt checker while she attempted to scan his
      receipt; [Appellant] did not stop to allow her to properly check his
      receipt and the items in his cart. When [Appellant] had walked
      just outside the Walmart and into the vestibule area where the
      shopping carts are kept for customer use, Ms. Risolio and another
      asset protection investigator confronted [Appellant]. Ms. Risolio
      stopped [Appellant’s] shopping cart, which caused Appellant to
      become agitated and aggressive. [Appellant] cursed at Ms. Risolio
      and called her a “bitch,” and told her “don’t touch my fucking
      cart.” Ms. Risolio informed [Appellant] that he had unpaid
      merchandise in his cart and pointed at the hoverboard, which was
      still in his cart. [Appellant] then said, “My bad,” and told Ms.
      Risolio that he could pay for the hoverboard, but Ms. Risolio told
      him that it does not work that way since he had already passed
      the last point of sale. Ms. Risolio testified at trial that [Appellant]
      took the hoverboard out of his cart and threw it toward her. Ms.
      Risolio took several steps back to keep space from [Appellant]
      since he continued acting aggressively. The hoverboard landed in
      front of Ms. Risolio’s feet[,] where it was later picked up by the
      other asset protection investigator. At this point, Ms. Risolio called
      the police to report the incident. [Appellant] then left the
      vestibule and proceeded toward the parking lot without the
      hoverboard, but with the bike and bow still in his cart. [Appellant]

                                       -6-
J-A29044-23

     proceeded to load the [dirt] bike and the bow into his car. While
     on the phone with the police, Ms. Risolio observed [Appellant]
     from the sidewalk outside the vestibule to make sure that he did
     not attempt to leave the premises before officers arrived.

            When police arrived at the scene, one responding officer,
     Officer Thomas Paraniuk, spoke with [Appellant]. Officer Paraniuk
     stayed with [Appellant] while his partner, Officer Delmonico, went
     into the Walmart to speak with employees and observe Walmart’s
     video surveillance footage. After viewing the surveillance footage,
     officers arrested [Appellant].

Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/23, a 5-6 (citations to notes of testimony and

footnote omitted).

     At trial, Officer Paraniuk testified he was wearing a body camera when

he encountered Appellant.     N.T., 3/13/23, at 111.     The Commonwealth

introduced video from the body camera into evidence, and the video was

played for the jury with “certain redactions” previously agreed upon by the

Commonwealth and defense counsel. Id. at 113-14; Commonwealth Exhibit

8. Officer Paraniuk stated:

     On the scene, I spoke with [Appellant]. Now, I stayed with
     [Appellant] and my partner, Officer Delmonico, who was on scene
     at the time that you saw briefly in the camera footage, he went
     back in and spoke with other employees in Walmart.

N.T., 3/13/23, at 133.

     Consistent with the above evidence, the jury convicted Appellant of

retail theft. The trial court subsequently denied the weight claim Appellant

raised in his post-sentence motion. The trial court reasoned:

           Review of the evidence presented at trial does not shock the
     conscience of this [c]ourt.     The Commonwealth presented
     eyewitness testimony from two Walmart employees and a

                                    -7-
J-A29044-23

     responding officer tending to show that on the day of the incident,
     [Appellant] selected a hoverboard displayed by Walmart for sale,
     placed it in his shopping cart, concealed it by placing the [dirt]
     bike on top of it in the cart, and attempted to leave the store
     without paying for the item. Trial T. Vol. II at 52-53, 61-62, 64-
     69, 71. Mitchell Krovisky, the Walmart self-checkout host, also
     testified that when he was assisting [Appellant] at the self-
     checkout counter, he asked [Appellant] whether he had paid for
     the items in his cart, including the hoverboard, and [Appellant]
     stated he had paid for the items. Id. at 60, 88-89, 97. Finally,
     the Commonwealth submitted numerous video exhibits into
     evidence, depicting [Appellant’s] course of conduct throughout his
     time at the Walmart on the day of the incident, October 2, 2022.
     Id. at 50-68, 90-92, 123-130. The Commonwealth also presented
     video footage that was taken by body-cameras worn by
     responding officers on the day of the incident, which corroborated
     the footage from Walmart’s video surveillance cameras. Id. at
     112-14. Thus, the [c]ourt finds that the jury’s verdict did not
     shock the conscience and was therefore not against the weight of
     the evidence.

           At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of
     [Appellant] from the Preliminary Hearing. Trial T. Vol. II at 119.
     These portions of the Preliminary Hearing Transcript were read
     and admitted into evidence at trial. Id. At the Preliminary
     Hearing, [Appellant] testified that he intended to buy the
     hoverboard for his son. Id. at 121. [Appellant] quickly changed
     his mind however, and decided to buy the [dirt] bike instead. Id.
     [Appellant] testified at the Preliminary Hearing as follows:

         My son wanted a hoverboard, so I turned to go over
         there. I see the hoverboard. My intentions, well,
         intention to buy the hoverboard. I said “Nah.” But I
         don’t. I grab this motorcycle, a little Razor motorcycle.
         It cost $388, with taxes like 400 something. This
         hoverboard cost 198. So I am totally spaced out about
         this hoverboard.     I’m so excited about this big
         motorcycle I’m about to get my son. So I throw the
         motorcycle on top of the cart.

     Id. When this testimony was presented at trial, the jury was free
     to make its own determination as to the credibility of [Appellant’s]
     Preliminary Hearing testimony.       The jury determined that
     [Appellant] intended to permanently deprive Walmart of the

                                    -8-
J-A29044-23

       hoverboard, and that he was therefore guilty of retail theft.
       [Appellant’s] assertion that he had forgotten that the hoverboard
       was in his cart does not change the fact that the Commonwealth
       presented sufficient evidence at trial to prove that [Appellant] had
       actually not forgotten about the hoverboard in his cart, and had
       instead used the bike to conceal the hoverboard, which constitutes
       evidence that [Appellant] intended to permanently deprive
       Walmart of its merchandise. Therefore, [Appellant’s] retail theft
       conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/23, at 11-12.

       The trial court’s reasoning is sound. Evidence from the Commonwealth’s

three witnesses and video exhibits3 support the jury’s finding that Appellant

took possession of the hoverboard with the intention of depriving Walmart “of

the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full

retail value thereof.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(1). Thus, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s weight claim.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

3 “At trial, the Commonwealth presented six exhibits consisting of videos taken

by Walmart’s video surveillance cameras from several different vantage
points. The Commonwealth also presented video footage that was taken by
body-cameras worn by responding officers on the day of the incident.” Trial
Court Opinion, 8/16/23, at 3-4 n.4 (citations to notes of testimony omitted).

                                           -9-
J-A29044-23

DATE: 1/5/2024

                 - 10 -