Commonwealth v. McClelland , 204 A.3d 436 ( 2019 )

J-A26001-18
2019 Pa. Super. 34
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DIANE MCCLELLAND,
Appellant No. 398 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0002056-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2019
Appellant, Diane McClelland, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
24½-49 years’ incarceration, imposed following her conviction for conspiracy,
dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity, receiving stolen property, and
providing false information to law enforcement. Appellant challenges the
sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting her convictions, and the
discretionary aspects of her sentence. After careful review, we reverse
Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit homicide, and remand for
resentencing, but otherwise leave her remaining convictions intact.
The trial court summarized the facts adduced at trial as follows:
During the jury trial conducted February 26, 2013, through
March 1, 2013, the jury heard evidence that [Appellant] and her
co-defendants, [Appellant]’s husband and step-son, were
engaged in numerous burglaries and thefts of cash from the home
of Evelyn Stepko, their elderly neighbor, then 92 years of age,
J-A26001-18
who lived alone, beginning in August of 2009 and continuing
through July 18, 2011, when Evelyn Stepko was found murdered
in her home.
It was established at trial that police had responded to
reports on several occasions to investigate thefts reported by the
victim. Testimony demonstrated that the victim had hidden large
amounts of cash in her home, and that much of the currency dated
in the 1980’s and the 1990’s. Although there was no evidence
that [Appellant] physically participated in the invasions of Ms.
Stepko’s home, … it was established that [Appellant] was handling
all of the cash proceeds of the burglaries: [Appellant] made the
majority of the deposits of cash stolen from Ms. Stepko, large
amounts of moldy and musty currency dated in the 1980’s and
1990’s were found in the home of [Appellant] and her co-
defendant husband, David A. McClelland; [Appellant] made the
final decisions on negotiations for the purchase of two pieces of
real estate using stolen cash; [Appellant] reimbursed her co-
defendant step-son when her co-defendant husband made a
purchase from the step-son’s share of the “loot”; [Appellant]
made large cash purchases with the proceeds of the burglaries
including the purchase of a late model Lincoln Navigator and the
costs of remodeling … her home; and [Appellant] admittedly
accepted cash proceeds, which she knew were from at least one
burglary, but continued to deal in the proceeds of the burglaries
thereafter.
[Appellant] represented to authorities that the lavish
expenditures were the result of lottery and casino winnings.
However, testimony at trial established that [Appellant] and her
codefendants gambled large sums of money at the Meadows
Casino in Washington, Pennsylvania, and neither [Appellant] nor
her co-defendants, ever won a jackpot.
At no time did [Appellant] report the criminal activity to
police or attempt to abandon the conspiracy. Also, after M[]s.
Stepko’s murder was discovered, [Appellant] gave conflicting
statements to police regarding her husband’s whereabouts on the
day of the murder. [Appellant]’s husband ultimately pled guilty
to Ms. Stepko’s murder on October 15, 2012, committed during
an invasion of her home. [Appellant]’s step-son was also found
guilty of Ms. Stepko’s murder on June 6, 2013, following a trial.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/25/17, at 5-6 (citations omitted).
-2-
J-A26001-18
At the conclusion of her trial, the jury convicted Appellant of dealing in
proceeds of unlawful activity (DPUA), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5111(a)(1); receiving
stolen property (RSP), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925; hindering apprehending or
prosecution (HAP), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105(a)(5) (“provides false information to a
law enforcement officer”); and criminal conspiracy,1 18 Pa.C.S. § 903. On
June 6, 2013 (order filed June 21, 2013), the trial court sentenced Appellant
to consecutive terms of 20-40 years’ incarceration for criminal conspiracy to
commit homicide, 2-4 years’ incarceration for DPUA, 2-4 years’ incarceration
for RSP, and 6-12 months’ incarceration for HAP, for an aggregate term of
24½-49 years’ incarceration.2 Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion,
which was denied by the court on October 17, 2013. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal, and a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
The trial court issued its first Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 31, 2014.
____________________________________________
1 The verdict slip contained a single entry for criminal conspiracy at count 2,
with multiple criminal objectives listed, as follows: “criminal conspiracy to
commit criminal homicide and/or dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity
and/or burglary and/or theft by unlawful taking[.]” Verdict Slip, 3/5/13, at 1
(unnecessary capitalization omitted). That entry was immediately followed by
an interrogatory asking the jury to determine if the Commonwealth “proved
one or more of the following as the objectives of the conspiracy or the natural
and probable consequences of a co-conspirator’s conduct,” where criminal
homicide, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity, burglary, and theft by
unlawful activity were subsequently listed. Id. (unnecessary capitalization
omitted). The jury circled “Yes” by each of the four listed crimes. Id.
2 Appellant received no further penalty for the conspiracies to commit the
lesser offenses.
-3-
J-A26001-18
On August 13, 2015, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of
sentence. See Commonwealth v. McClelland, 131 A.3d 93 (Pa. Super.
2015) (unpublished memorandum). However, as we noted in that
memorandum, Appellant’s “counseled brief fail[ed] to conform to even the
basic requirements of appellate advocacy.” Commonwealth v. McClelland,
No. 1806 WDA 2013, unpublished memorandum at 2. As such, we deemed
all of Appellant’s issues waived. Id. at 3.
Appellant subsequently filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition seeking
reinstatement of her direct appeal rights, which was later amended by counsel
on September 16, 2016. By order dated March 1, 2017, the trial court granted
the petition, thereby reinstating Appellant’s direct appeal rights. Appellant
then filed a new notice of appeal on March 8, 2017, and a timely, court-
ordered Rule 1925(b) statement on April 24, 2017. The trial court issued a
new Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 25, 2017.
Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
I. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant
of [DPUA]?
II. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant
of conspiracy to commit homicide?
III. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant
of conspiracy to [DPUA]?
IV. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant
of conspiracy to commit burglary?
V. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant
of conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking?
-4-
J-A26001-18
VI. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant
of [RSP]?
VII. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant
of [HAP]?
VIII. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s
post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal for [DPUA]?
IX. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s
post-trial motion for new trial?
X. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s
post-trial motion to modify sentence?
XI. Whether the [verdict] was against the weight of the
evidence?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
The first nine questions presented for our review concern the sufficiency
of the evidence. Our standard of review of sufficiency claims is well-settled:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a
question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the
verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime
charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a
reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the
verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to
human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is
insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency
claim[,] the court is required to view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit
of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000) (internal
citations omitted).
Appellant first asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict her
of DPUA. The Crimes Code defines that offense, in pertinent part, as follows:
-5-
J-A26001-18
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first
degree if the person conducts a financial transaction under any of
the following circumstances:
(1) With knowledge that the property involved, including
stolen or illegally obtained property, represents the
proceeds of unlawful activity, the person acts with the intent
to promote the carrying on of the unlawful activity.
18 Pa.C.S. § 5111(a)(1).
Appellant argues that “she believed the money her husband possessed
had derived from his earnings from a private lottery as well as a Massachusetts
casino, her biweekly paycheck, and her husband’s disability check.”
Appellant’s Brief at 15. However, Appellant concedes that she “admitted to
having knowledge of her husband’s involvement in a burglary on one
occasion.” Id. Nevertheless, she asserts that she “implored him to cease all
[criminal] activities” at that time. Id. Thus, as “Section 5111 requires intent
to promote and carry on the unlawful activity,” Appellant argues that “there
is insufficient evidence that she possessed such intent.” Id.
The trial court rejected this claim, stating:
[I]t was unquestionably established that [Appellant] knew that the
property—the cash—was the proceeds of “unlawful activity”—
here, burglary—and conducted “financial transactions” by making
purchases with that cash and depositing the cash in various banks.
18 Pa.C.S. § 5111. Given [Appellant]’s continued dealings with
those funds, her admitted awareness of the burglaries, and the
other evidence of a conspiratorial relationship between
[Appellant], her husband, and her step-son, it was reasonable for
the jury to infer that her transactions with the stolen money at
least in part “promote[d] the carrying on of the unlawful activity.”
Id. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to convict [her] on the
charge of [DPUA].
TCO at 9 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
-6-
J-A26001-18
We agree with the trial court. Appellant admitted that she had
knowledge of at least one burglary and continued to accept cash from her
husband and spend it. Moreover, the jury was free to discredit her statement
that she thought the money had come from gambling winnings. Therefore,
Appellant’s first claim lacks merit.
For ease of disposition, we will address Appellant’s second sufficiency
claim, regarding conspiracy to commit homicide, last. Thus, we next consider
whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of conspiracy to
commit the crimes of burglary, DPUA, and theft.
A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to
commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its
commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or
one or more of them will engage in conduct which
constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to
commit such crime; or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the
planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or
solicitation to commit such crime.
18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a). Moreover, “[i]f a person conspires to commit a number
of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes
are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial
relationship.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(b).
Here, as discussed by the trial court, the evidence produced by the
Commonwealth at trial clearly established a conspiracy to burgle the victim’s
home, and to receive and spend the illicit gains derived therefrom:
-7-
J-A26001-18
[B]ased on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, it was
reasonable for the jury to believe that [Appellant] participated in
the numerous burglaries of M[]s. Stepko’s home, from August
2009 through July 2011, in a material way. [Appellant] admitted
knowledge of the thefts which resulted from the burglaries and
[she] profited handsomely from the same. She made significant
cash purchases from the proceeds of the burglaries, including the
late model Lincoln Navigator SUV and a house and property next
door to hers. The obvious inference drawn from the testimony
was that [Appellant] controlled the money that was stolen and
controlled the accounts to which she deposited much of the cash.
The evidence also showed that [Appellant] made multiple
significant trips to the Meadows Casino in close temporal proximity
to Ms. Stepko’s reports of burglaries.
From this evidence, the jury found circumstances that
showed the [Appellant] to be a willing and active member of the
conspiracy to commit the burglaries and thefts, and to make the
aforementioned purchases and bank deposits with the proceeds of
those crimes.
TCO at 10-11.
Appellant essentially argues that there was no evidence that she “agreed
to aid or act in conformity with [her husband’s] plans to burglarize.”
Appellant’s Brief at 19. We disagree. Even assuming that Appellant did not
initially have knowledge of her husband’s illegal activities, she became part of
the conspiracy to commit burglary, DPUA, and theft when she continued to
deal with the illicit funds after learning that her husband had burgled money
from the victim’s home. The jury was free to disbelieve her claims to the
contrary. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict
Appellant of a conspiracy to commit those crimes.
Next, we consider Appellant’s assertion that, even if she was a
participant in a conspiracy to commit the theft-related crimes of burglary,
-8-
J-A26001-18
DPUA, and theft, the evidence was still insufficient to establish her guilt for
conspiracy to commit homicide. Here, there is no allegation that homicide
was the object of the conspiratorial agreement between Appellant, her
husband, and her stepson. Rather, the alleged (and proven) objectives of the
conspiracy at issue were to burglarize the victim’s home of cash, receive that
stolen property, and spend those proceeds unlawfully.
If homicide is not the object of a conspiracy, then, by definition, there
is no conspiracy to commit criminal homicide. However, the trial court
attempts to justify the jury’s verdict on conspiracy to commit homicide as
follows:
Once th[e conspiracy to commit burglary] was established, the
jury could then reasonably find that Evelyn Stepko’s murder was
committed in furtherance of that conspiracy, and that the murder
was the natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy to
commit the burglaries and thefts. See [Commonwealth v.]
Murphy, … 844 A.2d [1228,] 1238 [(Pa. 2004)]. The law
considers burglary to be a violent crime, Commonwealth v.
Chester, … 101 A.3d 56, 64 ([Pa.] 2014); Commonwealth v.
Spotz, … 47 A.3d 63, 104 ([Pa.] 2012); Commonwealth v.
Small, … 980 A.2d 549, 576 ([Pa.] 2009), and the repeated
unwelcome invasions of an elderly person’s home undeniably
involves the probable result of serious injury or death to the
victim.
The jury thus found that the death of Ms. Stepko was the natural
and probable consequence of the conspiracy, [Commonwealth
v.] Eiland, … [301] A.2d [651,] 653 [(Pa. 1973)], and that finding
was reasonable in light of the testimony and evidence presented.
Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain [Appellant]’s
conviction on the charge[] of criminal conspiracy to commit
homicide[.]
TCO at 11-12 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
-9-
J-A26001-18
As is apparent from the above passage, the trial court conflates the
crimes of murder and the wholly distinct crime of conspiracy to commit
homicide. It may well be the case that a homicide was the natural and
probable consequence of the conspiracy to burglarize the victim’s home,
however, Appellant was not charged with a homicide offense. She was
charged with the inchoate offense of conspiracy to commit homicide.
“The crime of conspiracy is a ‘specific intent crime,’ in that it requires a
specific intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crime which
is the object of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Weimer, 977 A.2d 1103,
1111 (Pa. 2009). Here, the trial court does not even state that the evidence
was sufficient to establish that Appellant intended to promote or facilitate the
commission of a homicide. Instead, the court specifically identified the
burglary, theft, and DPUA as the target offenses of the conspiracy. Our
independent review of the record fails to uncover any evidence of Appellant’s
intent to participate in or facilitate a homicide.
Moreover, the trial court does not offer any case law suggesting that a
conspiracy to commit homicide can arise as the ‘natural and probable
consequence’ of a wholly different conspiracy offense. In no cases cited by
the court was a defendant held accountable for a conspiracy offense based on
their commission of a separate conspiracy offense. In Eiland, supra, the
defendant was held culpable for a homicide based on his participation in a
conspiracy to commit homicide. In Murphy, supra, the Supreme Court
determined that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant for the
- 10 -
J-A26001-18
delivery of heroin due to his participation in a conspiracy to deliver heroin.
Neither Chester, Small, nor Spotz, involved conspiracy offenses.
While a killing may be the natural and probable consequence of a
conspiracy to commit burglary, that logic does not extend to cover the
inchoate crime of conspiracy to commit homicide. An agreement to kill is not
the natural and probable consequence of a conspiracy to burglarize. Indeed,
if it were, then every co-conspirator to a robbery or burglary would be
simultaneously guilty of conspiring to kill the victim of such offenses. The trial
court’s logic, when taken to its inevitable conclusion, is patently absurd and,
thus, untenable as a legal theory.
Our Supreme Court has contrasted the “general rule of law pertaining
to the culpability of conspirators” with “the principle that first degree murder
is distinguished from all other degrees of murder by the existence of a specific
premeditated intent to kill harbored by the accused.” Commonwealth v.
Wayne, 720 A.2d 456, 463-64 (Pa. 1998) (emphasis added). The Court went
on to warn that,
[i]f the general rule of co-conspirator liability applied to eliminate
the need to establish the existence of specific intent, then an
accused conspirator could be culpable for first degree murder
without proof that the accused shared the specific intent to kill,
the element which distinguishes first degree murder from all other
forms of homicide. Such a result was clearly not contemplated by
the legislature when it delineated the elements distinguishing the
various degrees of homicide. … To be guilty of first degree
murder, each co-conspirator must individually be found to possess
the mental state necessary to establish first degree murder-the
specific intent to kill.
- 11 -
J-A26001-18
Id. at 464 (emphasis in original). This logic applies equally to the crime of
conspiracy to commit homicide, because a conviction for such a conspiracy
also requires proof of the specific intent to kill, Weimer, supra, which is
identical to the mens rea requirement for first degree murder.
Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that the
evidence was not sufficient to prove Appellant’s participation in a conspiracy
to kill the victim in this case. There was no evidence proffered to establish
Appellant’s specific intent to kill the victim. The only theory upon which the
jury could have concluded that Appellant was guilty of a conspiracy to commit
homicide is not legally cognizable. As such, we reverse Appellant’s conviction
with respect to the offense of conspiracy to commit homicide.3
Next, Appellant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict her
of RSP. Appellant’s argument is this regard is cursory, composed of a single
paragraph, the essence of which can be boiled down to a single phrase, where
Appellant argues, “the Commonwealth did not adequately link the existence
of the money and whether Appellant knew the property was stolen.” See
Appellant’s Brief at 19.
____________________________________________
3 Appellant was charged and convicted of a single conspiracy offense,
encompassing multiple criminal objectives, including homicide. Thus, we
reverse her conviction only insofar as it contemplated homicide as a target
offense. The trial court is thus permitted to resentence Appellant for her
participation in a conspiracy to burglarize the victim. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 905
(a) (decreeing that conspiracy is a crime of the “same grade and degree as
the most serious offense which is … an object of the conspiracy”). In the
circumstances of this case, upon resentencing, Appellant’s conspiracy offense
must be graded as the equivalent to the burglary offense to which she
conspired.
- 12 -
J-A26001-18
As discussed above, this issue is without merit. Even according to her
own testimony, Appellant eventually learned of her husband’s burglaries, and
failed to return the illegal proceeds derived therefrom. “A person is guilty of
theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of
another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been
stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to
restore it to the owner.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a) (defining the offense of RSP)
(emphasis added). Clearly Appellant, by her own admission, retained
proceeds she knew to be stolen.
Next, Appellant argues that evidence was insufficient to convict her of
HAP by providing false information to law enforcement officers. Her argument,
in its entirety, is as follows:
Under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, an individual may be
convicted of [HAP] by providing false information to law
enforcement where the individual, "with [intent] to hinder the
apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another
for a crime … [the individual] provides false information to a law
enforcement officer." 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105(a)(5).
In Appellant’s initial interview with police following [her
husband’s] arrest, she stated that she and David were waiting for
a washing machine to be delivered and that she and David
watched movies most of the day [of the murder]. [N.T., 2/27/13,
at] 244. She noted that David left the home at least two times
that day-once around 1:00 p.m. when he noticed Ms. Stepko in
her backyard, and again later in the evening to fix an umbrella on
the deck. Id. [at] 246-[]47, 278-[]80. In her second interview
with police, she again stated that the two were home throughout
the day waiting for the washing machine. [N.T., 3/1/13, at] 621.
She also stated that David did yard work that day and that she
remembers seeing him on the deck, presumably fixing the
umbrella. Id.
- 13 -
J-A26001-18
The Commonwealth attempted to establish that because she
did not mention that the two watched movies that day, she lied to
the police about David’s whereabouts on the day of Ms. Stepko’s
death. Id. An omission of a minor detail about watching movies
in her second interview is a far reach from providing false
information to police in an attempt to shield another from
punishment of a crime. As such, the Commonwealth failed to
meet its burden of proof and Appellant should be acquitted of
[HAP] by providing false information to law enforcement.
Appellant’s Brief at 19-20 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
The trial court did not address this argument with much specificity:
The evidence presented here established that during the course
of the investigation [Appellant] made several contradictory
statements to police officers regarding her husband’s whereabouts
and activities on the day of Ms. Stepko’s murder, while those
officers were pursuing her husband’s prosecution. Taking those
false statements along with the other evidence presented in its
totality, the jury could reasonably infer that [Appellant]’s intent in
making those contradictory statements to the police was to hinder
their efforts to apprehend and prosecute her husband.
TCO at 13.
Appellant is not entitled to relief, as she fails to cite any legal authority
for the proposition that “[a]n omission of a minor detail” is not a false
statement for purposes of Section 5105. Here, Appellant’s statements to
police essentially provided an imperfect alibi for her husband on the day of
the murder. Thus, her statement regarding his specific activities on that day
was not dealing with a trivial matter. Furthermore, Appellant did not merely
omit a detail—she initially claimed they were watching movies all day while
waiting for a washing machine delivery. At the next interview, she claimed
her husband was outside working for a good portion of the day. See N.T.,
3/1/13, at 620-21.
- 14 -
J-A26001-18
Moreover, Appellant provided more false statements to police than her
argument suggests. Appellant initially told police that she had no knowledge
of her husband’s taking money from the victim’s home, and that their
expenditures, extravagant in relation to their income, were paid with gambling
winnings. N.T., 2/27/13, at 252-58. Later, during the second interview with
police, she admitted that she knew, before the first interview, that her
husband had received at least some of that money from burglarizing the
victim’s home. N.T., 3/1/13, at 611-12. Thus, we conclude that the evidence
was more than sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for HAP by providing
false information to law enforcement officers.
In Appellant’s eighh issue, she claims the trial court erred by denying
her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of DPUA and conspiracy to
DPUA. This claim concerns the sufficiency of the evidence, and is functionally
identical to issues 1 and 3. As discussed above, those claims lack merit.
Appellant next claims that the trial court erred by denying her post-
sentence motion for a new trial. Appellant asserts that the arguments
contained therein “were based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented at
trial[,]” and overlap with the previously-raised sufficient claims. Appellant’s
Brief at 21. Accordingly, we conclude this claim lacks merit.
In her penultimate claim, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred
when it denied her post-sentence motion to modify her sentence. As we are
remanding for resentencing in light of our decision to reverse Appellant’s
- 15 -
J-A26001-18
conviction for the crime of conspiracy to commit homicide, this issue is
rendered moot.
Finally, Appellant claims the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence. We apply the following standard of review to a challenge that a
verdict is against the weight of the evidence:
An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a
weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review
applied by the trial court:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise
of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 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 by the
trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that
the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the
least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial
is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was
not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial
should be granted in the interest of justice.
This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by the trial
court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial based on a
challenge to the weight of the evidence is unfettered. In
describing the limits of a trial court’s discretion, we have
explained:
The term “discretion” imports the exercise of judgment,
wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion
within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the
purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion
must be exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed
to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary
actions. Discretion is abused where the course pursued
represents not merely an error of judgment, but where the
judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not
applied or where the record shows that the action is a result
of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
- 16 -
J-A26001-18
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations
omitted).
Appellant provides less than a paragraph of argument, contending that:
At trial, the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant had
knowledge of David’s crimes. She believed David made money
from his winnings at a Massachusetts casino and a private lottery.
Further, Appellant was not involved in the planning of the
burglaries that led to Ms. Stepko’s death. The jury's verdict was
against the weight of the evidence, and thus, the trial court erred
in denying post-trial motions in that respect.
Appellant’s Brief at 23.
This underdeveloped argument is virtually indistinguishable from
Appellant’s sufficiency claims, and we reject it for the same reasons. The jury
was free to reject Appellant’s incredulous explanation for the source of their
income. Moreover, Appellant misstates the facts adduced at trial, as she
admitted that the she knew about her husband’s participation in at least one
burglary, and yet she continued to deal with those ill-gotten gains.
Accordingly, this claim is meritless.
In sum, we reverse Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit
homicide, but otherwise leave her remaining convictions intact, including what
remains of her conspiracy offense (without homicide as a target of the
conspiracy). As this likely impacts the sentencing scheme concocted by the
trial court, we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence in its entirety and
remand for resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 517 A.2d
1280, 1283 (Pa. 1986) (stating that where an appellate court upsets the trial
court’s overall sentencing scheme by vacating a conviction in a multiple-count
- 17 -
J-A26001-18
appeal, the appellate court must remand for re-sentencing because
sentencing lies within the sole discretion of the trial court).
Judgment of sentence reversed in part, vacated in part. Case
remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/11/2019
- 18 -