Com. v. Nottingham, J. ( 2015 )

J-S34030-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JENNIFER LYNN NOTTINGHAM
Appellant No. 1910 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 30, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000117-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JUNE 23, 2015
Jennifer Lynn Nottingham appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on October 30, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming
County. After a non-jury trial, Nottingham was found guilty of access device
fraud, graded as a felony of the third degree.1 The trial court sentenced
Nottingham to three years of probation, and ordered her to perform fifty
hours of community service, and pay costs and restitution.2 Based on the
following, we affirm.
____________________________________________
1
See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4106(a)(1)(ii). See also 18 Pa.C.S. § 4106(c)(1)(i),
(c)(2).
2
The trial court allowed for the termination of supervision after 2 years
provided all restitution and costs were paid.
J-S34030-15
The trial court aptly summarized the facts in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion and we adopt its recitation. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/30/2014, at
3. On appeal, Nottingham challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
establish (1) that she committed access device fraud and (2) that she
committed a course of conduct that supports the conviction and/or grading
of the conviction as a third degree felony.3 See Nottingham’s Brief at 8.
At the outset, we state our standard of review:
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 finder 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.
____________________________________________
3
Nottingham timely complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
-2-
J-S34030-15
Commonwealth v. Nypaver, 69 A.2d 708, 714 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citations omitted). Further, since the trial judge was sitting as fact finder,
this Court defers to the trial judge’s credibility determinations as the trial
judge observes the witnesses’ demeanor first hand. Commonwealth v.
Holton, 906 A.2d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2006).
The trial judge stated when rendering his verdict:
The Court finds the testimony of Hattie Sciacca to be credible.
Defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime as a result
of a close relationship, the access to the house, the access to the
vehicles.
The Court believes the testimony of Hattie Sciacca was also
buttressed by Officer Bachman and Mr. Ritter’s testimony
matching up the August withdrawals with card 3908. Also, the
verdict is supported by the Defendant’s partial admission made
to the police officers.
N.T., 10/30/2014, at 124-125. The trial judge, the Honorable Richard A.
Gray, has provided a well-reasoned discussion in support of the verdict. See
Trial Court Opinion (“Order Issued Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(a)”), 10/30/2014, at 2-4 (explaining the elements
of the crime and the grading and the legal standard for sufficiency of the
evidence; finding the evidence sufficient to establish the offense of access
device fraud and a course of conduct where credible testimony showed
Nottingham obtained $3,446.59 by using M & T Bank debit card ending with
“3908”, issued to Donnie Lee Schell and his fiancé Hattie Sciacca for their
joint account, without permission, on numerous occassions).
-3-
J-S34030-15
Accordingly, we adopt the decision of the trial court as dispositive of
the issues raised in this appeal.4
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/23/2015
____________________________________________
4
In the event of further proceedings, the parties are directed to attach a
copy of the Trial Court Opinion, 10/30/2014.
-4-
Circulated 05/29/2015 03:08 PM
Circulated 05/29/2015 03:08 PM
Circulated 05/29/2015 03:08 PM
Circulated 05/29/2015 03:08 PM