Com. v. Henderson, L. ( 2014 )

J-A26010-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAVET I. HENDERSON,
Appellant No. 68 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0005221-2011
BEFORE: BOWES, MUNDY, and JENKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2014
Lavet I. Henderson appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence
of eighteen months probation imposed by the trial court after the court
found her guilty of criminal mischief and harassment by communication.
After review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we
affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the learned Judge Andrew
H. Dowling.
The facts underlying this matter are as follows. The victim herein is
the paternal grandmother of Appellant’s child. Appellant and the father of
the child are unmarried. The father of Appellant’s child resided at 2350
Berryhill Street, across the street from the victim. On September 17, 2011,
the victim was renting a 2011 Ford 150 pick-up truck from Budget Rent-A-
Car. Appellant visited the father of her child on that date to ask him to
J-A26010-14
support his newborn child. She and the father then had a verbal
disagreement. Afterward, a neighbor of the victim informed her that
Appellant had thrown a cinderblock through the driver’s side window of the
truck in question.1 The neighbor, Heather Elliot, identified Appellant at trial
as the culprit. Appellant also telephoned the victim approximately twenty-
five times over a ten-day period, harassing the victim. In one of those calls,
she admitted to throwing the block through the truck window.
The president of the Budget Rent-A-Car that owned the vehicle in
question, Solomon Cramer, testified to the damage to the vehicle based on a
record prepared by an appraiser named Vance Veith. According to Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Veith regularly prepares appraisals of vehicles for his company
and that Mr. Cramer himself observed the damage to the truck. The
damage to the vehicle was $3,094 and an additional $1,200 in labor costs.
The victim’s insurance company paid approximately $4,200 to Budget Rent-
A-Car for the damage. Based on this evidence, the court found Appellant
guilty of criminal mischief and harassment. The court sentenced Appellant
to eighteen months probation. This appeal ensued. The court directed
Appellant to file and serve a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal. Appellant complied, and the trial court authored an opinion. The
____________________________________________
1
There was also significant damage to the front windshield. The neighbor
testified that she saw Appellant throw the cinderblock at the truck twice.
-2-
J-A26010-14
matter is now ready for our review. Appellant presents three issues for this
Court’s consideration.
I. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the
Commonwealth’s evidence regarding the amount of
damage caused to a rental car where such evidence
constituted inadmissible hearsay?
II. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to sustain Appellant’s convictions where it failed
to prove that Appellant committed the crimes charged?
III. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to sustain Appellant’s convictions where it failed
to prove the amount of damage caused to the rental car?
Appellant’s brief at 5.
Appellant’s latter two issues relate to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Since sufficiency claims entitle a person to discharge, we address those
issues at the outset. We view all of the evidence admitted, even improperly
admitted evidence, in conducting a sufficiency review. Commonwealth v.
Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc). We consider such
evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict
winner, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the
Commonwealth. Id. When evidence exists to allow the fact-finder to
determine beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged,
the sufficiency claim will fail. Id.The evidence “need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the
fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented.”
-3-
J-A26010-14
Id. In addition, the Commonwealth can prove its case by circumstantial
evidence. Where “the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a
matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined
circumstances[,]” a defendant is entitled to relief. This Court is not
permitted “to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of
the fact-finder.” Id.Much of Appellant’s argument is premised on disbelieving the
testimony of Heather Elliott and the victim, which we are not permitted to
do. In addition, Appellant disregards that we must consider the damage
estimate since it was admitted into evidence. She argues that, since this
testimony was inadmissible, the Commonwealth did not prove damages of
$5,000. However, the Commonwealth was not required to establish
damages of $5,000. Rather, it amended the criminal information to a
misdemeanor of the second degree and accordingly was required to show
damages between $1,000 to $5,000. Hence, Appellant’s position that the
Commonwealth only proved damages in the amount of $4,924.05 is
meritless. We add that, based on the reasons outlined by the trial court in its
opinion, Appellant’s sufficiency issues fail.
Appellant’s initial claim pertains to the admission of evidence. We
evaluate evidentiary issues under an abuse of discretion standard.
Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74 A.3d 1034 (Pa.Super. 2013). Appellant
argues that the third party damage estimate used in this matter was
-4-
J-A26010-14
inadmissible hearsay and did not fall within the business records hearsay
exception. In this latter regard, she contends that because no one
authenticated the damage estimate, nor did an individual from the company
that appraised the vehicle testify, the criteria for meeting the business
records exception was not met. We disagree. First, we note that Appellant
did not object based on any lack of authentication. Moreover, as the trial
court ably detailed in its opinion, the person who keeps or produces the
record is not required to testify. For the reasons outlined by the trial court,
we find that Appellant’s hearsay issue does not entitle her to relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Mundy joins the Memorandum.
Judge Jenkins Concurs in the Result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/22/2014
-5-
Circulated 09/29/2014 10:32 AM