Com. v. Rodgers, L. ( 2022 )

J-S15025-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LOVELL A. RODGERS :
:
Appellant : No. 2163 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 20, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at CP-45-CR-0001204-2018
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JUNE 14, 2022
Lovell A. Rodgers, (Appellant), appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after a jury convicted him of 17 counts: one count each of dealing
in proceeds of unlawful activities, criminal conspiracy, and corrupt
organizations; four counts of theft by unlawful taking; and ten counts of
tampering with public records or information.1 Upon review, we affirm on the
basis of the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion.
Appellant’s convictions resulted from his actions, with co-conspirators,2
in defrauding Pennsylvania’s Workforce and Economic Development Network
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5111(a)(1), 903(e), 911(b), 3921(a), and 4911(a)(2). The
jury found Appellant not guilty of one count of theft by unlawful taking and
four counts of tampering with public records.
2 The co-conspirators entered guilty pleas. See Commonwealth Brief at 2.
J-S15025-22
(WEDnet). WEDnet is a state-funded program that reimburses manufacturers
and technology companies for employee training.
The trial court recounted the details of Appellant’s criminal activity,
which arose from Appellant using a dormant corporation he formed to revive
“the well-oiled WEDnet scam” of one of his co-conspirators. See Trial Court
Opinion, 1/20/22, at 9-14. The WEDnet program specifically excludes
restaurants and retail employers. Appellant owned a restaurant, and used his
dormant corporation (with no revenue or employees) to “submit fake invoices
to WEDnet for training that never occurred.” Id. at 12. In return, “Appellant
received fraudulent training reimbursement from WEDnet, deposited the funds
into the [dormant] corporate account, then distributed same to support the
Restaurant and himself.” Id. at 13.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with the aforementioned crimes,
and a jury trial was held in July 2021. After the foreperson read the verdict,
Appellant’s counsel requested the trial court “poll the jury, Your Honor, on
individual counts.” N.T., 7/14/21, at 242. Noting that there were a total of
22 counts, the court asked, “Any problem if I poll them as to the entire verdict
one at a time as opposed to each count?” Id. at 243. Appellant’s counsel
responded, “I need them to be individually polled.” Id. The Commonwealth
objected. The court then polled each juror individually as to the 22-count
verdict. Id. at 243-50.
-2-
J-S15025-22
On September 20, 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate 2-5 years of incarceration, followed by 3 years of probation.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and concise statement of errors
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant raises the following two issues:
[1.] Is the evidence sufficient to convict [Appellant] of the offense
of tampering with public records, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4911?
[2.] Did the trial court err by denying [Appellant’s] timely request
for individual polling of the jury?
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying his convictions of ten counts of tampering with public records.
Appellant’s Brief at 24-33. In his second issue, he challenges the manner in
which the trial court polled the jury. Id. at 33-42.
With respect to sufficiency,
The determination of whether sufficient evidence exists to support
the verdict is a question of law; accordingly, our standard of
review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. In assessing
[a] sufficiency challenge, we must determine whether viewing all
the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the
[Commonwealth], there is sufficient evidence to enable the
factfinder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. [T]he facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.
... [T]he 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.
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 963, 969-70 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(citations omitted).
A person is guilty of tampering with public records if he:
-3-
J-S15025-22
(1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, any
record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by,
the government for information or record, or required by law to
be kept by others for information of the government;
(2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing
knowing it to be false, and with intent that it be taken as a genuine
part of information or records referred to in paragraph (1) of this
subsection[.]
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4911(a)(1) and (2).
Concerning the trial court’s polling of the jury, a criminal defendant has
an absolute right to poll the jury to ascertain that each juror voluntarily joined
the verdict. Commonwealth v. Rush, 838 A.2d 651, 660 (Pa. 2003);
Pa.R.Crim.P. 648(B) and (G) (jury verdicts and polling). In reviewing a claim
that the trial court’s method of polling the jury was defective, we examine the
totality of the circumstances to establish the validity of the polling and
determine whether each juror voluntarily agreed to the verdict.
Commonwealth v. Ciotti, 436 A.2d 983, 985-86 (Pa. 1981).
After careful review of the record, we find no merit to Appellant’s issues.
The Honorable Jonathan Mark, sitting as the trial court, has authored a
factually and legally comprehensive opinion. See generally, Trial Court
Opinion, 1/20/22, at 1-20. As the January 20, 2022 opinion properly
addresses Appellant’s issues, we adopt and incorporate it in this decision.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-4-
J-S15025-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/14/2022
-5-