Com. v. Santiago, A.

J-S33036-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ALEXANDER SANTIAGO
Appellant No. 1434 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Dated May 7, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: MC-51-CR-0005372-2012
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON, and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2014
2013 order denying his petition for a writ of certiorari. Appellant filed that
petition after a judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court, sitting as
factfinder, found Appellant guilty of unsworn falsification to authorities (18
Pa.C.S.A. § 4904).1 We affirm.
____________________________________________
1
Appellant was convicted under § 4904(a)(1):
§ 4904. Unsworn falsification to authorities.
(a) In general. --A person commits a misdemeanor of the
second degree if, with intent to mislead a public servant in
performing his official function, he:
(1) makes any written false statement which he does not
believe to be true[.]
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S33036-14
In the early hours of January 9, 2012, Detective Myrna Rivera
y room of Temple
Hospital, where Appellant was receiving treatment for a gunshot wound.
Appellant told Detective Rivera he was shot while walking his girlfriend
home. Appellant lives in the home of his grandmother, which is
approximately twenty blocks from his girlfriend. Appellant claimed he
claimed she heard a loud noise in her home, followed by someone screaming
in pain. She investigated and found Appellant on the floor bleeding and
crying. She then summoned the ambulance that transported Appellant to
the Temple Hospital ER. Based on the evidence, the municipal court judge
found that Appellant lied to Detective Rivera in order to conceal that he shot
himself in the leg. The judge found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned
Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas. The Common Pleas Court conducted a hearing on May 7,
2013, at the conclusion of which it entered the order on appeal. Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal on May 13, 2013. In his sole assertion of
error, Appellant claims the record contains insufficient evidence in support of
his conviction. Appell
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904(a)(1).
-2-
J-S33036-14
We apply the following 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
-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.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal
denied, 2014 Pa LEXIS 1647 (Pa. July 7, 2014).
Appellant claims the evidence against him is insufficient because he
did not provide a written statement to police. Appellant claims his oral
statement to Detective Rivera is not sufficient to sustain his conviction under
§ 4904(a)(1).
statements. Appellant argues that signing a
document prepared by another individual is not sufficient to sustain a
conviction under § 4904(a)(1). Binding precedent holds otherwise. In
-3-
J-S33036-14
Commonwealth v. Cherpes, 520 A.2d 439 (Pa. Super. 1987), appeal
denied, 530 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1987), the defendant was convicted under
4904(a)(1) for a falsified financial disclosure statement. The defendant
argued the evidence was insufficient because his wife prepared the
statement and signed it for him while he was out of town. Id. at 444. A
Commonwealth witness testified that the signature on the document
Id. In other words,
the Cherpes Court found sufficient evidence in support of a § 4904(a)(1)
conviction where the defendant signed a document containing information
he knew to be false, regardless of who prepared the contents of the
document.
We conclude Cherpes controls the instant case. Since Appellant
signed a document containing the lies he told to Detective Rivera, the record
contains sufficient evidence that he provided a written false statement in
violation of § 4904(a)(1). Appellant argues Cherpes is not controlling
because it is not clear from that case that the financial disclosure statement
attempted distinction unavailing. The Cherpes Court found it unnecessary
to assess the source of the false infor
signature on a document containing information he knew to be false was
sufficient. The same principle applies here.
-4-
J-S33036-14
Appellant also asserts his statement to Detective Rivera was not
materially different from his gr
that another individual shot Appellant while he was walking his girlfriend
home. The Municipal Court judge, as finder of fact, was free to credit
screaming, and that she found Appellant on the floor crying and bleeding.
Antidormi, that he
hopped twenty blocks after walking his girlfriend home simply strains
ially
from the account of his grandmother, as also found by the municipal court
judge.
in merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/25/2014
-5-