Com. v. Lane, M.

J-S28026-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MATTHEW SEAN LANE :
:
Appellant : No. 123 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 10, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-CR-0002575-2019
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2020
Appellant, Matthew Sean Lane, appeals from the judgment of sentence
following his jury trial convictions for theft of property lost, mislaid, or
delivered by mistake (theft of mislaid property) and receiving stolen property.1
Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court briefly summarized the facts of this case as follows:
On May 10 2019, [Appellant] met [O.B.2 (the victim)] at her child’s
school [in] Reading, Berk’s County, [Pennsylvania] to give her a
ride to work. On the way, they stopped at a corner store where
[the victim] entered the store and [Appellant] waited in the car.
[The victim] left her bag in [Appellant’s] car. When she returned,
neither [Appellant] nor the car were waiting for her. She called
and texted [Appellant] multiple times and [Appellant] did not
answer. When [the victim] did finally have contact with
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3924 and 3925, respectively.
2 We use the victim’s initials and refer to her as “the victim” to protect her
identity.
J-S28026-20
[Appellant], he told her that he was not going to return her bag
and its contents (aka her “stuff”).
Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/2020, at 2.
On December 10, 2019, a jury convicted Appellant of the
aforementioned charges. The jury valued the stolen property at more than
$200.00, but less than $2,000.00. On the same day, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to two years of probation for theft of mislaid property. The trial
court also ordered Appellant to pay the victim $819.50 in restitution. The
receiving stolen property conviction merged for sentencing purposes. The trial
court imposed the sentence consecutively to an unrelated sentence Appellant
was already serving. On December 17, 2019, Appellant filed a post-sentence
motion challenging the weight of the evidence presented at trial. On
December 19, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion.
This timely appeal resulted.3
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted a
guilty verdict for the charge of theft of property lost, mislaid or
delivered by mistake [to withstand a challenge to the weight of
the evidence, given that the Commonwealth’s only witness, the
victim, made inconsistent statements and testified without
corroboration?]
Appellant’s Brief at 6 (superfluous capitalization omitted).
____________________________________________
3 Appellant filed a timely, counseled notice of appeal on January 16, 2020.
Thereafter, Appellant complied timely with the trial court’s directives to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on
February 6, 2020.
-2-
J-S28026-20
Appellant claims that his convictions were against the weight of the
evidence that the Commonwealth presented at trial. Appellant claims the
victim’s testimony was so inconsistent that the verdict should shock the
conscience of the trial court and this Court. More specifically, in sum,
Appellant posits:
The only witness in the present matter was inconsistent in so
many matters that the verdict shocks the conscience. The witness
initially reported the crime as a burglary of her apartment. Then
it changed to [her] purse [from] the back seat [of Appellant’s car].
[…T]he witness told the police and testified under oath at the
preliminary hearing that she was picked up at her apartment and
abandoned at [her child’s] school after going inside. The story
changed at trial and the new story was that she was picked up [at
her child’s school] and she was abandoned at [a] store. On direct
examination[,] she testified that they stopped at a store and she
went inside to purchase an item for [] Appellant and upon exiting
the store found him gone. The story changed on
cross[-]examination and the new task was to give a piece of paper
from [] Appellant to someone in the store and get an item from
that individual. When no item was retrieved, the witness exited
the store and found that Appellant had left the scene. These
inconsistencies emerged not just on the day of the incident, but
weeks later under oath at the preliminary hearing, and months
later at trial.
Further, limited corroborating evidence was submitted to support
the witness's story. The Commonwealth presented numerous
messages showing a series of missed phone calls. These
messages only show that the witness called [] Appellant on
numerous occasions and sent him messages after he supposedly
abandoned her at either the school or the store. There is no
contribution from [] Appellant acknowledging the situation. There
is no evidence that Appellant received and viewed these messages
beyond a simple assumption that because he had viewed
messages in the past he would continue to view them into the
future.
-3-
J-S28026-20
No corroborating evidence was offered to substantiate the
$400[.00] supposedly stolen. Although [the victim testified] that
it was recently withdraw[n] from an ATM, the witness could not
speak as to the location of the ATM and did not present any
receipts or transaction histories showing the withdrawal.
Appellant’s Brief at 15-16.
We adhere to the following standards:
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, [our Supreme
Court] 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.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013)
(internal citations omitted).
-4-
J-S28026-20
Commonwealth v. McClelland, 204 A.3d 436, 447 (Pa. Super. 2019)
appeal denied, 217 A.3d 214 (Pa. 2019).
Here, the trial court determined:
The jury[,] as the trier of fact, had the right to weigh the testimony
of each witness and determine [the] evidence it found credible.
The jury was free to accept or reject the various theories argued
by the Commonwealth and the [d]efense in this case. Defense
counsel cross-examined [the victim] about the differences
between her trial testimony and initial reports to the police. The
defense also questioned whether the bag [at issue] even existed
when challenging [the victim’s] credibility.
While certainly a disappointment to [Appellant], upon review of
the record, the verdict of the jury [did] not come as a shock to
[the trial court]. The evidence presented at trial was not contrary
to the verdicts of the jury. The jury has the right to weigh the
testimony and determine which evidence it finds credible. The
jury made factual findings and rendered a verdict of guilty.
Therefore, [Appellant] was not deprived of his rights, and this
issue has no merit.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/2020, at 3 (case citations omitted).
Appellant suggests that we reassess the credibility of the victim and the
supporting evidence presented at trial. Based upon our standard of review,
however, we may not reweigh trial evidence. We limit our review to the trial
court’s exercise of discretion in ruling on the weight claim. Upon our review
of the certified record, we conclude the judgment was not manifestly
unreasonable. The trial court applied the law properly. The record shows the
trial court’s decision was not the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
As such, the verdict does not shock the conscience of the court. Accordingly,
we discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of Appellant’s challenge to the
weight of the evidence presented at trial.
-5-
J-S28026-20
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/28/2020
-6-