Com. v. Grimm, J.

J-S06004-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAMES MICHAEL GRIMM, SR. :
:
Appellant : No. 651 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 28, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No: CP-67-CR-0001865-2020
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED: APRIL 5, 2023
Appellant, James Michael Grimm, Sr., appeals from the sentence
imposed on March 28, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
after a jury convicted him of theft by unlawful taking (movable property) and
receiving stolen property.1 On appeal, Appellant challenges both the trial
court’s admission of an exhibit and the sufficiency of evidence. Appellant’s
counsel has filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders-Santiago2 brief in
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(a) and 3925(a), respectively.
2Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. Santiago,
978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
J-S06004-23
which he concludes that all issues lack merit. Following review, we grant
counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Appellant’s convictions stem from a theft that occurred on December
15, 2019 from a gambling machine inside the Bair’s Den, a
restaurant/lounge/bowling alley facility located in Hanover, Pennsylvania.
Three days later, on December 18, 2019, an employee of Staff Amusement,
the vendor that serviced the “skills game” machine on a bi-weekly basis,
discovered that the sum of $4,155 was missing from the machine, as reflected
on a balance sheet generated by the machine. The balance sheet was offered
into evidence as Commonwealth Exhibit #2 and was described as “essentially
a receipt which kind of shows the intake, the output, and maybe what the
remainder should be in these machines.” Notes of Testimony, Trial (“N.T.”),
1/19/22, at 89. The exhibit included hand-written notations made on the
document by Steven Fritz, owner of Staff Amusement, that included
calculations reflecting the cash shortage in the machine. Defense counsel
objected to the exhibit in light of the notations made by Fritz, claiming at
sidebar that “by changing the numbers, it is no longer what they have
purported it stands for. That’s confusing, prejudicial.” Id. at 150. The trial
court overruled the objection, stating, “Look, again, the document has not
been altered. What you’re questioning is the accuracy of the information on
the document. That' s okay. You can question it. But that does not mean the
document itself is inadmissible.” Id. at 151. When the trial judge asked if
-2-
J-S06004-23
counsel had anything to add, counsel responded, “No, Your Honor.” Id. The
exhibit was later admitted into evidence without further objection. Id. at 168.
Again, the jury convicted Appellant of theft by unlawful taking as well
as receiving stolen property. On March 28, 2022, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to a term of 11½ to 23 months’ incarceration in the York County
Prison, followed by three years of probation. Appellant was also ordered to
pay restitution in the amount of $4,155. This timely appeal followed. Both
Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
As noted, counsel has filed an Anders-Santiago brief in which he raises
two issues for our consideration. However, we must first consider counsel’s
request to withdraw before we address any substantive issues raised on
appeal. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 124 A.3d 327, 330 (Pa. Super. 2015).
An attorney who wishes to withdraw from representation on appeal must
1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after
making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy
of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he
or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional
arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court’s
attention.
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en
banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 997 (Pa. Super.
2009)).
In accordance with Santiago, the Anders brief accompanying counsel’s
petition to withdraw must also
-3-
J-S06004-23
(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that
counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth
counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state
counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling
case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion
that the appeal is frivolous.
Id. (quoting Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361).
In this case, counsel’s brief and his petition to withdraw comply with the
requirements of Anders and Santiago. See Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1032.
Further, counsel has provided this Court a copy of the letter he sent to
Appellant, advising Appellant of his right to proceed with newly-retained
counsel or pro se, and his right to raise any additional points he deems worthy
of this Court’s attention. See Counsel’s Letter to Appellant, 11/23/22.
Appellant did not file a response. Therefore, we shall proceed to examine the
issues presented in the Anders-Santiago brief, and then conduct “a full
examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly
frivolous.” See Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1196 (Pa.
Super. 2018) (en banc) (citation omitted). If we find that the case is wholly
frivolous, “[we] may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the
appeal[.]” Id. (citation omitted).
The Anders-Santiago brief identifies two potential claims for our
review:
I. Whether the trial court erred when it did not strike the
printed receipt with handwritten notes where the
handwriting was confusing and prejudicial and could lead
-4-
J-S06004-23
the jury to make a decision based on factors outside the
law?
II. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish
[Appellant] committed theft by unlawful taking and
receiving stolen property?
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some unnecessary capitalization omitted).
In his first issue, which Appellant preserved in this Rule 1925(b)
statement, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by admitting into
evidence Commonwealth Exhibit #2, the printed receipt with handwritten
notes, contending the handwriting was confusing and prejudicial. As the trial
court recognized, “Admission of evidence . . . rests within the sound discretion
of the trial court, which must balance evidentiary value against the potential
dangers of unfairly prejudicing the accused, inflaming the passions of the jury,
or confusing the jury.” Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 7/13/22, at 2 (quoting
Commonwealth v. Brown, 212 A.3d 1076, 1086 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations
omitted)). The trial court rejected Appellant’s contention, noting that receipt
was not “altered,” but rather included notations that “merely show[ed] that
the money actually collected ($4,373.00) was split up between the two [skills
machines at the Bair’s Den] to cover potential payouts, with $2,149.00 being
put into the one machine, and $2,224.00 being put into the other.” Id.(quoting N.T., 1/19/22, at 148). Moreover, Appellant’s bald assertion that the
notes gave the receipt an “appearance of authority” was unsupported by the
record. Id. at 3. Further, the exhibit was not confusing, as evidenced by Mr.
Fritz’s testimony explaining the relevance and importance of the numbers on
-5-
J-S06004-23
the exhibit. Id. Finally, while the exhibit may have been prejudicial to
Appellant, it was only so because it reflected that a theft in the amount of
$4,155.00 occurred. Therefore, it was not unfairly prejudicial. Id. at 4. We
find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of Commonwealth
Exhibit #2 into evidence. Appellant’s evidentiary challenge is wholly frivolous.
Appellant raises a second issue in his Anders-Santiago brief, i.e., that
the evidence was insufficient to establish that Appellant committed theft by
unlawful taking and receiving stolen property. This issue was not preserved
in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement and, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4), any issues that are not properly raised are deemed waived.
Specifically, with respect to a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, “an
appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or
elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.”
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
omitted). However, as this Court has recognized, “Pursuant to Anders, this
Court must review the merits of all claims set forth in an Anders brief in order
to determine whether to grant counsel’s petition to withdraw from
representation, despite the fact that the issues have been waived.”
Commonwealth v. Bishop, 831 A.2d 656, 659 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citing
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 783 A.2d 784, 787 (Pa. Super. 2001)).
As this Court has stated:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
-6-
J-S06004-23
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.
Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation
omitted). Here, the jury convicted Appellant of theft by unlawful taking
(movable property). “A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes . . .
movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.” 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 3921(a). The jury also convicted Appellant of receiving stolen property. “A
person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of
movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 3925(a).
Although not preserved in Appellant’s 1925(b) statement, the trial court
did briefly address sufficiency of the evidence when considering the
admissibility of Commonwealth Exhibit #2, the receipt on which notes were
written. The court recognized:
[T]here was more than sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude
that [Appellant] stole the money on December 15, 2019, from the
-7-
J-S06004-23
machine located at Bair’s Den Restaurant and Lounge. The parties
stipulated that the surveillance video (Commonwealth’s Exhibit
#1) took place at the Bair’s Den Restaurant and Lounge, on or
about December 15, 2019. (N.T. 1/19/22, page 85-86;
Commonwealth Exhibit #1). In that video, [Appellant] can be
seen tampering with the machine.
Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 7/13/22, at 2. Our review of the trial testimony
confirms the trial court’s conclusion. Penn Township Police Department
Sergeant Breighner identified Appellant from the surveillance tape
(Commonwealth Exhibit #1) as the individual seen playing the skills game and
later tampering with the machine. Sergeant Breighner explained that the
video showed Appellant using a key and later fumbling around the machine,
“pulling stuff out” during approximately three minutes when the machine
appeared to be open. Minutes later, Appellant and his accomplice left the
premises. N.T., 1/19/22, at 75-80. In addition, Kristen Gessner, the manager
of the Bair’s Den and the daughter of the owner, testified that she encountered
two males in the area of the skills machine on the date of the incident and
later identified those two males as the individuals on the surveillance tape.
Id. at 121-22. Detective Gebhart of the Penn Township Police Department
was able to identify Appellant from the surveillance video as well as from still
photographs, which he matched with Appellant’s PennDOT records. Id. at
162-64.
The evidence was sufficient to prove Appellant guilty of both theft of
movable property and receiving stolen property. Therefore, even if sufficiency
-8-
J-S06004-23
of evidence had been preserved in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, the
issue would fail as wholly frivolous.
Finally, “part and parcel of Anders is our Court’s duty to review the
record to insure no issues of arguable merit have been missed or misstated.”
Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753, 755 (Pa. Super. 2006)).
As this Court observed in Dempster,
this review does not require this Court to act as counsel or
otherwise advocate on behalf of a party. Rather, it requires us
only to conduct a simple review of the record to ascertain if there
appear on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that counsel,
intentionally or not, missed or misstated.
Id. at 272.
We agree with Appellant’s counsel that both the evidentiary and the
sufficiency issues asserted in the Anders-Santiago brief are wholly frivolous.
Further, after conducting our own review of the record, we find no arguably
meritorious issues that counsel missed or misstated. Therefore, we grant
counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the March 28, 2022 judgment of
sentence.
Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S06004-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/05/2023
- 10 -