Com. v. Metz, M.

J-S05004-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL A. METZ :
:
Appellant : No. 960 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 17, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-CR-0000490-2020
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED APRIL 20, 2022
Michael A. Metz appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his convictions of three counts of criminal trespass, two counts of
theft by unlawful taking, and one count each of burglary and receiving stolen
property. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3503(a)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(i), (iii); 3921(a);
3502(a)(1)(ii); 3925(a). Metz argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions, the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence,
and the trial court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence. We affirm.
In October 2019, Metz moved into a bedroom in the basement of the
home of his daughter and her husband, April Metz (“April”) and Gregory
Manzolillo. The day after Metz moved into the home, April and Manzolillo
installed padlocks on the doors of their bedroom and another bedroom on the
J-S05004-22
second floor, and informed Metz that he was not allowed in those bedrooms.
However, Metz had access to the rest of the home.
On February 1, 2020, at approximately 6:00 p.m., April dropped Metz
off at Wal-Mart on her way to her bartending job. When she left the home, all
the doors were locked, including the doors of the two second-floor bedrooms.
Manzolillo was not at home, as he worked overnight hours at his job.
When she returned home at approximately 2:30 a.m., April went to her
second-floor bedroom and noticed that the padlock on the door had been
broken. April then entered the room and observed that the lock to the safe in
the closet had been pried open. April noticed that several items were taken
from the safe, including an envelope containing her tuition money —
approximately $4,000 in hundreds and twenties, a car title, Manzolillo’s
passport and W-2 forms, and several paycheck stubs. Further, a Remington
870 pump-action shotgun was missing from the closet. Notably, none of the
other doors or windows in the home appeared to be damaged, and nothing
else of value was missing.
April immediately confronted Metz about the missing items and
threatened to call the police. After Metz denied knowledge of the burglary,
April called the police. In the interim, April reviewed indoor motion-activated
surveillance footage, and saw Metz going upstairs toward the bedroom and
come back down the stairs with a clothing donation box, which included a tall
slender object resembling the barrel of a shotgun.
-2-
J-S05004-22
Upon arriving at the scene, the police discovered the shotgun behind
the headboard of Metz’s bed. As a result, the police arrested Metz and
subsequently found that he possessed $3,104 in his glasses case. Notably, the
denominations of the money included 29 hundred dollar bills and 8 twenty
dollar bills. After the police had left their home, April and Manzolillo found their
missing documents in the dresser next to Metz’s bed. The couple also found
the empty envelope that had contained April’s tuition money and the face
plate of the safe in a trash can in the basement. April informed the police
about these discoveries.
The case proceeded to a jury trial, at which evidence of the foregoing
as well as the surveillance footage was presented. The jury ultimately found
Metz guilty of two counts of theft by unlawful taking and one count each of
burglary, criminal trespass, and receiving stolen property. Separately, the trial
court found Metz guilty of two counts of criminal trespass. Thereafter, on
March 17, 2021, the trial court sentenced Metz to an aggregate sentence of 3
to 10 years’ imprisonment.1 Metz filed a post-sentence motion, asserting, inter
____________________________________________
1 Specifically, the trial court imposed a prison sentence of 1½ to 5 years for
the burglary conviction, and a consecutive prison sentence of 1½ to 5 years
for a theft by unlawful taking conviction. For guideline calculations, Metz had
a prior record score of 4. The burglary conviction had an offense gravity score
of 7, which resulted in a standard range of 18 to 24 months in prison. The
theft by unlawful taking conviction had an offense gravity score of 8, which
resulted in a standard minimum range of 21-27 months in prison. The other
counts merged for the purposes of sentencing.
-3-
J-S05004-22
alia, that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and the
sentence was excessive. The trial court denied the motion, and this timely
appeal followed.2
On appeal, Metz raises the following questions for our review:
1. Whether there was legally insufficient evidence to support
[Metz’s] convictions where the Commonwealth failed to
exclude beyond a reasonable doubt the possibility that
someone other than [Metz] was the one who broke into the
complainants’ bedroom and safe, as the evidence on record
was consistent with this inference of an alternative
perpetrator?
2. Whether the verdicts went against the weight of the evidence
where, inter alia, [Metz] innocently remained in the house after
the alleged burglary; he knew about the security camera in the
living-room; the shaft seen to be sticking out of the box could
not be certainly identified as a gun; and the cash that was
found on him was in a different amount from the cash he was
alleged to have stolen, though the difference was never found
in the house?
3. Whether the Court abused its discretion in sentencing [Metz]
to 3-10 years in prison without due regard to the mitigating
circumstances of his case, the lack of malice, the minimal
impact on the alleged victims, and without explaining how such
a sentence was necessary to protect the public or to
rehabilitate [Metz]?
Brief for Appellant at 9-10.3
____________________________________________
2 Metz initially filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 18, 2021, despite being
represented by counsel. However, this Court dismissed this appeal as
prematurely filed. See Commonwealth v. Metz, 354 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super.
filed May 5, 2021) (per curiam).
3 We note that despite being represented by counsel on appeal, Metz, pro se,
filed a separate letter to this Court raising various claims of his trial counsel’s
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S05004-22
In his first claim, Metz contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions. See id. at 25. In support of this claim, Metz does not
cite or argue any specific element of any of the crimes for which he was
convicted; instead, he asserts that the evidence did not sufficiently establish
him as the perpetrator. See id. at 25-33; see also id. at 27-28 (arguing that
his convictions were based upon the allegation that he broke into the locked
bedroom, and, therefore, if the evidence was insufficient to establish that he
entered the bedroom, the evidence would be insufficient to support any of the
convictions). Specifically, Metz asserts that the circumstantial evidence
supporting the inference that he was the perpetrator who entered the
bedroom was also consistent with the opposing inference that someone else
had committed the burglary. See id. at 25, 28, 33. Metz highlights that
although cash was found on him, neither his fingerprints nor his DNA were
found on the allegedly stolen gun, the broken locks or the safe; he observed
the front door was open when he got home from Walmart; and the police
could not establish when the burglary occurred. See id. at 31-32.
Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is as follows:
____________________________________________
ineffectiveness. It is well settled that Metz is not entitled to hybrid
representation. See Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032, 1036 (Pa.
2011). In any event, we note that Metz’s ineffectiveness claims are premature,
and he is free to raise these claims in a timely filed Post Conviction Relief Act
petition. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 576 (Pa. 2013)
(reaffirming general rule that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are
deferred to PCRA review, and such claims should not be reviewed upon direct
appeal absent special circumstances).
-5-
J-S05004-22
The standard we apply ... 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
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 [trier]
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, 229 A.3d 298, 305-06 (Pa. Super. 2020)
(citation omitted).
The evidence presented at trial established that Metz moved in with April
and Manzolillo and had a bedroom in their basement. See N.T., 3/8/21, at 92-
93. April and Manzolillo installed padlocks on the doors of the second-floor
bedrooms, and informed Metz that he was not allowed in the bedrooms. See
id. at 94-95, 119; see also N.T., 3/9/21, at 146-47. However, according to
April, Metz had a key to the basement door and had access to the rest of the
home. See N.T., 3/8/21, at 93, 117-118.
On February 1, 2020, at approximately 6:00 p.m., April took Metz to
Wal-Mart on her way to work. See id. at 96-97. April indicated that all the
doors, including the bedroom doors, were locked when she left. See id. at 97.
-6-
J-S05004-22
When she returned later that night, she noticed that the padlock on her
bedroom door had been broken. See id. at 97-98. April noticed that the safe
in the closet had been pried open and various items were missing, including
an envelope containing about $4000, a car title, Manzolillo’s passport and W-
2 forms, and pay stubs. See id. at 98-100, 107, 120-21; see also N.T.,
3/9/21, at 167, 189. Further, a shotgun was missing from the closet. See
N.T., 3/9/21, at 148-149.
April called the police and subsequently reviewed the indoor motion-
activated surveillance footage and saw Metz moving a clothing donation box
through the living room with a cylindrical object that appeared to be a
shotgun. See N.T., 3/8/21, at 103-07, 124; see also N.T., 3/9/21, at 157-58
(wherein the jury was shown the video). No other motion was detected on the
surveillance system on the night in question. See N.T., 3/8/21, at 113-114.
The police responded to the scene and ultimately discovered the
shotgun between the headboard of Metz’s bed and the wall. See N.T., 3/9/21,
at 200-01. The police arrested Metz and found that he possessed $3,104 in
his glasses case in similar denominations to the missing money. See id. at
179-181. After the police left, April and Manzolillo found the missing
documents in the dresser next to Metz’s bed in the basement. See N.T.,
3/8/21, at 107, 131-32; see also N.T, 3/9/21, at 154-55, 170. April and
Manzolillo also discovered the envelope that had contained her money, and
the face plate of the safe that had been pried off in the trash can in the
-7-
J-S05004-22
basement. See N.T., 3/8/21, at 108, 110, 130. Further, the couple indicated
that none of the doors or windows appeared to be damaged, and nothing else
of value was missing. See id. at 113, 134; see also N.T., 3/9/21, at 175.
For his part, Metz testified that upon returning from Wal-Mart, he
noticed that the front door was open. See N.T., 3/9/21, at 260. Metz
acknowledged that he was aware of the surveillance system in the home, and
the box he was seen carrying in the video contained clothing to be donated
and that the cylindrical object was a broken black broom handle. See id. at
260, 261-62. Metz denied breaking open the lock on the bedroom and taking
the items from the closet and safe. See id. at 255-56. Metz indicated that he
received the $3000 found in his glasses case from a female friend. See id. at
267. However, on cross-examination, Metz admitted that in his testimony at
the preliminary hearing, he had stated that he earned some of the money
from a job. See id. at 269-71.
When reviewing the credible evidence set forth by the Commonwealth,
as well as the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence in the light
most favorable to it, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Metz was
the perpetrator who committed the crimes. Indeed, April and Manzolillo
padlocked their bedroom and admonished Metz that he was not allowed in the
room. On the date of the burglary, Metz is the only person in the home
captured on the surveillance camera, and all the items taken from the
-8-
J-S05004-22
padlocked bedroom were in Metz’s bedroom, in a trash can in the basement,
or in his possession.
The only evidence admitted at trial that another perpetrator committed
the crimes was through Metz’s own testimony, which the jury, as the finder of
fact, found to be not credible. Therefore, the jury reasonably concluded that
Metz entered a separately secured portion of the home without permission,
pried open the safe, and took the gun, money, and documents. Accordingly,
the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. See Commonwealth
v. Thomas, 561 A.2d 699, 705 (Pa. Super. 1989) (concluding that evidence
that appellant entered victim’s apartment without license to do so and items
taken from apartment were found in appellant’s possession established
sufficient evidence to support burglary conviction); see also
Commonwealth v. Janda, 14 A.3d 147, 164 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finding
evidence sufficient to support receiving stolen property conviction where the
stolen items from nine similar burglaries were found in appellant’s
possession).
Next, Metz contends that the verdicts were against the weight of the
evidence. See Brief for Appellant at 34, 41. Metz argues that there was
exculpatory evidence presented at trial, including that he remained in the
house after the alleged burglary, he knew about the security camera in the
home, the shaft seen to be sticking out of the box could not be identified as a
gun; and the cash that was found on him was in a different amount from the
-9-
J-S05004-22
cash that was stolen. See id. at 34, 35-38, 40; see also id. at 39 (claiming
that the video was of such “dodgy” quality to be of probative weight). Metz
also asserts that it strains credulity that he would remain in the home after
the committing the burglary, and that the evidence on record did not preclude
an inference that it was an unknown intruder, or the complainants themselves
who broke the locks to the bedroom. See id. at 36, 40.
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.
Commonwealth v. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 414 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation
and emphasis omitted).
Here, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Metz’s
weight of the evidence claim. As noted above, the credible evidence
established that Metz broke into April’s and Manzolillo’s bedroom and stole a
gun, money, and other items, which were subsequently found in Metz’s
possession or in his bedroom. The jury, as the trier of fact, was well within its
authority to believe the Commonwealth’s evidence, and not believe Metz’s
testimony. See Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013)
(noting that appellate courts are precluded from reweighing the evidence and
substituting our judgment for that of the fact-finder). In this regard, the jury
observed the video and was free to interpret whether the box carried by Metz
- 10 -
J-S05004-22
contained the shotgun. Moreover, the fact that Metz remained in the home
with the stolen items does not render the verdicts so contrary to the evidence
as to shock one’s sense of justice, especially where, as here, the credible
evidence established the elements of the crimes. Accordingly, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Metz’s weight challenge. See
Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381, 396 (Pa. 2011) (“A motion
alleging the verdict was against the weight of the evidence should not be
granted where it merely identifies contradictory evidence presented by the
Commonwealth and the defendant”).
In his final claim, Metz challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle
an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162,
170 (Pa. Super. 2010). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary
sentencing issue, this Court conducts
a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed
a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether
the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to
reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3)
whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and
(4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence
appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation and brackets omitted).
Here, Metz filed a timely notice of appeal and raised his sentencing claim
in a timely post-sentence motion. Metz also included a separate Rule 2119(f)
- 11 -
J-S05004-22
Statement in his brief; accordingly, we will review his Rule 2119(f) statement
to determine whether he has raised a substantial question.
“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d
323, 330 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). “A substantial question [exists]
only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing
judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the
Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie
the sentencing process.” Id. (citation omitted).
In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Metz argues that the trial court
improperly failed to consider the standards for sentencing set forth by 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), including his rehabilitative needs and the nature and
circumstances of the offenses. See Brief for Appellant at 22. This claim raises
a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135,
143 (Pa. Super. 2011) (recognizing that a claim that impugns the trial court's
failure to offer specific reasons for the sentence, which “comport with the
considerations required in section 9721(b)[,]” raises a substantial question).
Our standard of review of a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a
sentence is well settled:
Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
- 12 -
J-S05004-22
judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or
arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 26 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation
omitted).
Metz contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the
sentence because the trial court did not meaningfully consider the protection
of the public, the gravity of the offense in relation to the impact on the victim
and the community, or Metz’s rehabilitative needs. See Brief for Appellant at
41, 43. Metz highlights that he never left the house after the burglary and the
crimes do not impact the public. See id. at 43-44.
Here, the record reflects that the trial court had the benefit of a
presentence investigation report (“PSI”) prior to imposing its sentence. See
N.T., 3/17/21, at 8, 10, 14, 19; see also Trial Court Opinion, 9/27/21, at 15.
Moreover, the trial court reviewed Metz’s employment and family background,
his medical and mental health issues, his drug counseling and psychiatric
inpatient treatment, the fact he was homeless, and his prior criminal history.
See N.T., 3/17/21, at 7-8, 9-11. The trial court also heard a statement from
April, who explained that the crimes had led her to seek counseling for anxiety,
depression, and PTSD. See id. at 3-5. Finally, Metz spoke on his own behalf,
proclaiming his innocence and complaining of poor prison conditions and his
stolen property in April’s home. See id. at 14-19. Thereafter, the trial court
reviewed the evidence of the case and imposed the sentence, highlighting that
- 13 -
J-S05004-22
sentence for the theft conviction was in the mitigated range. See id. at 20-
23.
Upon review, the trial court did consider Metz’s rehabilitative needs, the
protection of the public, and the gravity of the offense. Based upon these
considerations, we discern no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in imposing
Metz’s sentence. See Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa.
Super. 2009) (stating that “where the trial court is informed by a [PSI], it is
presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and
considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion
should not be disturbed”).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/20/2022
- 14 -