J-S57025-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIE L. BOWMAN
Appellant No. 92 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003622-2013
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014
Appellant, Willie L. Bowman, appeals from the December 6, 2013
f one count of
theft by unlawful taking and three counts of forgery.1 After careful review,
we affirm.
procedural history of this case as follows. This action arises out of a
posthumous
-6. The real property in
question consists of three adjoining parcels in Chester, Pennsylvania, upon
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(b) and 4101(a)(3), respectively.
J-S57025-14
Id. at 2 n.1. Brother died from
leukemia on November 19, 2011. Id.
Id. at 3-4. Early in 2012,
ted in
the home she shared with Brother. Id. at 3. Late in 2012, Niece was
transferring the property from Brother to Appellant were executed
Id. at 3-4, 7. Each
deed contained an acknowledgment form, signed by a notary public, which
indicated Brother appeared before the notary on the date of the transfer.
Id.
behalf, alleging Brother granted him the authority to do so during a
Id. at 8.
The Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant with various
offenses arising out of his attempted transfer of the property. Following a
two-day trial, a jury convicted Appellant of the aforementioned offenses on
October 29, 2013. The trial court sentenced Appellant on December 6,
2013. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on December 9, 2013,
-2-
J-S57025-14
which the trial court denied on December 11, 2013. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal on January 9, 2014.2
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.
1[.] Whether the evidence was insufficient to
sustain the convictions for [f]orgery since the
Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that [Appellant], with the
intent to defraud or injure another person,
made, completed, executed, authenticated,
issued, uttered, or transferred the deeds at
issue herein without authorization from the
person who [sic] those writings purported to
be from?
2[.] Whether the evidence was insufficient to
sustain the conviction for [t]heft by [u]nlawful
[t]aking (immovable property) since the
Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that [Appellant] unlawfully
transferred, or exercised unlawful control over,
immovable property of another person that he
was not entitled to?
Our standard of review regarding challenges to the sufficiency of the
In reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa.
____________________________________________
2
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3-
J-S57025-14
to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and
inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn
Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d
108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted), appeal denied, --- A.3d ---, 1033 MAL 2013 (Pa. 2014). As an
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
resolved by the fact-finder
unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no
Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 64 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
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
Id.
a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review
Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013)
(citation omitted).
Appellant initially avers that the Commonwealth failed to present
sufficient evidence to support his underlying forgery convict
Brief at 14-18, citing Commonwealth v. DiPiero, 208 A.2d 912, 915 (Pa.
-4-
J-S57025-14
Su
cert. denied,
DiPiero v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 992 (1966). Specifically, Appellant
[he] acted with the intent to defraud[] or that he signed the deeds without
Id. at 14.
The Crimes Code defines forgery in Section 4101(a) as follows.
§ 4101. Forgery.
(a) Offense defined. --A person is guilty of forgery
if, with intent to defraud or injure anyone, or
with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud
or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the
actor:
(1) alters any writing of another without his
authority;
(2) makes, completes, executes,
authenticates, issues or transfers any
writing so that it purports to be the act
of another who did not authorize that
act, or to have been executed at a time
or place or in a numbered sequence
other than was in fact the case, or to be
a copy of an original when no such
original existed; or
(3) utters any writing which he knows to be
forged in a manner specified in
paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a).
-5-
J-S57025-14
Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of
forgery pursuant to Section 4101(a)(3). When addressing the sufficiency of
reasoned as follows.
The enti
that [B]rother verbally authorized him to transfer the
deeds to the three properties to himself,
notwithstanding the fact that this was never done
admitted that nine mon
he took the deeds to the three properties, signed
each recorded by the Recorder of Deeds.
Additionally, the jury heard the testimony of [N]iece
and the independent real estate agent demonstrating
the attempts by [Brother] to sell the properties
during his lifetime. The Commonwealth proved that
Appellant altered and recorded the deeds without the
authority to do so in order to deprive the rightful
chose to reject the self-serving testimony of
Appellant was due to the abundance of evidence
thereof.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 7-8.
Herein, the Commonwealth presented evidence from Niece, who stated
that Appellant and Brother did not have a relationship and that Brother
never intended to give Appellant the property upon his death. N.T.,
10/28/13, at 99, 119. Rather, Niece testified that Brother tried to sell the
property in 2002 and 2010. Id. at 101-102. Specifically,
estate agent testified that Brother listed the property for sale from August
-6-
J-S57025-14
l
the property subsequent to February 2010. Id. at 11. Niece testified that
she maintained the property for Brother during 2011 and updated him on
any offers received from potential purchasers of the property. N.T.,
10/28/13, at 138-139; see also
estate agent testified that he forwarded any further inquiries he received
regarding the sale of the property to Niece). Additionally, Broth
attorney testified that Brother intended for the entirety of his property to
10/28/13, at 152; see also id. at Exhibit C-
confirmed that Brother chose not to bequeath any property to Appellant
within his will. Id.
three deeds, which purported to transfer the property to Appellant, were
e as grantor approximately
nine months after his death. Id. at 157, 166, 170-171, 173. Upon
examining this testimony, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to
forgery. See Patterson, supra.
first claim fails.
at 19-
-7-
J-S57025-14
[T]here is no evidence that [Appellant] knew about
the aged will or its contents. Further, his claim that
issue was not rebutted beyond a reasonable doubt.
As such, the government failed to prove that he was
not entitled to the property, or that he acted with the
intent to unlawfully benefit himself. Since a person
cannot steal that which he is entitled to, no theft
occurred.
Id.
Instantly, Appellant was convicted of stealing immovable property
pursuant to Section 3921(b) of the Crimes Code. The Code delineates the
elements of theft by unlawful taking of immovable property as follows.
§ 3921. Theft by unlawful taking or
disposition.
(b) Immovable property. A person is guilty of theft
if he unlawfully transfers, or exercises unlawful
control over, immovable property of another or any
interest therein with intent to benefit himself or
another not entitled thereto.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(b).
--Property the location of which
can be changed, including things growing on, affixed
to, or found in land, and documents although the
rights represented thereby have no physical location.
Id. § 3901.
In supp
follows.
-8-
J-S57025-14
Here, there was an abundance of evidence to
estate to himself in order to benefit his desire to run
his business [on] the property. Although Appellant
presented evidence via his own testimony and that
of two witnesses that [Brother] purportedly
authorized the transfer of the property, the jury did
he events to be a
credible account, particularly, in light of the fact that
the conversation authorizing the transfer occurred
Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 8.
described above amply supports its theory that Appellant transferred the
property of Brother to his own name to benefit himself without authorization.
See supra at 6-7. Accordingly, the Commonwealth presented sufficient
evidence to suppor See Patterson, supra.
sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S57025-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/19/2014
- 10 -