J-S40037-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
RONALD CALLOWAY, :
:
Appellant : No. 279 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 12, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001584-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
Ronald Calloway (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence of
two and one-half to five years’ incarceration entered February 12, 2015,
following his conviction for failure to comply with sexual offender registration
requirements. We affirm.
By virtue of a qualifying prior conviction, Appellant was, and remains,
subject to the address registration requirements of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).1 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 9799.13. On
August 24, 2014, at approximately 9:39 pm, Officer Michael Bittner of the
Uniontown Police Department was dispatched to 63 Pershing Court in
Uniontown to investigate an alleged domestic disturbance. Officer Bittner
obtained information from Andrea Ohler, a resident of 63 Pershing Court and
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40037-15
Appellant’s girlfriend, that Appellant had been living at the residence for
several months following his release from prison. Subsequently, Officer
Bittner learned from the Megan’s Law Section of the Pennsylvania State
Police that Appellant’s registered address was 13 Booker Way, Uniontown,
Pennsylvania.
Appellant was charged with the aforementioned offense. The matter
proceeded to a jury trial and, on February 3, 2015, Appellant was found
guilty. On February 12, 2015, Appellant was sentenced as indicated above.
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with
the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence presented was
insufficient to sustain his conviction. Appellant’s Brief at 7. Our standard of
review is as follows:
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
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
-2-
J-S40037-15
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. Harden, 103 A.3d 107, 111 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citations and quotations omitted).
As an individual subject to registration under SORNA, Appellant was
required to “appear in person at an approved registration site within three
business days to provide current information relating to [inter alia]: … (2) A
commencement of residence, change in residence, termination of residence
or failure to maintain a residence, thus making the individual a transient.”
42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(g). For the purposes of SORNA, “residence” is defined
as “[a] location where an individual resides or is domiciled or intends to be
domiciled for 30 consecutive days or more during a calendar year.” 42
Pa.C.S. § 9799.12. The statute under which Appellant was convicted
provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n individual who is subject to registration
under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.13 [] commits an offense if he knowingly fails to …
verify his address … as required[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(2).
The Commonwealth presented the following evidence at trial.
Angela Ohler, Appellant’s girlfriend and resident of 63
Pershing Court, testified that Appellant moved into her house on
March 23, 2014, consistently stayed overnight for long periods of
time, bought groceries for her children, and kept numerous
personal items at 63 Pershing Court between his release on
March 23, 2014 and August 24, 2014. [Ms. Ohler testified that
she had helped move Appellant’s possessions from 13 Booker
-3-
J-S40037-15
Way to 63 Pershing Court. Further, she testified that Appellant
contacted her via telephone from the county jail before trial to
request that she change her testimony and say that Appellant
was residing at 13 Booker Way at the time of his arrest.]
The Commonwealth also presented testimony from the
City of Uniontown Police Captain David J. Rutter, who is
responsible for the Megan’s Law updates and verifications that
occur at the Fayette County Booking Center and assisted
Patrolman Bittner in investigating [] Appellant. Captain Rutter
testified that he used J-Net to retrieve Appellant’s registration
information and that Appellant had registered the address at 13
Booker Way. Further, Captain Rutter stated Appellant told him
during the initial interview that he had slept at the 13 Booker
Way address only once in the past two weeks. The jury did not
find credible Appellant’s testimony that he did not sleep
anywhere at night, and only stayed at 63 Pershing Court during
the day. Captain Rutter testified that upon responding to 63
Pershing Court, he observed larger, men’s clothing strewn about
the bedroom at the residence.
Captain Rutter also stated that a person is required to
report any new or additional addresses to the State Police within
three (3) days of moving. [Further, through State Police
Investigator Timothy Kirsch, the Commonwealth presented
evidence that, at the time he registered the Booker Way address
as his residence in May of 2014, Appellant signed a form
acknowledging his awareness of the Megan’s Law registration
requirements, including the policy for updating one’s address
with the State Police.]
Trial Court Opinion, 4/8/2015, at 3-4.
When this evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we cannot agree that it is unreliable
and speculative as claimed by Appellant. The testimony of the
Commonwealth witnesses, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to support
Appellant’s conviction. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276,
-4-
J-S40037-15
1283 (Pa. Super. 2006). Thus, we agree with the trial court that the
evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt that Appellant was residing at 63 Pershing Court and had
knowingly failed to update his address as required by SORNA. Accordingly,
we find no error on the part of the trial court, and affirm Appellant’s
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/9/2015
-5-
Com. v. Calloway, R.
Combined Opinion