J-A12001-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RONALD CHARLES BACHNER :
:
Appellant : No. 414 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 19, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0002239-2017
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
Appellant, Ronald Charles Bachner, pro se, appeals from the judgment
of sentence of six months of probation, which was imposed after his conviction
at a bench trial for unsworn falsification to authorities – statements “under
penalty.”1 Appellant claims, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to
sustain his conviction. After careful review, we agree with Appellant, and we
reverse his conviction and vacate his judgment of sentence.
The facts underlying this appeal are as follows:
On August 19, 2016, Appellant traveled to Island Firearms in
Neville Township[, Allegheny County,] attempting to complete an
online purchase of a Phoenix Arms semiautomatic pistol. Prior to
completing the firearm purchase, Appellant was provided with two
packets of forms, one being the ATF 4473 [(“ATF Form”)] and the
other the Pennsylvania State Police [Form] SP 4-113 [(“PSP
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b).
J-A12001-20
Form”)], both required by state law to be completed prior to
purchasing a firearm. Both forms place the buyer on notice that
they must answer the questions truthfully . . . When completing
the forms, Appellant . . . answered in the negative when asked
about whether he had prior convictions for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, even if a shorter
sentence was served. The clerk processed the forms and
Appellant was denied by PICS (Pennsylvania Instant Check
System), to which he filed an appeal . . . The appeal was ultimately
denied.
Officer D. Ryan Ging, of the Ohio Township Police Department,
was assigned with the investigation of the matter and learned that
Appellant was convicted in March 2013 for bribery (F2)[, 18
Pa.C.S. § 4701(a)(1),] and official oppression (M2), [id.
§ 5301(1),] thereby disqualifying him from possessing and/or
transferring a firearm.[2]
Trial Court Opinion, dated December 6, 2019, at 6-7.
On December 1, 2016, Officer Ging filed a criminal complaint against
Appellant, charging him with unsworn falsification to authorities, as well as
knowingly and intentionally making materially false written statement,
including a statement on any form promulgated by Federal or State agencies,
in connection with the purchase, delivery or transfer of a firearm. 3 The
criminal complaint alleged that Appellant had falsely answered Question 11.c.
on the ATF Form and Questions 31 and 32 on the PSP Form.
ATF Form 11.c. asked: “Have you ever been convicted in any court of
a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you
for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including
____________________________________________
2 Commonwealth v. Bachner, 153 A.3d 1110 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(unpublished memorandum).
3 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(4)(ii).
-2-
J-A12001-20
probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.)” Appellant checked the box
marked “No” but also wrote a question mark and his initials next to the
question.
PSP Form Question 31 asked: “HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF
A CRIME ENUMERATED IN SECTION 6105(B), OR DO ANY OF THE
CONDITIONS UNDER 6105(C) APPLY TO YOU? (READ INFORMATION ON
BACK PRIOR TO ANSWERING.)” Appellant checked the box for “NO.”
PSP Form Question 32 asked:
ARE YOU NOW CHARGED WITH, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN
CONVICTED OF A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A
TERM EXCEEDING ONE YEAR? THIS IS THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE
THAT YOU “COULD HAVE RECEIVED,” NOT THE ACTUAL
SENTENCE YOU DID RECEIVE. (THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE
FEDERAL OR STATE OFFENSES PERTAINING TO ANTITRUST,
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, OR
REGULATION OF BUSINESS; OR STATE OFFENSES CLASSIFIED
AS MISDEMEANORS AND PUNISHABLE BY A TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED TWO YEARS.) (READ
INFORMATION ON BACK PRIOR TO ANSWERING.)
Appellant again checked the box for “NO.”
At Appellant’s bench trial on October 10, 2017, Appellant was
represented by counsel, and the Commonwealth presented its case entirely
by stipulations. The parties stipulated to Appellant’s 2013 conviction for felony
bribery. N.T. at 5. The Commonwealth also submitted Officer Ging’s affidavit
of probable cause as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 and the ATF Form and the
PSP Form combined as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2, all on stipulation. Id.
-3-
J-A12001-20
Appellant was the sole witness at trial, and he testified that he was
aware that he had been convicted of “some crimes” in 2013 and served three
years of probation. Id. at 7-8. He was asked about his understanding of
“what [he] could do and couldn’t do once [he] completed the probation and
paid the court costs and fines[,]” and he answered, “Well, I figured I was a
normal citizen again.” Id. at 9. He was then specifically asked about the
impact of his 2013 convictions on his firearms license:
Q. With respect to – let’s go back to 2013. As of 2013, did you
have a license to carry a firearm?
A. Yes.
Q. Subsequent to your conviction, did the sheriff’s department
ever notify you that they were revoking that license to carry that
firearm?
A. No.
Id. Appellant added that he had asked the attorney who was handling his
appeal from the 2013 matter how those convictions would “affect[ his] gun
rights[,]” but his counsel did not know. Id. at 11. He was then shown the
ATF Form and asked:
Q. All right. Can you explain to the [c]ourt on that form,
Question No. 11-C, do you see it?
A. Yes.
Q. It asks you, “Have you ever been convicted in any court of
a felony or any other crime for which the Judge could have
imprisoned you for more than one year even if you received a
shorter sentence, including probation (see instructions for
Question 11-C).” Do you see that?
A. Yes.
-4-
J-A12001-20
Q. What did you put down?
A. Well, I answered no, but I also -- I also put a question mark
there with my initial because I wasn’t sure of the proper answer
to that question, based on my understanding at that time of
events in my life. . . .
Q. And how did you understand that?
A. Well, I thought I had my rights to vote restored after I did
my probation. I didn’t see -- having known that, knowing that
I had a permit from Allegheny County to carry a gun, I thought
that was the appropriate answer . . .
[Q.] What is your understanding of what happens if you just
answer yes even if confused?
A. I answered the questions to the best of my ability. I’m
assuming that, you know, the decision whether or not I get a
firearm is in somebody else’s hands.
Id. at 13-14. Appellant was then shown the PSP Form and asked:
Q. All right. That form asks, “Have you ever been convicted of
a crime enumerated in Section 6105(b) or do any of the conditions
under 6105(c) apply to you? Read information on back prior to
answering.” When you filled in “no” for that, did you read the
instructions on the back prior to answering?
A. Which question are you referring to?
Q. That would be Question No. 31.
A. Question 31, you know, you look at the back, and you go
through the information on the back of the types of convictions
that they determine -- my copy is not readable, but they
determine what individuals and what convictions cannot receive a
gun.
Q. When you read Question No. 31, which directs you to read
the information on the back prior to answering, did you read the
information on the back prior to answering?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. The same with Question No. 32, which asks, “Are
you charged with or have you ever been convicted of a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year? This
-5-
J-A12001-20
is the maximum sentence you could have received,” et cetera, et
cetera. And then it goes on to talk about restraint in trade,
regulation of business or state offenses being excludable, and that
also tells you to read the information on the back prior to
answering. Did you read the information on the back prior to
answering those questions?
A. I believe so. Again, this form reminded me of the
application for a firearm. I did read that. I never knew what
I could be convicted for or what the penalty could have been for
bribery and official oppression. No one ever told me that, and
I couldn’t find it anywhere.
Id. at 17-18. Appellant further explained: “After my conviction in 2013, okay,
in 2014 the sheriff’s office sent me a renewal. I filled out the renewal for that
permit, sent it in, and the sheriff’s office reissued the firearms license. They
reissued me another one.” Id. at 22.
On cross-examination, the Commonwealth again asked Appellant about
his understanding of Question 11.c. from the ATF Form:
Q. And we can agree that the Question 11-C that you filled out
on that form says that regardless of punishment, even including a
period of probation, that you would have to check no -- or you
would have to check yes to that form, correct?
A. I don’t understand. . . .
Q. At the end of that question it says “including a period of
probation,” does it not?
A. That’s in the question?
THE COURT: It’s not a discussion. If you don’t understand
the question --
A. I don’t understand. I’m not following –
Id. at 23-24.
After counsel’s arguments, the trial court took the matter under
advisement. Id. at 36.
-6-
J-A12001-20
On October 19, 2017, the trial reconvened. The trial court found
Appellant guilty of unsworn falsification to authorities and not guilty of
knowingly and intentionally making materially false written statement. 4 The
court immediately sentenced Appellant to six months of probation.
On October 27, 2017, Appellant filed pro se post-sentence
motions. Th[e trial c]ourt did not rule on the motions, nor did the
Department of Court Records issue an Order denying the post-
sentence motions by operation of law. On March 21, 2018,
Appellant filed a pro se Notice of Appeal.
On October 23, 2018, the [t]rial [c]ourt sent a letter to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court Prothonotary indicating that it did not
act on the Appellant’s pro se Notice of Appeal as a result of there
being no final order, which was required to properly perfect an
appeal. On December 19, 2018, the Superior Court remanded
jurisdiction to the [t]rial [c]ourt for the entry of an order denying
Appellant’s post-sentence motions by operation of law and to
determine the status of Appellant’s counsel, including whether
counsel abandoned Appellant and whether Appellant retained
counsel or intended to proceed pro se pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
The Department of Court Records issued an Order denying the
post-sentence motions by operation of law on January 2, 2019.
Appellant did not file a timely Notice of Appeal within thirty days
____________________________________________
4There is no explanation in the certified record as to why the trial court found
Appellant guilty of unsworn falsification to authorities but not guilty of making
materially false written statement. Pursuant to our research, we found no
cases where a defendant was charged with both crimes but only convicted of
one.
Additionally, nowhere in the trial court opinion nor elsewhere in the record
does the court state what question or questions on which of the two forms it
found that Appellant answered falsely. See generally Trial Court Opinion,
dated December 6, 2019. Additionally, in its brief to this Court, the
Commonwealth only references Question 11.c. from the ATF Form and makes
no mention of any questions from the PSP Form. Commonwealth’s Brief at
18. This lack of precision by both the trial court and the Commonwealth has
encumbered our consideration of this appeal.
-7-
J-A12001-20
of the date of that denial order. On May 20, 2019, the [t]rial
[c]ourt sent another letter to the Superior Court Prothonotary
indicating that chambers had been notified by Appellant in writing
that he intended to proceed pro se and that prior counsel had been
terminated. Additionally, the [t]rial [c]ourt indicated that the
Department of Court Records had issued an Order denying the
post-sentence motions by operation of law, Appellant failed to
properly perfect an appeal from that denial order, and as such,
the [t]rial [c]ourt considered the March 21, 2018 pro se appeal
terminated.
On June 18, 2019, the Superior Court issued a Rule to Show Cause
indicating that because Appellant had filed an appeal in excess of
the thirty-day time period, that Appellant was to file a letter with
the Superior Court Prothonotary showing cause why the appeal
should not be quashed. On June 28, 2019, Appellant filed his
response. On July 12, 2019, the Superior Court issued an Order
directing the [t]rial [c]ourt to determine if prior counsel had
properly withdrawn as counsel of record and to schedule a hearing
to determine whether counsel had abandoned Appellant and
whether Appellant intended to proceed pro se pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
On August 22, 2019, the [t]rial [c]ourt held a hearing on the
matter and issued an Order on August 23, 2019, holding that:
(1) prior counsel had not properly withdrawn his representation;
(2) Appellant had initiated pro se post-sentence proceedings
without informing his counsel; (3) Appellant intended to proceed
pro se, and, (4) that the [t]rial [c]ourt had conducted a colloquy
with Appellant regarding his decision to represent himself and
determined that his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent,
and voluntary pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d
81 (Pa. 1998).
On October 1, 2019, the [t]rial [c]ourt issued an Order directing
Appellant to file his Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal pursuant to [Pa.]R.A.P. 1925(b) within twenty-one days of
receipt of the Order.
On October 21, 2019, Appellant filed his 1925(b) Statement.
Id. at 2-5.5
____________________________________________
5 The trial court entered its opinion on December 6, 2019.
-8-
J-A12001-20
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
[1.] Did Appellant make any knowingly false statements in
violation of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904(b)?
[2.] Is [PSP Form] unconstitutional and/or flawed as the form
did not inform [Appellant] of his Fifth Amendment constitutional
right not to provide evidence or statements that could be used
against [Appellant] in any prosecution?
[3.] Is [PSP Form] unconstitutional and/or flawed as the form
did not inform [Appellant] he did not have to provide any
information other than identifying information in accordance with
18 Pa. C.S. § 6111(b) thus exposing [Appellant] to prosecution
without notice?
[4.] Is [PSP Form] unconstitutional and/or flawed as the form
did not inform [Appellant] that his 2013 conviction for bribery (18
Pa.C.S. §4701(a)(1)) is “disabling” under State and Federal law,
as the Commonwealth claims, and is not listed under 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 6105(b) or 6105(c) which identifies prohibiting offenses thus
denying [Appellant] constitutional protections and due process?
[5.] Is [Appellant] within Question 32 of [PSP Form] as the
question applies to those who are identified within 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 6105(b) and or 6105(c), which Officer Ryan Ging describes as
deceptive?
[6.] That all felonies are not disabling but character based as per
the Commonwealth v. Baxter (decided August 28, 2008) case
used to prosecute [Appellant]. If [Appellant]’s bribery conviction
is disabling then [Appellant] was not put on notice of [Appellant]’s
disabling of his Second Amendment constitutional right and
Pennsylvania rights under Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1,
Section 21, to purchase a handgun for protection or when it (the
disabling) would and or could be restored.
Appellant’s Brief at 5-7 (issues re-ordered to facilitate disposition) (suggested
answers omitted).
We first consider Appellant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to
sustain his conviction. Appellant’s Brief at 49. Appellant asserts that he
-9-
J-A12001-20
answered the questions and signed the forms at the end thereof (pursuant to
Section 4904’s unsworn falsification to authorities) to the best of his
knowledge, providing answers that he believed to be true. See id. at 51. He
adds: “The forms, either state or federal, cannot speak to Appellant[’]s
mindset and reasons for actions or reasons for placement of any answer.
There was no oral testimony from the Police Officer or the Island Firearms
clerk. There were no third party statements.” Id. Accordingly, “Appellant
asserts that [he] made no knowingly false statements[.]” Id.
This Court’s standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence
claims is as follows:
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial,
and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when
viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable
doubt. Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier
of fact to find every element of the crime has been
established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of
the evidence claim must fail.
The evidence established at trial need not preclude every
possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe
all, part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within
the province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and
substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The
Commonwealth’s burden may be met by wholly
circumstantial evidence and any doubt about the
defendant’s guilt is 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 from the
combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523, 525 (Pa.Super.
2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342, 345
(Pa.Super. 2012)).
- 10 -
J-A12001-20
Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803, 806 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal
brackets omitted).
The trial court convicted Appellant of violating Section 4904(b), which
provides: “A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he makes
a written false statement which he does not believe to be true, on or
pursuant to a form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false
statements made therein are punishable.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b) (emphasis
added).
Preliminarily, we note that Appellant has not been convicted of any of
the crimes enumerated in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(b) nor does he qualify for any of
the categories listed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(c). Therefore, he answered PSP
Form Question 31 correctly.
As for ATF Form Question 11.c. and PSP Form Question 32, it is
undisputed that Appellant had been convicted of felony bribery and thus
should have answered “Yes” to these two questions. The only issue for our
review therefore is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that
Appellant did “not believe” his answers “to be true” when he answered “No”
to both questions. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b).
In Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 789 A.2d 731, 732 (Pa. Super. 2001),
the appellant analogously was convicted of unsworn falsification to authorities
and contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; this
Court agreed and reversed his conviction. In Kennedy, id., the appellant had
completed an Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms, which,
- 11 -
J-A12001-20
like the forms at issue in the current action, required various questions to be
answered “Yes” or “No.” The appellant answered “No” to a question asking if
he had ever been convicted of an offense under The Controlled Substance,
Drug, Device, and Cosmetic Act. Id. at 733. Following a PICS check, a
Cumberland County deputy sheriff discovered that the appellant had been
convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
Id. at 734. The appellant argued that he had answered the questions to the
best of his knowledge and that he had made a “mistake” when interpreting
the question about his prior drug conviction due to his “confusion” over when
to reference the back of the application in answering the questions. Id.
Furthermore, this Court observed:
[I]t is uncontroverted that the only evidence reflective of the state
of mind of the accused was generated by Appellant, who stated
unequivocally his actions were the product of confusion and not a
knowing intent to falsify information. Thus, evidence of Appellant
(in answering [the question about prior drug convictions])
“mak[ing a] written false statement ... not believ[ing it] to be
true” is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no
probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Id. Accordingly, this Court held that the fact-finder “ignored the unrefuted
account that Appellant’s act of filling out [the form] was the product of a
mistake and not the knowing and intentional act of one seeking to deceive.”
Id.
Appellant in the current appeal likewise had completed a form related
to firearms that required various questions to be answered “Yes” or “No.”
Compare Kennedy, 789 A.2d at 732, with Trial Court Opinion, dated
- 12 -
J-A12001-20
December 6, 2019, at 6. Appellant was similarly convicted of unsworn
falsification to authorities based on answering “No” to questions about his prior
convictions. Compare Kennedy, 789 A.2d at 733, with Trial Court Opinion,
dated December 6, 2019, at 7. His negative answers were proven to be false
following a PICS check. Compare Kennedy, 789 A.2d at 734, with Trial
Court Opinion, dated December 6, 2019, at 7. Appellant comparably testified
that he had answered the questions to the best of his knowledge and that any
mistake was due to his confusion as to what the questions were asking.
Compare Kennedy, 789 A.2d at 734, with N.T. at 13, 15. In addition to
Appellant’s trial testimony about his confusion, he also contemporaneously
wrote a question mark on the ATF Form next to Question 11.c. while
completing the form in the firearms store, further demonstrating his
confusion. N.T. at 13. Additionally, when the Commonwealth cross-examined
Appellant about his comprehension of certain language in Question 11.c., he
repeatedly replied, “I don’t understand[,]” further supporting his assertion
that he was confused about the question. Id. at 24.
Furthermore, as with the appellant in Kennedy, 789 A.2d at 734,
Appellant was the sole witness, meaning that it was also “uncontroverted” in
the current case “that the only evidence of the state of mind of the accused
was generated by Appellant, who stated unequivocally his actions were the
product of confusion and not a knowing intent to falsify information.” The
Commonwealth presented no direct evidence of Appellant’s intent or belief in
- 13 -
J-A12001-20
answering the questions, whereas Appellant testified that he thought that his
answers were “appropriate[.]” N.T. at 14.
Moreover, Appellant had several reasons for answering “No” to ATF
Form Question 11.c. and PSP Form Question 32 in good faith. First, his
firearms license had been renewed subsequent to his 2013 convictions; in
fact, the sheriff’s office had sent the renewal form to him. Id. at 9, 14, 22.
Thus, he had no reason to believe that his 2013 convictions disqualified him
from anything relating to firearms or that he would not have the same rights
as a “normal citizen again.” Id. at 9.
Second, Appellant testified that he “never knew . . . what the penalty
could have been for bribery and official oppression[,]” that “[n]o one ever told
him[,]” and that he “couldn’t find it anywhere.” Id. at 18. If he genuinely did
not know that his convictions could have resulted in imprisonment for more
than one year – and the Commonwealth presented no evidence challenging
Appellant’s assertion, then his answers to ATF Form Question 11.c. and PSP
Form Question 32, while misguided, were not deceitful.6
Of course, the trial court was not required to believe Appellant’s denials.
Izurieta, 171 A.3d at 806 (“the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none
of the evidence presented”). However, the trial court did not expressly
____________________________________________
6 We further recognize that no one asked Appellant if he understood what a
“felony” is, as the term is used in ATF Form Question 11.c., or if he
comprehended that his bribery conviction qualified as a “felony.” See
generally id.
- 14 -
J-A12001-20
address Appellant’s credibility. See generally Trial Court Opinion, dated
December 6, 2019.
In conclusion, even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner, Izurieta, 171 A.3d at 806, the evidence
that Appellant “ma[d]e[] a written false statement which he d[id] not
believe to be true” pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b) was “weak and
inconclusive[,]” and, ergo, “as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be
drawn from the combined circumstances.” Kennedy, 789 A.2d at 734; see
also Izurieta, 171 A.3d at 806 (“any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is 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 from the combined
circumstances”). Hence, as this Court did in Kennedy, we are compelled to
find that the trial court, as fact-finder, ignored the unrefuted account that
Appellant’s incorrect answers on the ATF Form and the PSP Form were “the
product of a mistake and not the knowing and intentional act of one seeking
to deceive.” Id. Appellant may have been negligent in answering – or failing
to research how best to answer – ATF Form Question 11.c. and PSP Form
Question 32, but there is insufficient evidence to support a finding beyond a
reasonable doubt that Appellant believed his written false statements to be
untrue. See Izurieta, 171 A.3d at 806 (only “[w]here there is sufficient
evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been
established beyond a reasonable doubt,” can a “sufficiency of the evidence
- 15 -
J-A12001-20
claim . . . fail”). We are thereby constrained to reverse Appellant’s conviction
for violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 and to vacate his judgment of sentence. 7
Conviction for unsworn falsification to authorities reversed. Judgment
of sentence vacated.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/14/2020
____________________________________________
7 As we find the evidence to be insufficient to sustain Appellant’s sole
conviction, we need not reach his remaining appellate claims.
- 16 -