Commonwealth v. Chambers

310 A.3d 76

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Leonard CHAMBERS, Appellant

No. 15 EAP 2023

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: October 31, 2023

Decided: February 21, 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on September 27, 2022 at No. 424 EDA 2021 affirming the Order entered on January 27, 2021 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No, CP-51-CR-0009387-2019, John R. Padova, Judge.

Keisha Nicole Hudson, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, Aaron Joshua Marcus, Esq., for Appellant.

Michael J. Gonway, Esq., Robert Daniel Oliver, Esq., Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Esq., Laura Faith Zipin, Esq., for Appellee.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, MCCAFFERY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE WECHT

In 2019, the Commonwealth charged Leonard Chambers with six crimes related to his deliberate failure to perform contractually-obligated home improvement services. At the conclusion of a stipulated non-jury trial on those charges, the trial court announced its verdict: Chambers was guilty of two of the offenses and not guilty of the four others. However, at sentencing, the court ordered Chambers to serve three concurrent jail terms. Then, in its written sentencing order, the court imposed concurrent jail sentences on four offenses.

Chambers argues in this appeal that the trial court, lacked the authority to modify its original verdict after the fact. The Commonwealth agrees.¹ So do we. Thus, we vacate Chambers’ judgment of sentence, and we remand for resentencing only on the two crimes for which he was convicted.

Laselle Thompson owns multiple properties in Philadelphia. In the spring of 2019, she needed a contractor to install tile in a bathroom at one of the properties, and to replace the carpet, in three rooms and in a hallway at another property. One day, while Thompson was shopping for carpet, she ran into Chambers’ cousin, John,² who recommended that she hire Chambers to do the work. John assured Thompson that Chambers, who was part of a religious organization, was a trustworthy contractor. Thompson agreed, and gave John her phone number.

Shortly thereafter, Chambers called Thompson and held himself out to be an honest home improvement contractor, Thompson agreed to meet with him. On April 6, 2019, Chambers went to fee residence that needed new carpeting, showed Thompson some carpet samples, and measured fee areas to be recarpeted. Chambers handed Thompson a business card, which indicated that he was the owner of fee "Perfect Home Improvement Company," an organization that the card described as a "Religious Organized Church Oriented Construction.Co.," and as a "Bonafied [sic] Charity."³ The card listed a federal EIN, and Chambers provided Thompson with a New Jersey business address, both of which turned out to be fictitious.

Chambers impressed upon Thompson that, as a pastor, he was committed to spiritual and charitable practices. He assured her that, as a religious man, he sought only to provide competent work at a fair price, and that he was not in fee contracting business to rip people off. Relying upon these assertions, Thompson came to trust Chambers, and hired him. Chambers indicated that he would be able to do the work within the next two or three days. Chambers drafted two contracts, one for fee tile work and one for the carpet installation. Neither of the contracts indicated when the work would be started or completed. Thompson signed both contracts and provided Chambers with down payments on each. Thompson gave Chambers a check in the amount of $175 for fee tile job and one for $800 for fee carpet job, Chambers cashed fee checks, but never returned to do fee work.

In fee weeks that followed, through a series of text messages, phone calls, and emails, Thompson pleaded wife Chambers to provide her with an installation date for the tile and carpet. Chambers repeatedly deflected her inquiries. In an April 19, 2019 text message, Thompson told Chambers that she felt that she was being taken advantage of, and she asked him to return her deposits. She also called him repeatedly. Initially, Chambers did not answer or return the calls. However, the two spoke over the phone on May 7, 2019. During that call, Chambers assured Thompson that she would not have to wait any longer, and that the carpet would be delivered and installed on Wednesday, May 8, 2019. That day came and went, and neither the carpet nor Chambers appeared. At the end of that month, Chambers made the same assurances, and again failed to appear or to deliver the materials.

By June 7, 2019, it had become clear to Thompson that Chambers had no intention of fulfilling the contract or returning her money, Not only had he not begun the work, but he had also not even ordered the materials for the job. On that date, she texted Chambers that she had decided to "[l]et the legal system take its course."⁴ In September 2019, the Philadelphia police charged Chambers by criminal complaint with four offenses: theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, receiving stolen property,⁵ and home improvement fraud.⁶ After a preliminary hearing, all four charges were held for trial.⁷

Shortly thereafter, the Commonwealth charged Chambers by criminal information with the same set of charges. On the home improvement fraud count, the Commonwealth cited subsection (a)(1) of the offense but, in the portion of the count describing the charge, the Commonwealth used language from subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3). Concerned that the discrepancy between the citation and the language would cause confusion, the Commonwealth filed a "Motion to Amend/Correct Bills of Information" in which the Commonwealth clarified for Chambers and for the trial court that it was charging Chambers with three different forms of home improvement fraud, one each of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3). The parties met in court on January 27, 2021, for Chambers’ stipulated non-jury trial. Before the trial commenced, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the criminal information after defense counsel expressed "no objection" to it.⁸ Thus, Chambers went to trial on six separate counts: one count of theft by unlawful taking, one count of receiving stolen property, one count of theft by deception, and three counts of home improvement fraud.

The parties stipulated to, and submitted for the count’s review, the preliminary hearing transcript and various exhibits, including copies of the contracts, the two deposit checks, the fake business card, and the text messages between Thompson and Chambers. After consideration of these materials, and after hearing closing arguments, the trial court rendered its verdict. The court stated that Chambers was "guilty of theft by deception, [and] false statement to induce home improvement services. As to the remaining charges, the Court finds [Chambers] not guilty."⁹ By its unambiguous verdict, the court convicted Chambers only of theft by deception and subsection (a)(1) of the home improvement fraud statute.¹⁰ However, shortly after announcing the verdict, the trial court placed the following findings of fact on the record, during which discussion the issue presently before this Court initially took root. Despite unmistakably convicting Chambers of only one form of home improvement fraud, under subsection (a)(1), the court alluded to facts that would support all three of the charged forms of home improvement fraud:

Mr. Chambers had a written contract with Ms. Thompson to install carpets in multiple rooms for $800 and another for $175. It was a valid contract, Per Ms. Thompson’s testimony, the work was to be done within the two to three day period. Which never happened. Ms. Thompson relied on the fact that Mr. Chambers had a valid contracting company and was a bona fide contractor. A Clear Search showed that there was no such business or company registered as Perfect Home Improvement Company which is an indication of intent to engage in a fraud. Also, Ms. Thompson was given a false business address by Mr. Chambers. And the check was cashed by [Mr. Chambers] that Ms. Thompson gave to him. [Mr. Chambers] did not start the job in a reasonable time. When Ms. Thompson called and text[ed] Mr. Chambers to ask him to do the job, he promised to do it but never followed up. [Mr. Chambers] never gave money back to Ms. Thompson in fact he never offered to give money back which is evidence of intent to commit a fraud. There was no proof that Mr. Chambers used any portion of the money that Ms. Thompson gave to him to buy supplies, the carpets or materials, and this evidence also shows intent to commit a fraud. After more than two months of inaction on the part of Mr. Chambers, [Ms.] Thompson called the police, at that point an arrest was made.

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, there was more than mere nonperformance indicated to show Mr. Chambers inten[ded] to defraud Ms. Thompson. … [Mr. Chambers] intentionally withheld Ms. Thompson’s money and created a false impression that he intended to install carpets at her house. Simply put, he took Ms. Thompson’s money, did not do the job within a reasonable time and repeatedly broke promises to do the job over the course of two months. [Mr. Chambers] did not offer to give [Ms. Thompson] her money back, also there was no legitimate excuse for failing to do the job, nor was there any evidence that he had purchased any materials for the job.¹¹

Although the court stated that Chambers accepted payments from Thompson without performing the work and without returning the payment, which facts would have supported a conviction under subsection (a)(2),¹² and that Chambers misrepresented the existence and address of his business, which fact would have supported a conviction under subsection (a)(3),¹³ the court did not amend or modify the verdict. Instead, the trial court proceeded directly to sentencing,¹⁴ and imposed...