Commonwealth v. Riley

302 A.3d 112

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Lance Mitchell RILEY, Appellant

No. 566 MDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: April 11, 2023

Filed: August 3, 2023

Reargument Denied: October 11, 2023

Daniel E. Forrest, Ellicott City MD, for appellant.

Brandon M. Shields, Assistant District Attorney, Chambersburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.:

Lance Riley appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence entered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on October 2, 2019. On appeal, Riley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for receiving stolen property, contending the Commonwealth failed to prove all elements of the crime. After careful review, we affirm.

We previously reiterated the trial court's summarization of the factual history on review of Riley's initial direct appeal:

[Edward Cornett] testified that on August 18, 2018, he resided in Chambersburg; and he was staying with a friend, Tyler Ewing. At that time, [Cornett] owned an AR-15 rifle. He testified that he had possession of the rifle on August 17, 2018, when he went to bed. He kept the rifle in a bag.

The following morning, Ewing woke [ ]Cornett, yelling that the bag and rifle were missing. Mr. Cornett had not given anyone permission to take the rifle. Mr. Cornett did not see anyone take the rifle.

[Erik Beamer] testified that on August 18, 2018, he knew [ ] Ewing through a mutual friend. [ ] Beamer went to Ewing's residence with his girlfriend. They went to Ewing's residence to "hang out and pretty much I guess we did some drugs." [ ] Beamer's drug of choice at this time was heroin.

[ ] Beamer testified that he stole a gun from Ewing's residence. [ ] Beamer testified that he "traded it for heroin" from [Riley]. He texted [Riley] that night to "trade the item that I [stole] for drugs."

The trade occurred on Queen Street in Chambersburg. In exchange for the rifle, [Riley] gave [ ] Beamer heroin and $100 cash. [Riley], [ ] Beamer, [ ] Beamer's girlfriend, and Dustin Kahn were present during the transaction. During [ ] Beamer's testimony, the Commonwealth played several video clips from the downtown Chambersburg surveillance cameras. These video clips tracked the movement of [ ] Beamer in the downtown area both before and after he stole the firearm.

The Commonwealth next presented the testimony of Kahn. [ ] Kahn was a co-defendant of [Riley], and had previously pled guilty to receiving stolen property for the firearm in question. [ ] Kahn initially testified that, after receiving the gun from [ ] Beamer, he "held it for a day and gave it back to him whenever he needed it back.

The Commonwealth next called Detective James Iverson to testify. Detective Iverson is a criminal investigator with the Chambersburg Police Department. [Detective] Iverson was involved with the arrest of [Riley], and noted that a vehicle matching the description of the one used in this case was present at the scene of [Riley]'s arrest.

The final witness for the Commonwealth was Detective Matthew Lynch from the Chambersburg Police Department; [Detective] Lynch was the investigating officer in this case. Based upon information [Detective] Lynch learned through the course of his investigation, he accessed the municipal surveillance cameras covering downtown Chambersburg. The surveillance video corroborated what [ ] Beamer and [ ] Kahn subsequently disclosed during their interviews with police.

Commonwealth v. Riley , 1974 MDA 2019, 2020 WL 6581210 (Pa. Super. filed November 10, 2020) (unpublished memorandum) (citations omitted).

On June 24, 2019, following trial, a jury convicted Riley of one count each of receiving stolen property and delivery of a controlled substance. On October 2, 2019, the trial court sentenced Riley to an aggregate term of fifty four to two hundred and forty months’ incarceration. Riley filed a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion with permission from the court. The trial court subsequently denied the motion.

Riley filed a direct appeal challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his convictions, as well as his sentence. On November 10, 2020, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Relevantly, this Court found that Riley had failed to preserve a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence because his actual argument was a challenge to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.

Subsequently, Riley sought post-conviction relief in which he argued appellate counsel was ineffective for numerous reasons including failing to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence claim on direct appeal. An evidentiary hearing was held, after which the parties and the court agreed to reinstate Riley's right to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence nunc pro tunc. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Riley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for receiving stolen property. Specifically, Riley contends the Commonwealth presented no evidence at trial to establish that he knew, or believed, that the gun at issue was stolen. The Commonwealth disagrees, arguing that it introduced circumstantial evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, permitted the jury to infer that Riley possessed the requisite knowledge for a conviction of receiving stolen property.

Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom are sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged is established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale , 836 A.2d 150, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003). The Commonwealth may meet this burden of proving every element of the crime by utilizing only circumstantial evidence. See Commonwealth v. Bruce , 207 Pa.Super. 4, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (2007).

"[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence." Id . (citation omitted). Any doubt raised as to the accused's guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder, so long as the evidence presented is not utterly incapable of supporting the necessary inferences. See id . This Court does not independently assess credibility or otherwise assign weight to evidence on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Kinney , 863 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. Super. 2004).

A person is guilty of receiving stolen property if "he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a). The crime has three elements: (1) intentionally taking possession of another person's movable property; (2) knowing or believing that it has been stolen; and (3) an intent to deprive the rightful owner of her property permanently. See Commonwealth v. Robinson , 128 A.3d 261, 265 (Pa. Super. 2015) ( en banc ).

Riley only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the second element, i.e., whether he had knowledge or belief that the firearm was stolen. Regarding this element, this Court has provided the following analysis:

Importantly, the Legislature expressly defined the required mental state as "knowing" or "believing." Because the Legislature excluded

...