Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Docketed August 15, 1988 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Criminal Division, No. 7607-87.
Hugh A. Donaghue, Media, for appellant.
Ann A. Osborne, Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, for Com.
Del Sole, Tamilia and Cercone, JJ.
[ 387 Pa. Super. Page 417]
This appeal is from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. We affirm.
Appellant was charged, by private complaint, with theft by unlawful taking*fn1 and theft by deception.*fn2 The complaint alleged that complainant, Glenn Moyer, had loaned
[ 387 Pa. Super. Page 418]
appellant fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) with the understanding that the amount was to be repaid in four installments. Further, appellant had told complainant that he owned an automobile upon which a lien could be placed as security for the loan. The complainant alleged that after the money was transferred, he discovered that appellant did not own the vehicle, and that no lien could be placed on it. According to the complaint, appellant had also refused to repay the loan. The complaint was filed in Delaware County.
In July, 1988, appellant filed a motion to dismiss claiming lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County because "any and all alleged events did not take place in the County of Delaware . . . ." The motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of theft by deception. Appellant's post-verdict motions were denied and he was sentenced to a term of three years probation. Appellant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) within a period of three months. After appellant moved to modify his sentence, the court ordered an extension of the time period in which appellant was to pay restitution, from three (3) to six (6) months. From the judgment of sentence, appellant filed the instant timely appeal.
Appellant makes the following contentions on appeal: (1) the verdict was not supported by the evidence and was against the weight of the evidence; (2) there was insufficient evidence that any transaction occurred in Delaware County; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly investigate and prepare a defense.
Appellant's first contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. In reviewing claims of sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, determine whether the jury could reasonably have found all of the elements of the crime to have
[ 387 Pa. Super. Page 419]
been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 521 Pa. Super. 134, 555 A.2d 818 (1989). Furthermore, it is the prerogative of the fact-finder to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. Commonwealth v. Lyons, 382 Pa. Super. 438, 555 A.2d 920 (1989). A determination of the credibility of witnesses is within the sole province of the trier of fact. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 506 Pa. 469, 485 A.2d 1102 (1984). An appellate tribunal will not engage in a ...