Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Derrig

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

June 17, 2013

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
DION DAVID DERRIG Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
DION DAVID DERRIG Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 2, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-08-CR-0000764-2011, CP-08-CR-0000765-2011

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., MUNDY, J., and COLVILLE, J. [*]

MEMORANDUM

MUNDY, J.

Appellant, Dion David Derrig, appeals from the April 2, 2012 aggregate judgment of sentence of 32 to 120 months' imprisonment, [1] imposed following Appellant's convictions for retail theft, theft by receiving stolen property, and deceptive or fraudulent business practices.[2] After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court has summarized the relevant factual and procedural history of this case as follows.

In May[] 2010, [Appellant] appeared at [the home of Mr. and Mrs. Shangraw] initially to offer a proposed civil war print for sale. While there, he told Mr. Shangraw that [the home] was in need of repair, [and] that he was a contractor and could give him an estimate. Mr. Shangraw agreed. Mrs. Shangraw signed a proposal with [Appellant, ] dated May 16, 2010 for work including material[s] … for a total amount of $9, 650.00. Pursuant to the proposal, the work was to be commenced on June 13, 2010 and completed on September 13, 2010, weather permitting. [Appellant] was paid as follows: June 4, 2012 [sic] $4, 450.00; June 8, 2010 $500.00; June 23, 2010 $2, 200.00[;] and July 23, 2010 $400.00 totaling $7, 550.00. … At some point in time [Appellant] again returned asking for more money. Mr. Shangraw told him he was not going to get any further money and not to return to the house "unless you have your tool belt on and you are going to do some work." [Appellant] left a few notes on [the] Shangraw[] home stating he was going to complete the project, but [the] Shangraws never saw or heard from [Appellant] again after they refused to provide him with further funds. [Appellant] never delivered material[s] to the Shangraws, i.e. windows or siding. Eventually, Mr. Shangraw contacted the police.

Trial Court Opinion, 764-2011, 12/18/12, at 2-3 (citations omitted). Subsequently, on November 16, 2011, Appellant was charged with deceptive business practices and other related offenses in connection with his failure to complete the repairs to the Shangraw home. Also on November 16, 2011, Appellant was charged with retail theft and theft by receiving stolen property in connection with a shoplifting incident that occurred on September 20, 2010. Specifically, the trial court summarized the relevant facts of said event as follows.

Walmart Loss Prevention Officer, Jason Smith, reported that, on September 21, 2010, a theft of a computer was brought to his attention at the Sayre, Bradford County Walmart store. Walmart has numerous surveillance videos covering the majority of the store, including all check out [sic] registers. Smith reviewed the videos and provided copies to the Athens Township Police Department. Upon Athens Township Patrolman John Fedorchak reviewing the surveillance videos, he determined that the two men taking the computer from Walmart were known to him as [Appellant] and his nephew ….

Trial Court Opinion, 765-2011, 12/18/12, at 1-2.

On March 1, 2012, following a one-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of retail theft and theft by receiving stolen property. Subsequently, on March 6, 2012, following a two-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of deceptive business practices. Thereafter, on April 2, 2012, the trial court imposed the aforementioned aggregate sentence of 32 to 120 months' imprisonment for all charges. Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions on April 12, 2012, asserting, inter alia, that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. On August 27, 2012, said motions were denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 720 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). Appellant filed timely notices of appeal on September 21, 2012.[3]

At docket number 764-2011, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.

1. Was the guilty verdict against [Appellant] against the weight of the evidence?
2. Did the Commonwealth violate Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Interstate ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.