from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 7, 2016 In the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-02-CR-0003667-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STEVENS, P.J.E. [*] , and STRASSBURGER, J.
Patrick Gorman, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
11½ to 23 months' incarceration, followed by 5
years' probation, imposed after he was convicted of theft
and related offenses. Appellant solely challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions. After
careful review, we affirm.
April 24, 2015, a criminal information was filed against
Appellant, charging him with two counts of theft by unlawful
taking, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a); one count of receiving
stolen property, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a); and two counts of
misapplication of entrusted property, 18 Pa.C.S. §
4113(a). These charges stemmed from Appellant's creating
a veteran's honor guard that appeared at numerous
funerals, and then mishandling and misusing donations
provided to that honor guard. Appellant waived his right to a
jury trial and proceeded to a non-jury trial on January 6,
2016. On January 12, 2016, the court convicted Appellant of
the above-stated charges. On April 7, 2016, Appellant was
sentenced to the terms of incarceration and probation stated
supra, as well as restitution in the amount of $44,
filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also timely complied
with the trial court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Herein,
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. The evidence was insufficient to support Theft by Unlawful
Taking (Counts 1 and 2), as the government failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt [that Appellant]:
(a) took or exercised control over certain property, namely
money and/or checks, belonging to the American Legion Post
935 and/or 1810,
(b) taking or exercising control over certain property,
namely money and/or checks, was unlawful because the money
and/or checks were not intended for the use and/or benefit of
the American Legion Post 935 and/or 1810, and/or
(c) intended - that is, it was his conscious object - to
deprive American Legion Post 935 and/or 1810 of the use and
benefit of certain property, namely money and/or checks.
2. The evidence was insufficient to support Receiving Stolen
Property (Count 3), because the government failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that:
(a) the property, namely money and/ or checks, was in fact
stolen from the American Legion Post 935 and/or 1810, and/or
(b) [Appellant] received, retained or disposed of the
property knowing or believing it had in fact been stolen from
the American Legion Post 935 and/or 1810.
3. The evidence was insufficient to support Misapplication of
Entrusted Property (Counts 4 and 5), as the Government failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
(a) certain property, namely money and/or checks, was
entrusted to [Appellant] for the use and benefit of another,
(b) [Appellant] applied or disposed of the property in a
manner he knew was unlawful and involved substantial risk of
detriment to the owner or the person for whose benefit the
property was entrusted.
Brief at 3.
begin by setting forth our well-settled standard of review:
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must
determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to
support all elements of the offense. Commonwealth v.
Moreno, 14 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2011). Additionally, we
may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment
for that of the fact finder. Commonwealth v.
Hartzell, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2009). The evidence
may be entirely circumstantial as long as it links the
accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreno,
supra at 136.
Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super.
we provide the definitions of the three offenses for which
Appellant was convicted. First, Appellant was convicted of
two counts of theft by unlawful taking, both graded as
felonies of the third degree. "A person is guilty of
theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control
over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him
thereof." 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a). "[T]heft
constitutes a ...