Com. v. Titcomb, D. ( 2022 )

J-A23045-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DIANE TITCOMB :
:
Appellant : No. 449 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 22, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0001049-2020
BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: NOVEMBER 28, 2022
Appellant Diane Titcomb appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County on February 22, 2022,
following her conviction of Unauthorized use of automobiles or other vehicles.1
We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history herein
as follows:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
. . . [Appellant] waived her right to a trial by jury and a bench
trial was held before this [c]ourt on November 18, 2021, wherein
she was found guilty. Sentencing was deferred to provide both
parties the opportunity to prepare for a restitution hearing, if
necessary. On February 22, 2022, [Appellant] was sentenced to
twelve (12) months of probation and ordered to pay $7,132.34 in
restitution.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928(a).
J-A23045-22
Additionally, this [c]ourt authorized the transfer of supervision to
Lackawanna County.
On March 11, 2022, [Appellant] filed a timely Notice of
Appeal. This Court directed [Appellant] to file a Concise Statement
of Matters Complained of on Appeal (hereinafter “Statement”).
[Appellant] filed her timely Statement on March 21, 2022.
***
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In August of 2017, Appellant brought her vehicle, a 2008
Lincoln MKS, to Hoffman Ford in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for a
vehicle recall. (Notes of Testimony, Bench Trial 11/28/21 (“N.T.”)
at 10, 39). There were concerns that damage was caused to
Appellant’s vehicle while it was being serviced for the recall. (N.T.
at 10). Therefore, Hoffman Ford agreed to repair any damage free
of charge and provide Appellant a courtesy vehicle while hers was
being repaired. (N.T. at 10-11).
Scott McCann (hereinafter “Mr. McCann”), a former
assistant service manager at Hoffman Ford, testified that Hoffman
Ford typically executes a contract for the use of a courtesy or
loaner vehicle. (N.T. at 12). The use of a courtesy vehicle is
complimentary while the repairs are being made to a customer’s
vehicle. (Id.)
Appellant signed a contract with Hoffman Ford for the use
of a 2017 Ford Fusion that was due back on August 29, 2017, by
5:00 P.M. (N.T. at 14-16). Mr. McCann identified Appellant as the
person who was provided the courtesy vehicle. (N.T. at 14, 24).
Appellant did not return the vehicle on August 29, 2017, by
5:00 P.M. (N.T. at 16). Mr. McCann testified that he attempted to
contact Appellant via telephone or e-mail at least twenty-five (25)
times. (Id.) He further testified that Appellant returned his
telephone call once and said that she was in North Carolina for
work. (N.T. at 17). Mr. McCann requested that the vehicle be
returned, and asked Appellant to provide him a timeframe for
when it would be returned. (Id.) Appellant did not give him a
response. (Id.)
Officer Jason Myers (hereinafter “Officer Myers”) of the
Lower Paxton Police Department was contacted by Hoffman Ford
to report the vehicle as stolen on September 14, 2017. (N.T. at
41-42). Thereafter, Officer Myers followed-up with Hoffman Ford
and requested that they send demand letters to Appellant. (N.T.
at 42). Todd Hoffman (hereinafter “Mr. Hoffman”), one of the
owners of Hoffman Ford, testified that multiple certified letters
-2-
J-A23045-22
were sent to a variety of addresses for Appellant that were found
with the assistance of Officer Myers. (N.T. at 27-28). Mr. Hoffman
testified that the letters were sent to an address in Pennsylvania,
as well as one in Arizona that were from Appellant’s drivers
licenses. (N.T. at 28). The certified letters stated that the vehicle
was overdue, it was due by August 29, 2017, at 5:00 P.M., and
that if the car was not returned, Hoffman Ford would report it to
law enforcement. (Id.)
Additionally, Officer Myers attempted to contact Appellant
at least five (5) times. (N.T. at 42). He eventually received a
telephone call back from Appellant on December 29, 2017. (Id.)
Appellant had learned that criminal charges were filed against her
and demanded to know why. (N.T. at 44). Officer Myers explained
that Appellant was in possession of a vehicle that did not belong
to her and should have been returned months ago. (Id.) Appellant
became very uncooperative, refused to speak with him, and
demanded to speak with the chief of police. (N.T. at 44-45). She
ultimately hung up on Officer Myers. (N.T. at 45).
Mr. Hoffman explained that the courtesy vehicle was a
brand-new vehicle owned by the parent corporation, Ford Motor
Company, that was placed into the loaner program to the dealer,
Hoffman Ford. (N.T. at 30). Once a vehicle owned by Ford Motor
Company is stolen while in possession of a dealer, the insurance
company will pay the dealer seventy-five percent (75%) of the
cost of the vehicle. (N.T. at 32). In this case, the 2017 Ford Fusion
was valued at $25,429.38. (N.T. at 31). Hoffman Ford ultimately
received seventy-five percent (75%) of the value, or $19,072.04,
from the insurance company. (N.T. at 32). The remaining twenty-
five percent (25%), or $6,537.54, was absorbed by Hoffman Ford
as a loss. (N.T. at 32, 35).
Appellant never returned the courtesy vehicle, and she was
not authorized to use it beyond August 29, 2017, at 5:00 P.M.
(N.T. at 18-19, 24). In late December of 2017, the courtesy
vehicle was recovered by a third-party collection company in
Arizona. (N.T. at 33). Hoffman Ford incurred a fee of $475 for the
repossession and return of the 2017 Ford Fusion. (N.T. at 33).
Additionally, Mr. Hoffman testified that the company incurred
$300 in administrative costs for the time spent sending certified
letters, working with the insurance companies, preparing
documentation, and working with the police department. (N.T. at
34). Further, Appellant never returned to Hoffman Ford to pick up
her vehicle once the repairs were completed. (N.T. at 39). On
November 21, 2018 - fourteen (14) months after Appellant
received the courtesy vehicle - Hoffman Ford reported Appellant’s
-3-
J-A23045-22
vehicle to PennDOT as abandoned. (N.T. at 39).
Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/10/22, at 1-5.
Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal on February 22, 2022. On April 4,
2022, Appellant filed her Concise Statement of Errors Complained of Upon
Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a)
Opinion on May 10, 2022.
In her brief, Appellant presents a single issue for this Court’s review:
Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict [Appellant]
of unauthorized use of a vehicle, where no documentation or
verbal testimony presented by the Commonwealth sufficiently
proved [Appellant] to be operating the vehicle after August 29th,
2017?
Brief for Appellant at 4.
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of
the evidence is whether viewing all of the evidence admitted at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there
is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the
above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our
judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts
and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not
preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a
defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the
evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no
probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of
proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by
means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying
the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all
evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder
of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and weight
of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence.
-4-
J-A23045-22
Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532, 540-41 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en
banc) (citation omitted). “This standard of deference is not altered in cases
involving a bench trial, because the province of a trial judge sitting without a
jury is to do what a jury is required to do.” Commonwealth v. Lee, 956
A.2d 1024, 1027 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 894 (Pa.2009).
Although the finder of fact may make reasonable inferences from the
testimony presented, the “inferences must flow from facts and circumstances
proven in the record, and must be of such volume and quality as to overcome
the presumption of innocence and satisfy the jury of an accused’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Scott, 597 A.2d 1220, 1221 (Pa.
Super. 1991). “The trier of fact cannot base a conviction on conjecture and
speculation and a verdict which is premised on suspicion will fail even under
the limited scrutiny of appellate review.” Id. In addition, “[b]ecause
evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de
novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83
A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013).
The offense of Unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles is
defined at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928(a) as follows:
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the
second degree if he operates the automobile, airplane,
motorcycle, motorboat, or other motor-propelled vehicle of
another without consent of the owner.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928(a).
-5-
J-A23045-22
Appellant herein contends the evidence is insufficient to show that she
operated, i.e., exercised control and dominion over, the Ford Fusion that
Hoffman Ford had loaned her while repairs to her own vehicle were being
made. Relying upon cases pertaining to DUI convictions, Appellant reasons
that “[n]o witness testimony or documentation at trial provided evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant], as opposed to any other party,
operated the vehicle at any time after 5:00 p.m. August 29th, 2017.” Brief
for Appellant at 13, 15-16.
Appellant further posits the evidence failed to establish that the Ford
Fusion had been recovered from Appellant’s residence in Arizona, as opposed
to an “entirely different locale.” Id. at 15-17. Appellant reasons that the
instant case is analogous to Commonwealth v. Henry, 875 A.2d 302(Pa.Super. 2005) wherein this Court reversed the defendant’s conviction after
holding that his fingerprint found in a vehicle was alone insufficient to establish
operation of the vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 17-18. In Henry,
this Court stated:
His fingerprint on the placard reveals only that at some point
Appellant was present in the vehicle and nothing more. Since the
vehicle was found more than a day after being reported stolen
with the driver’s side door lock broken, Appellant could have had
access to the interior of the vehicle after it was abandoned by the
perpetrator who stole the car. The fingerprint alone is insufficient
to establish operation, i.e., conscience control or dominion over
the vehicle, beyond a reasonable doubt. As operation of the
vehicle is an essential element of the crime of unauthorized use
of automobiles, and the evidence presented was insufficient to
establish this element, we must reverse.
-6-
J-A23045-22
Id at 306.
The trial court, sitting as the factfinder in this case, explained its
reasoning with regard to its verdict as follows:
For the charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, the
Commonwealth must prove that a defendant operated the motor
vehicle without the consent of the owner. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928.
The testimony and evidence adduced during the bench trial,
together with all reasonable inferences, is sufficient to sustain the
conviction of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. On or about
August 28, 2017, Appellant dropped off her vehicle at Hoffman
Ford to fix damage that allegedly occurred during service on her
vehicle due to a recall. She executed a contract with Hoffman Ford
for the complimentary use of a courtesy vehicle, a 2017 Ford
Fusion, while repairs were being done to her vehicle. The contract
explicitly stated that the courtesy vehicle was to be returned by
August 29, 2017, at 5:00 P.M.
Appellant never returned the vehicle, nor did she pick-up
her own vehicle. After numerous attempts were made to contact
Appellant via telephone and certified mail, Hoffman Ford reported
the vehicle as stolen to Lower Paxton Police Department. Mr.
Hoffman testified that one of the addresses he found for Appellant
was in Arizona. The courtesy vehicle was ultimately recovered in
Arizona in late December of 2017. Appellant was not authorized
to use the vehicle beyond August 29, 2017, at 5:00 P.M., and
never expressed an intent to return the vehicle. Therefore, the
testimony and evidence presented at trial, together with all
reasonable inferences, is sufficient to sustain the conviction of
unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/10/22, at 8.
We have reviewed the record including the notes of testimony from
Appellant’s trial mindful that we may not reweigh the evidence and substitute
our judgment for that of the factfinder and that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. See Commonwealth v. Marrero, 914 A.2d 870, 872
-7-
J-A23045-22
(Pa.Super.2006). Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved
by the factfinder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a
matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
circumstances. Id.We agree that when viewed in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as the verdict winner, there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence to establish that Appellant operated the Ford Fusion after 5:00 p.m.
on August 28, 2017, without the consent of Hoffman Ford.
Mr. Scott McCann, an employee with Hoffman Ford from 2011 to 2018,
testified that he met Appellant in person, she was individual who executed the
contract for the use of a courtesy vehicle, she took the Ford Fusion from
Hoffman Ford’s premises, she was not permitted to utilize the Ford Fusion
after 5:00 P.M. on August 29, 2017, she told him she was in North Carolina
for work, and she never returned the vehicle. Mr. McCann contacted Appellant
when her car repairs were completed, and thereafter attempted to contact her
over twenty-five times to return the Ford Fusion, to no avail. N.T. Bench Trial.
11/18/21, at 9, 24-25.
Mr. Todd Robert Hoffman, one of the owners of Hoffman Ford, also
testified that Appellant never returned the vehicle, although she was notified
her vehicle repairs were finished through multiple phone calls and certified
letters. Id. at 26-29. Officer Jason Myers further testified that Appellant
neither agreed to return nor ever did return the Ford Fusion. Id. at 44-45.
-8-
J-A23045-22
Regardless of where the Ford Fusion was finally located some eighteen
months later, the record establishes that Appellant drove away in it knowing
it was a loaner vehicle at her disposal while repairs to her own car were being
completed and was due back by 5:00 p.m. on August 29, 2017. Appellant
argues that the repairs to her vehicle were not made in a timely fashion.
Assuming, arguendo, that this were the case, her possession of the vehicle
was not contingent upon that fact, for the agreement she executed clearly
indicated that the vehicle was due back the next day. Even assuming that the
repairs were not timely completed and that she had been authorized to use
the loaner vehicle until the repairs to her own car were made, Appellant clearly
lost that permission when she failed to return the Ford Fusion at all.
It was not unreasonable to expect that Appellant would have
communicated her reason for possessing the Ford Fusion eighteen months
beyond the date on which she was contractually obligated to return it when
Officer Myers notified her that she was being criminally charged with
unauthorized use. Whether the Ford Fusion was recovered at Appellant’s
address in Arizona is inapposite, for in the absence of any explanation, the
trial court herein could reasonably infer that Appellant, who had abandoned
her own vehicle at Hoffman Ford and admitted to being in North Carolina for
work, was operating the courtesy vehicle without the owner’s consent out of
state. See Commonwealth v. Hogan, 468 A.2d 493, 497 (Pa.Super. 1983).
-9-
J-A23045-22
With regard to her claim that the Commonwealth failed to produce
evidence that she drove the vehicle to Arizona where it was ultimately located,
testimony established that Appellant was the one who left Hoffman Ford in the
loaner vehicle, and Hoffman Ford authorized only her to operate the vehicle;
Appellant admitted to being in South Carolina at one point, and she never
indicated that any other individual had taken possession of the car. The trial
court acting as the fact finder was free to find this circumstantial evidence
satisfied the requirement that Appellant operated the vehicle after 5:00 p.m.
on August 29, 2017. This is especially so in light of the fact that she failed to
ever recover her own vehicle, which would necessitate the loaner as her
primary means of transportation.
In this way, we find the instant matter distinguishable from
Commonwealth v. Henry, 875 A.2d 302 (Pa.Super. 2005). where the only
evidence implicating the defendant was a fingerprint found on a window
placard inside the car. Appellant executed a contract wherein she agreed to
return a courtesy vehicle the next day in exchange for her repaired one. Not
only did she fail to return the vehicle at all, but she abandoned her own car.
It is disingenuous for Appellant to suggest that she thought she could keep
the Ford Fusion for a year and a half without ever communicating with
Hoffman Ford and that she did not drive the car at all during that time.
In light of the foregoing, and with careful consideration of both the facts
of record and prevailing case law, we conclude that Appellant's issue
- 10 -
J-A23045-22
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence underlying her conviction is without
merit. We therefore affirm the February 22, 2022, judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/28/2022
- 11 -