Com. v. Cioppa, M., Com. v. Cioppa, M. No. 958 WDA 2016

Cioppa Asphalt contracted to resurface Christina Bougher’s driveway; Bougher paid $600 down on Oct. 17, 2014.
Work began Oct. 18; Cioppa’s employee/cousin Victor requested and received an additional $350 for supplies.
After the second day, no further work was performed; the partial work was described as “subpar” and ‘‘horrible.’’
Bougher could not contact Cioppa afterward, hired another company to remove the defective work, and filed a police report.
At a stipulated-facts bench trial (affidavit of probable cause admitted in lieu of testimony), Cioppa was convicted of theft by deception and home improvement fraud; sentenced to 6–12 months (immediately paroled) and ordered to pay restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft by deception (intent element)	Commonwealth: facts support inference Cioppa never intended to perform; deceit shown by poor work, taking payments, and disappearance	Cioppa: only failed to perform; requesting more funds then not finishing does not prove intent to deceive; actions of employee not imputable	Affirmed — evidence (poor-quality work, additional payment request, inability to contact defendant) permitted inference of intent to defraud
Sufficiency of evidence for home improvement fraud (intent to defraud)	Commonwealth: same evidence establishes requisite intent for home improvement fraud	Cioppa: alleged lack of proof he acted with intent to defraud or knowledge of facilitating fraud	Affirmed — court relied on theft-by-deception intent finding to sustain home improvement fraud conviction
Weight of the evidence	Commonwealth: verdict supported by stipulated facts and circumstances	Cioppa: verdict shocks one’s sense of justice given limited proof beyond nonperformance	Affirmed — bench verdict did not shock judicial conscience

Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Commonwealth may rely on wholly circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court does not reassess credibility or weight)
Commonwealth v. Gallo, 373 A.2d 1109 (Pa. 1977) (theft-by-deception requires proof defendant never intended to perform; mere nonperformance alone is insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Bentley, 448 A.2d 628 (Pa. Super. 1982) (requesting additional funds then failing to complete is not alone proof of intent to defraud)
Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review: verdict will be reversed only if it shocks one’s sense of justice)
Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575 (Pa. Super. 2004) (illustration of the ‘‘shocks the conscience’’ formulation for weighing claims)