Com. v. Delgros, E.
1472 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- In 2001, Robert Croyle hired Delgros to install a doublewide; two lightweight I‑beams went missing after the job.
- Croyle reported the missing beams to police in 2001; officers investigated but did not locate the beams or have probable cause to charge Delgros then.
- Several years later Delgros hid the beams in the woods and later used them to build a porch; the beams were visible on his porch by 2014 and a sample tested as aluminum.
- Croyle identified the photographed beams as the ones that went missing in 2001 based on distinctive holes; Croyle testified he paid $2,800 for the beams.
- Delgros was charged with third‑degree felony Receiving Stolen Property in 2014, convicted by a jury in April 2015, and sentenced in June 2015 to $2,800 restitution and a $15,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Delgros's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations bars prosecution for receiving stolen property | Continuing offense doctrine applies; retention of stolen property extends offense until possession ends | Statute expired because police knew the suspect in 2001 and failed to pursue charges; concealment should not toll limits | Reversed by court: offense is continuing while defendant retained the beams; SOL did not bar prosecution |
| Sufficiency: whether recovered property was proven stolen | Circumstantial evidence, admission to his father, photos and ID by owner establish theft and possession | Victim’s description (material, length) did not match recovered beams, undermining theft proof | Evidence sufficient: discrepancies affect weight, not sufficiency; ID and admission support conviction |
| Sufficiency of value to grade offense as felony | Owner’s testimony about purchase price ($2,800) establishes market value exceeding $2,000 | Value must be proven by market evidence at time/place; purchase price insufficient | Owner testimony admissible to establish market value; felony grading proper |
| Whether trial court should reach ineffective assistance claims on post‑sentence motion | Holmes permits immediate review only in narrow, record‑apparent or waived/justified circumstances | Delgros contends IAC is apparent on record and Holmes requires review; due process requires hearing | Court declined to review IAC: no record‑apparent meritorious claim and Delgros ineligible for PCRA (sentence was a fine), so Holmes exceptions not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Commonwealth, 413 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 1979) (receiving stolen property is a continuing offense)
- Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 439 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 1982) (retention of stolen property is continuing until taken from accused)
- Russell v. Commonwealth, 938 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statute of limitations question is legal and reviewed de novo)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standards for review of legal questions)
- Mattison v. Commonwealth, 82 A.3d 386 (Pa. 2013) (sufficiency review standard)
- Hanes v. Commonwealth, 522 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 2007) (owner testimony admissible to establish market value)
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing weight‑of‑evidence claims)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (limits and exceptions for immediate trial‑court review of IAC claims)
- Bomar v. Commonwealth, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (discussion of unitary review of IAC claims)
- Reigel v. Commonwealth, 75 A.3d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA ineligibility where sentence is fine)
- Cardonick v. Commonwealth, 292 A.2d 402 (Pa. 1972) (statute of limitations construed in favor of accused but concerned tolling and indictments)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (no due process right to noncustodial collateral review)