Com. v. Green, D.
2759 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Darla Green was tried in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for retail theft (18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1)) after Macy’s loss-prevention recovered a pair of Michael Kors sneakers priced at $195 that Green was wearing.
- Security video showed Green trying on the sneakers, leaving the shoe department, passing 10–15 registers without paying, and being stopped at a partially open exit door by Macy’s personnel.
- Green testified the shoes lacked a price tag and claimed she never left the store with them.
- The trial court found the Commonwealth’s witnesses credible, that Green took possession and attempted to carry away the shoes, and that the shoes had store tags/SKU information.
- Green was convicted at a bench trial of retail theft graded as a first-degree misdemeanor and sentenced to four years’ probation.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the only arguable issue—sufficiency of the evidence—was frivolous; the Superior Court conducted an independent review, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of retail theft and proper grading | Commonwealth: Video and security testimony show Green took possession, left payment areas, attempted to exit, and the shoes’ value was $195, satisfying elements and grading | Green: Shoes lacked a price tag so ownership was unclear; she denied leaving the store with them | Court: Evidence (including store tag/SKU and conduct) sufficient to prove taking and intent; value exceeded $150; conviction and first-degree misdemeanor grading affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements under Pennsylvania law)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedural review when counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders/Santiago)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 555 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 1989) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (factfinder may resolve credibility and need not eliminate every possibility of innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2013) (application of sufficiency standards)
- Commonwealth v. Roscioli, 309 A.2d 396 (Pa. 1973) (circumstantial evidence may support conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences can overcome presumption of innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 795 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Super. 2002) (circumstantial-evidence analysis)