Com. v. v. Moody, J.
2202 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- Victory Christian Fellowship (VCF) hired James Lee Moody in 2010 as a consultant/bookkeeper; he was paid by invoice checks but later added himself to payroll direct deposit and to the church health plan without authorization.
- VCF discovered insufficient-fund fees and unauthorized direct-deposit payments and terminated Moody; police found Moody had provided other individuals’ SSN/driver’s-license numbers for his background information.
- Commonwealth charged Moody with numerous theft- and identity-related offenses; roughly 100 charges were withdrawn and trial proceeded on a narrowed set of counts.
- Bench trial resulted in convictions for dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity, theft, receiving stolen property, securing execution of documents by deception, theft by deception, and identity theft.
- Moody discharged trial counsel, elected to proceed pro se on appeal after a Grazier colloquy, and raised multiple claims (discovery violations, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency/weight, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance).
- Trial court sentenced Moody to consecutive terms (aggregate 6–27 years) and restitution of $156,041.75; Superior Court affirmed, largely adopting the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Moody's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) / service of concise statement | Rule requirements were met and any defect did not preclude review | Moody argued trial-court order errors should not waive issues | Superior declined to find waiver based on docketing/notice defect and addressed merits where appropriate |
| Discovery / alleged withheld exculpatory material | No mandatory discovery withheld; defense had access to much of the material; counsel did not timely move to compel | Moody claimed Commonwealth withheld exculpatory documents until trial and court erred by denying continuance | Claim waived/unpreserved; no relief—defense did not make timely motions or requests for continuance |
| Admission of evidence (parol documents / prior bad acts) | Documentary objections were proper (lack of foundation); prior conviction admissible and trial counsel did not object | Moody sought admission of parol documents and challenged admission of prior bad-acts evidence | Objections overruled as waived or without merit; court properly excluded unauthenticated documents and allowed certified prior conviction (or waiver) |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence and sentencing | Record contained ample credible circumstantial and direct evidence of unauthorized payroll manipulation and identity misuse; sentence within statutory limits | Moody argued insufficient evidence, improper sentence, and denial of ability to present evidence at sentencing | Sufficiency/weight claims largely waived for lack of specificity; even on merits evidence was sufficient. Sentencing was lawful and not an abuse of discretion; trial court properly limited sentencing-phase evidence to relevant mitigating matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Highlands Community Ass'n v. Hammer, 879 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Rule 1925(b) service/docketing requirements and waiver caveats)
- Commonwealth v. Hooks, 921 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 1925 waiver analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discovery—equally accessible evidence not basis for violation claim)
- Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51 (Pa. Super. 2014) (presumption that trial court can disregard objectionable material)
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (standard for reversible prosecutorial misconduct in closing)
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirement that concise statement assert sufficiency challenges with specificity)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 33 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (presumption sentencing court considered PSI and factors)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (sentencing court’s responsibility to consider relevant information)
Outcome: Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, adopting the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) reasoning and finding no reversible error.