Commonwealth v. Myers
86 A.3d 286
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Myers’ Cadillac was repaired at Pep Boys (alternator, $605.80); Pep Boys employees testified Myers gave verbal authorization by phone and did not dispute the bill when retrieving the car.
- At pickup, Myers asked for his car keys to retrieve his checkbook from the vehicle, then drove away without paying; employee Benes contacted police.
- A jury convicted Myers of theft of services, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, and receiving stolen property.
- Sentenced to an aggregate 6 to 23 months’ incarceration (plus two years’ probation); Myers filed post-sentence motions including a bail-pending-appeal request and appealed.
- The trial court granted an ambiguous extension to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; the Superior Court construed the extension to render Myers’ statement timely and reached the merits.
- The Superior Court affirmed the convictions (sufficiency review) but held the trial court erred by effectively revoking Myers’ preexisting unsecured bond without following Pa. R.Crim.P. 521 procedures, and remanded for a bail hearing unless Myers had completed his term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove authorization for repairs | McManus’ testimony was inconsistent about calls and thus did not reliably prove Myers authorized the repairs | McManus testified (based on recollection and the work order) that Myers approved the work; evidence viewed in Commonwealth’s favor supports the verdict | Conviction affirmed; evidence was sufficient because McManus testified Myers authorized the work and credibility/weight issues are for the jury |
| Timeliness of Rule 1925(b) statement | Not explicitly argued; potential issue that the trial court’s extension was ambiguous and could render statement untimely | Trial court’s ambiguous order could be read two ways; Superior Court may construe it to avoid deeming counsel ineffective | Superior Court construed the November 8 order as adding 30 days to the original 21 (total 51 days); Myers’ statement was timely, so appellate merits addressed |
| Denial/revocation of bail pending appeal | Myers requested bail pending appeal; maintained that his pretrial unsecured bond remained valid unless properly revoked | Trial court treated Myers as required to reestablish bail conditions post-sentencing and effectively denied bail without following Rule 521 procedures | Trial court erred by effectively revoking/modifying a standing bond without complying with Pa.R.Crim.P. 521; case remanded for a proper bail hearing unless sentence served in full |
| Sentencing/discretionary challenge | Myers argued sentence was excessive given employment, family ties, remorse | Commonwealth/trial court relied on sentencing guidelines and prior record | Sentencing claim waived for failure to preserve/raise required concise reasons and substantial question; not addressed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statement bars appellate consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Ockenhouse, 756 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 2000) (procedural context for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Truesdale, 296 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1972) (anticipation of criminal activity alone cannot justify denial of bail)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 578 A.2d 1323 (Pa. Super. 1990) (weight-of-the-evidence standard)