Commonwealth v. QUEL
27 A.3d 1033
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Appellant Audrey Quel appeals after a June 28, 2010 judgment of sentence in Allegheny County, imposing seven years probation, 23 months in an intermediate punishment program, and $29,310.20 restitution on three Theft counts.
- Convictions: Theft by Deception, Theft by Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition.
- Evidence was largely circumstantial; Appellant had exclusive control of Quicken data and bank deposits, enabling potential misappropriation.
- The Commonwealth presented expert and lay testimony detailing missing funds and discrepancies between envelopes, Quicken entries, and bank deposits.
- Appellant raised ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing; the trial court held a hearing and denied relief.
- The Superior Court dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim without prejudice to collateral review and affirmed the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal | Quel—counsel failed to pursue character witnesses | Commonwealth—Bomar/Wright/related rules permit direct-review consideration | Ineffective-assistance claim dismissed without prejudice to collateral review |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Theft by Deception | Commonwealth failed to prove taking and deception | Evidence supported by circumstantial proof and control over records | Sufficient evidence to sustain Theft by Deception |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Theft by Unlawful Taking | No proof Quel took the funds | Evidence showed misappropriation possible under control of funds | Sufficient evidence (despite potential other access) as shown by circumstantial proof |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Theft by Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received | Evidence insufficient to prove taking and dealing as own property | Evidence supports the required disposition theory | waived; if reached, sufficient evidence would still support convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (establishes PCRA timing for ineffective assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (Bomar exception to direct-review for ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Bomar-like exception clarified by Fowler)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (Wright on appellate review of ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009) (Liston related to direct review exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (context for appellate review of claims)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 25 A.3d 371 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc; limits Bomar applicability to direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (standard for ineffective assistance claims)