Commonwealth v. Thompson
39 A.3d 335
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Thompson challenged the sufficiency of evidence for four theft/forgery-related offenses and the trial court’s judgment imposed restitution and RRRI-based sentencing.
- Thompson began a long-term care relationship with Sam Tambasco and moved in with him and his 16-year-old grandson, Sammy Tambasco, Jr., as Tambasco’s health declined.
- Thompson conducted weekly withdrawals from Tambasco’s bank account and later signed checks in Tambasco’s name as his condition worsened.
- Police discovered Tambasco’s MasterCard, checks in Tambasco’s name, and jewelry in Thompson’s possession, linking her to the account activity.
- Tambasco’s estate and Sammy sought to set up a trust; investigators traced numerous withdrawals and check cashings to Thompson.
- Thompson’s post-conviction relief petition reinstated her appellate rights, but she failed to timely file a Rule 1925(b) statement as ordered; the court noted per se ineffectiveness but remanded for remedies under Rule 1925(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth proved each element of Theft by Unlawful Taking | Thompson | Commonwealth | Remanded for 1925(a) opinion addressing issues; no merits ruling on sufficiency yet |
| Whether the Commonwealth proved each element of Receiving Stolen Property | Thompson | Commonwealth | Remanded for 1925(a) opinion addressing issues; no merits ruling on sufficiency yet |
| Whether the Commonwealth proved each element of Unauthorized Use of an Access Device | Thompson | Commonwealth | Remanded for 1925(a) opinion addressing issues; no merits ruling on sufficiency yet |
| Whether the Commonwealth proved each element of Forgery | Thompson | Commonwealth | Remanded for 1925(a) opinion addressing issues; no merits ruling on sufficiency yet |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (waiver for failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement; per se ineffectiveness rules later refined)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (automatic waiver for untimely 1925(b) statement; court rejected older rule)
- Commonwealth v. West, 883 A.2d 654 (Pa.Super.2005) (remand for nunc pro tunc 1925(b) filing when ineffectiveness is per se)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 496 n.15 (Pa.2011) (limits remand rationale to direct appeal context; PCRA distinctions noted)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 952 A.2d 1190 (Pa.Super.2008) (remand for nunc pro tunc 1925(b) when counsel failed to file)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa.Super.2009) (untimely 1925(b) statement treated as per se ineffectiveness; remand available)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 581 Pa. 632, 868 A.2d 379 (Pa.2005) (remedial opinion requirements under Rule 1925(a) when issues preserved)
- Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 595 Pa. 366, 938 A.2d 417 (Pa.2007) (remand/failure to address issues requiring proper 1925(a) opinion)