The opinion
J-S02008-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DEAN LASEAN BROWN,
Appellant No. 913 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003000-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS, and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2016
Appellant, Dean Lasean Brown, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on March 2, 2015. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of the crime as follows:
Joseph Galiano is the owner of Suburban Armory and has
been so employed for the past nineteen years. The store sells
firearms and accessories. Typically, when a person comes in to
purchase a handgun, the individual will select the gun they wish
to purchase and then Mr. Galiano has them fill out two forms:
the Federal ATF 4473 and the Pennsylvania State Police
Application/Record of Sale. In addition to the forms, Mr. Galiano
also takes a photo of everyone’s ID.
On February 4, 2014, at approximately 2:45 p.m.,
Appellant came in to Suburban Armory with the intention of
purchasing a Smith and Wesson Sigma Series Pistol. Appellant
told Mr. Galiano that he wished to purchase the gun and in turn,
Mr. Galiano handed Appellant the requisite forms and told
Appellant what he tells all of his customers: “I tell everyone that
they have to fill it out and then they have to sign it and I tell
them by signing it they’re taking an oath, they’re telling the
truth, that it’s a felony to lie on the form.” He also tells people if
J-S02008-16
they have any questions they are free to ask him; however, he
does not watch the person fill out the form. It would be up to
the individual to ask for assistance.
Appellant filled out both forms. On the Federal ATF 4473
question 11(b) “are you under indictment or information in any
Court for a felony or any other crime for which the Judge could
imprison you for more than one year,” Appellant answered “no”.
On the Pennsylvania State Police Application/Record of Sale,
question 32 states: “are you now charged with or have you ever
been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year? This is the maximum sentence that
you could have received, not the actual sentence you did
receive.” Appellant answered “no.” Appellant signed and dated
the paperwork. Mr. Galiano called the Pennsylvania State [Fire]
Arm Unit and proceeded to do a background check. As a result
of the check, Appellant was denied purchase of the gun.
Appellant left the store that day without incident.
Trooper Mark Gibble, a criminal investigator employed with
the Pennsylvania State Police at the Troop K Media Barracks had
occasion to become involved with Appellant in April of 2014.
Trooper Gibble was provided with the date of sale, location of
attempted purchase, Appellant’s name, date of birth and a
request to start an investigation into the denial of the purchase.
Trooper Gibble was also aware that the reason Appellant was
denied purchase was due to an open felony case. With that
information, Trooper Gibble went to Suburban Armory, spoke
with Mr. Galiano, and received copies of both the federal form
and the state form that Appellant filled out. Trooper Gibble
observed that Appellant answered “no” to 11(b) on the federal
form and “no” on question 32 of the state form and signed both
documents. Trooper Gibble also received the copy that Mr.
Galiano made of Appellant’s driver’s license and confirmed
Appellant’s identity through JNET. Trooper Gibble attempted to
contact Appellant but his efforts proved unsuccessful.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/27/15, at 2–4 (internal citations and footnote
omitted).
On April 29, 2014, police charged Appellant with two counts of
violating the Uniform Firearms Act by making a materially false written
-2-
J-S02008-16
statement on any form promulgated by federal or state agencies during the
purchase, delivery, or transfer of a firearm, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(4)(ii), two
counts of unsworn falsification to authorities (statements “under penalty”),
18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b), and two counts of tampering with public records or
information, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911(a)(1). Appellant proceeded to a bench trial
on October 24, 2014; Mr. Galiano, Trooper Gibble, and Delaware County
Detective Matthew Cresta testified on behalf of the Commonwealth, and
Appellant testified on his own behalf.
At trial, the Commonwealth indicated it was proceeding only on one
count each of materially false written statement and statement under
penalty. N.T., 10/24/14, at 9. The trial court found Appellant guilty of both
charges and ordered a presentence investigation and psychological
evaluation. Id. at 74.
On March 2, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to eleven and
one-half to twenty-three months of incarceration for the firearms conviction
and a consecutive term of one year of probation for unsworn falsification.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:
Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion when it
precluded J.R. Brockman, caseworker employed by Northwestern
Human Services, from testifying as to Appellant’s ability to
comprehend and understand questions posed to him and how
Appellant’s ability to understand things was affected by his
intellectual disabilities.
-3-
J-S02008-16
Whether the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond
a reasonable doubt all the elements of Materially False Written
Statement and Statement Under Penalty where the testimony
presented at trial failed to support a showing that Appellant
“knowingly and intentionally” made false statements on the
Pennsylvania State Police Application/Record of Sale form
(specifically question #32) and/or made statements Appellant
did not believe to be true.
Appellant’s Brief at 10.
The first issue involves the admission of evidence. In particular, when
Appellant attempted to call J.R. Brockman, Appellant’s Northwestern Human
Services caseworker from an unrelated, ongoing case involving Appellant’s
children, the Commonwealth requested an offer of proof. Based on that
offer, the trial court precluded the witness’s testimony. N.T., 4/24/15, at
48.
The admission of evidence is governed by the following standards:
“The admission of evidence is solely within the discretion of the
trial court, and a trial court’s evidentiary rulings will be reversed
on appeal only upon an abuse of that discretion.”
Commonwealth v. Reid, ___ Pa.___, 99 A.3d 470, 493
(2014). An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a
mere error of judgment, but rather occurs where the court has
reached a conclusion that overrides or misapplies the law, or
where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the
result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Commonwealth v.
Davido, ___ Pa. ___, 106 A.3d 611, 645 (2014).
Commonwealth v. Woodard, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 7767271 at
*10 (Pa. December 3, 2015). “[A]n erroneous ruling by a trial court on an
evidentiary issue does not necessitate relief where the error was harmless
-4-
J-S02008-16
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 28 A.3d 868,
874 (Pa. 2011).
Appellant’s remaining challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his convictions. Specifically, Appellant asserts, “even by way of
[his] own testimony,” Appellant’s Brief at 28, his acts were not knowing and
intentional when he denied ever having been charged with a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, even though at
the time he attempted to buy the firearm, he was charged with felony
insurance fraud and was awaiting trial. Commonwealth’s Brief at 12; N.T.,
10/24/14, at 33, 39. Appellant denied understanding Question 32 on the
Pennsylvania State Police Application/Record of Sale form, which stated as
follows:
Are you now charged with or have you ever been convicted of a
crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year? This is the maximum sentence that you could have
received, not the actual sentence you did receive. . . .
Pennsylvania State Police Application/Record of Sale, Exh C-1; N.T.,
10/24/14, at 15. Thus, he contends the Commonwealth failed to prove that
the false statement was done knowingly and intentionally. Appellant’s Brief
at 23.
In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, “we must decide whether the
evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in
favor of the Commonwealth, as verdict winner,” are sufficient to support all
elements of the offense. Commonwealth v. Hitcho, 123 A.3d 731, 746
-5-
J-S02008-16
(Pa. 2015). The trial court, sitting as the finder of fact, is free to believe
some, all, or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d
1025 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 792–793 (Pa.
Super. 2015). Moreover, the Commonwealth may sustain its burden of
proof by wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949
A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717 (Pa.
Super. 2014), appeal denied, 102 A.3d 985 (Pa. 2014). As an appellate
court, we may not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for
that of the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Rogal, 120 A.3d 994 (Pa.
Super. 2015).
Upon review of the parties’ briefs, the certified record, and our
standard of review, we conclude that the trial court properly disposed of
Appellant’s issues in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. Therein, the trial court
determined, inter alia, that precluding the testimony of Appellant’s Human
Services caseworker was not an abuse of its discretion and that the evidence
of record was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions. Trial Court
Opinion, 4/27/15, at 7–10. Moreover, the trial court specifically found that
“Appellant’s self-serving testimony was not credible.” Id. at 9. Therefore,
we affirm the judgment of sentence on the basis of the trial court’s April 27,
2015 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. In the event of future proceedings, the
parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion to this
memorandum.
-6-
J-S02008-16
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/19/2016
-7-