Leonard Chambers appeals his sentence following convictions for theft by deception and three counts of home improvement fraud after a bench trial. He raises issues of double jeopardy, due process violations, and argues that two convictions should merge for sentencing. Chambers was charged in September 2019 with four counts, including theft and home improvement fraud, which can occur through false statements, failure to perform after receiving payment, or misrepresentation of identity. The charges stemmed from allegations that he defrauded LaShelle Thompson into entering contracts for home improvement services, receiving $975 for work he did not complete. The Commonwealth initially filed an information citing home improvement fraud under 73 P.S. 517.8(a)(1) but later amended it to include subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) before trial, with no objection from the defense. The court affirmed the convictions.
Count four pertains to home improvement fraud under Commonwealth subsection A.1, referencing Title 73 75172.8. The Bills of Information date was initially April 8th but was amended to include April 6th and 8th without objection from the defense. Following a stipulated trial, the court found Chambers guilty of theft by deception and false statements to induce home improvement services, while acquitting him of other charges. The court later clarified its verdict, establishing guilt for all three categories of home improvement fraud.
Chambers entered into valid contracts with Ms. Thompson for carpet installation totaling $975, promising completion within two to three days, which he failed to fulfill. Despite representing himself as a legitimate contractor, a search revealed no registered business under the name provided. Chambers cashed a check from Ms. Thompson but did not commence the work, ignoring her attempts to contact him over two months. He failed to refund her any money or provide justification for the inaction, indicating fraudulent intent.
After Ms. Thompson contacted the police, Chambers was arrested. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence of intent to defraud, given his nonperformance and misrepresentation. Sentencing followed immediately, with the court imposing 11.5 to 23 months in jail for each of the three charges, to run concurrently, along with a consecutive one-year probation on the felony charge. The written sentencing order inaccurately listed four charges instead of three, specifying convictions for theft by deception and all three types of home improvement fraud.
Chambers raises multiple issues in his appeal regarding alleged violations of his rights. First, he claims a violation of his double jeopardy rights when he learned of four guilty verdicts and sentences recorded by the judge weeks after being informed in court of only two offenses. He argues that this increase in punishment was improper. Second, he asserts that the trial court violated his right to counsel and due process by entering additional convictions and sentences without his presence or that of his attorney. Third, he contends that imposing multiple convictions for a single act of home improvement fraud contravenes double jeopardy protections, as the statute outlines a single offense with various proofs and enhancements. Fourth, he questions whether the theft by deception sentence should merge with the enhanced home improvement fraud sentence based on the victim's age.
Chambers emphasizes that he was unaware of the additional sentences until after filing his appeal, suggesting a legitimate expectation of finality regarding his convictions. He notes discrepancies between the trial court's oral statements and the written sentencing order, arguing the latter should control due to their inconsistency. However, the court clarifies that its written order accurately reflects its intent to convict Chambers on all counts of home improvement fraud. The court maintains that its oral statements, when viewed in context with the findings and the sentencing order, indicate an intent to convict on all three counts. Chambers fails to rebut the presumption that the written order governs despite highlighting the inconsistencies. Overall, the court supports its conclusion by demonstrating that its findings align with the statutory language, revealing an intent to convict Chambers on multiple counts.
The court found that the complainant entered into a contract based on Chambers' false representation of his contracting company, including misrepresentations regarding his legitimacy and business address. Chambers cashed checks from the complainant without timely performing the contracted work. The sentencing order was issued shortly after the verdict, indicating the court's intention to convict Chambers on all three subsections of the home improvement fraud statute, despite any verbal misstatement. Chambers’ claims of double jeopardy and due process violations were rejected, as the court determined that he was guilty of separate offenses under different subsections of the statute, each requiring distinct elements and proof. His reliance on Commonwealth v. Given was deemed inapplicable, as that case involved a single act resulting in multiple convictions under the same statute, unlike Chambers' situation where different acts resulted in multiple offenses. Additionally, Chambers contended that the theft by deception conviction should merge with the home improvement fraud conviction, asserting they shared the same elements; however, the court upheld the separate convictions under the relevant statutes.
The Commonwealth must establish that the defendant intentionally obtained or withheld property from another by creating or reinforcing a false impression, which can pertain to law, value, intention, or other states of mind. Chambers was convicted of home improvement fraud under Subsection 517.8(a)(1), requiring proof that he made false or misleading statements with the intent to defraud or solicit someone into an agreement for home improvement services. For offenses to merge, two conditions must be met: the crimes must arise from a single act, and all statutory elements of one offense must be included in the other. The trial court noted that the charges involved different dates of commission. The Commonwealth claimed Chambers committed home improvement fraud on April 6 and April 8, 2019, and theft by deception on April 8, 2019, indicating the crimes stem from separate acts. Additionally, the statutes for each conviction possess unique elements; theft by deception requires the obtaining or withholding of property, which home improvement fraud does not, while the latter necessitates misrepresentation to induce a contract, a requirement absent in theft by deception. Consequently, the offenses do not merge for sentencing. The trial court's decision to keep the convictions separate was upheld, with the judgment of sentence affirmed. Judge King concurred, while Judge Dubow dissented. Judgment entered by Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq., Prothonotary on 9/27/2022.
