Commonwealth v. McSloy
| Citation | 751 A.2d 666 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Robert McSLOY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 26 April 2000 |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Susan V. Kahn, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Peter J. Gardner, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., appellee. Before POPOVICH, STEVENS and BECK, JJ.
¶ 1 In this criminal matter, we address, inter alia, the application of the statute of limitations for theft by deception, conspiracy, and fraud under the insurance law. On direct appeal, we are asked to determine whether appellant Robert McSloy's counsel was ineffective in failing to renew a motion to dismiss charges based on the statute of limitations, and in failing to call certain character witnesses. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
¶ 2 A jury convicted appellant of theft by deception, criminal conspiracy, and fraud under the Pennsylvania insurance laws. Testimony at trial established that appellant and Fred Diehl conspired to stage an automobile accident of Diehl's rented car on December 8, 1985. After Diehl refused to participate actively, appellant on his own deliberately smashed Diehl's rented vehicle into his own car. Both men subsequently reported the incident to police as an accident. Appellant received from his insurance companies1 more than $200,000, and more than $15,000 from the rental agency.
¶ 3 Six years after the incident, on December 9, 1991, appellant's brother, David McSloy, gave a statement incriminating appellant to the Inspector General of Philadelphia. On January 20, 1992, a second individual, Fred Elton, gave another statement incriminating appellant to the Philadelphia police. On October 16, 1992, co-conspirator Diehl gave an incriminating statement to police about himself and appellant. Diehl then refused any further cooperation with authorities until he received a promise of immunity. He then agreed to testify before a grand jury, which was convened in April, 1993. N.T., 9/18/96, at 21-22, 36; N.T., 10/16/97, at 46-48, 50, 86. Following the grand jury's presentment, appellant was arrested on December 20, 1993, and brought to trial in 1996. A prosecution is commenced when a warrant or summons is issued, if such warrant or summons is executed without unreasonable delay. Commonwealth v. Groff, 378 Pa.Super. 353, 548 A.2d 1237 (1988).
¶ 4 The first trial ended in a mistrial on matters unrelated to this appeal.2 The second trial began on October 15, 1997, and appellant was sentenced on January 15, 1998.
¶ 5 The law assumes that counsel was effective, and the burden is on appellant to prove otherwise. To do so, he must demonstrate that his underlying claim has arguable merit, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction, and that he was prejudiced as a result. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to advance a meritless claim. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 662 A.2d 1043 (1995).
¶ 6 Appellant's first charge of ineffectiveness is counsel's failure to move to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. None of appellant's arguments relating to the statute of limitations has merit. The statute of limitations for theft by deception is five years. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5552(b)(1). The thrust of appellant's argument is that the statute of limitations should bar prosecution because he was not brought to trial until 1996 and the staged accident and the completed crime occurred eleven years earlier in 1985. Appellant insists that the insurance companies' failure to pay him until December 5, 1989, four years after the staged accident, should not benefit the Commonwealth in initiating prosecution of the crime. Appellant relies on law pertaining to attempt,3 and argues that attempted theft by deception is completed after the communication creating the false impression. He insists that the false impression was created at the staging of the accident. Therefore, the five years should commence from the date of the accident, December 1985.
¶ 7 Conspiracy has the same five-year statute of limitations. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5552(b)(3). Appellant's arrangement with Diehl was to pay him $5,000 for helping to stage the accident. Diehl asked appellant for the money once, in 1986, and never asked him again. Appellant argues that the conspiracy therefore ended in 1986, and was not renewed.
¶ 8 The insurance laws have a two-year statute of limitations, except where there is fraud or breach of fiduciary obligation, in which case the limitation is extended for a one-year period from the time the offense is discovered. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5552(c)(1). He argues that the statute of limitations runs from January 20, 1992, the time the crime was discovered,i.e., Elton's revelations of the fraud to the police. The Commonwealth therefore had until January 19, 1993 to file charges, but did not do so until December 10, 1993.
¶ 9 Appellant's arguments concerning these three limitations fail. Appellant has been convicted of theft by deception, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922, not attempted theft. The statutory definition states: "A person is guilty of theft by deception if he intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by deception." The plain language of the statute states that an offense is committed after every element has occurred. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5552(d). A person is guilty of theft by deception if he intentionally obtains property from another by deception. The Commonwealth must prove that the victim relied upon the false impression. Commonwealth v. Fisher, 452 Pa.Super. 564, 682 A.2d 811 (1996). The statutory offense was therefore not completed until appellant first received payment from the insurance companies,i.e., in December 1989. He was arrested and charged in December 1993, within the five-year statutory limitation.
¶ 10 Criminal conspiracy, which has a five-year statute of limitations, is a continuing offense. Its essence is an agreement that a criminal objective be accomplished. The offense does not terminate until the conspiracy ends, at which point the time starts to run. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5552(d). Commonwealth v. Johnson, 419 Pa.Super. 625, 615 A.2d 1322 (1992). In the instant case, appellant and Diehl's conspiracy to defraud the insurance companies continued with each successive payment by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Showers
... ... Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to call witnesses of whose existence defendant failed to inform him. See Commonwealth v. McSloy, 751 A.2d 666 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 564 Pa. 728, 766 A.2d 1246, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 2352 (2000) (holding to find ineffectiveness for failure to call a witness, the defendant must demonstrate (1) the existence and availability of the witness; (2) counsel's 782 A.2d 1024 knowledge of the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Succi
... ... 42 Pa.C.S. 5552(b)(1). In this case, prosecution was commenced on February 10, 2014, when a warrant was issued for Appellant's arrest. Commonwealth v. McSloy , 751 A.2d 666, 668 (Pa. Super. 2000) ; 42 Pa.C.S. 5552(e). Thus, barring any applicable exceptions, the statute of limitations will act to bar prosecution for any crimes committed before February 10, 2009. A crime has been committed when every element of the crime occurs, "or, if a legislative ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Geoghan, 991143;001002
... ... 4th Dist. 1996); ... People v. Crossman , 210 Cal.App.3d 476, 480-81 ... (Cal.App. 6th Dist. 1989); People v. Kronemyer , 189 ... Cal.App.3d 314, 330 (Cal.App. 4th Dist. 1987) (interpreting ... Cal. Penal Code 803(c) (loislaw 2001)). See also ... Commonwealth v. McSloy , 751 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa ... Super.), rev. den., 766 A.2d 1246 (Pa. 2000); ... Commonwealth v. Hawkins , 439 A.2d 748, 750-51 (Pa ... Super. Ct. 1982) (interpreting Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 42, ... 5552(c) (loislaw 2001)); People v. McGreal , 278 ... N.E.2d 504, 510 (Ill.App. 1st Dist. 1971) ... ...
-
Kennedy v. Meager (In re Radnor Holdings Corp.)
... ... 6 UnjustEnrichment 4 years. Sevast v. Kakouras, 915 A.2d 1147, 1153 (Pa. 2007). 7 Obstruction ofJustice 5 years. Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 269 (Pa. 2008). 8 Breach ofContract 4 years. Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d 1253, 1255 n.5 (Pa. 2009). 9 ... Evans v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 601 A.2d 330, 334(Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). 10 Theft byDeception 5 years. Commonwealth v. McSloy, 751 A.2d 666, 668 (Pa. Super.Ct. 2000). DELAWARE STATUTES OF LIMITATION COUNT CAUSE OFACTION STATUTE OF LIMITATION 1 Breach ... ...
-
Motion practice
...until the offense ends. The usual example of a continuing offense is conspiracy. [ E.g., Commonwealth v. McSloy , 2000 Pa. Super. 130, 751 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).] Conspiracy continues until its objectives are achieved or the last act is taken in furtherance of it, even if these per......