J-S24012-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TAISIIA VASI PRIZHIMOVA : : Appellant : No. 838 WDA 2024 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000003-2022

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: September 23, 2025 Appellant Taisiia Vasi Prizhimova appeals1 from the judgment of sentence imposed following her convictions for four counts of retail theft— alter label/pricing marking.2 After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

We adopt the trial court’s summary of the facts underlying this case.

See Trial Ct. Op., 9/13/24, at 1-6. Briefly, Appellant was charged with four ____________________________________________

1 We note that although the trial court initially imposed Appellant’s sentence on February 26, 2024, the trial court subsequently issued an order amending its original sentencing order to correct a misspelling of Appellant’s name. See Amended Order, 3/8/24; see also Commonwealth v. Garzone, 993 A.2d 1245, 1254 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that where the trial court amends the judgment of sentence during the thirty-period it maintains jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505, the direct appeal lies from the amended judgment of sentence). We have amended the caption accordingly.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(2).

J-S24012-25

counts of retail theft3 based on allegations that she made fraudulent returns to T.J. Maxx and received refunds for items that she did not originally purchase. See id. Following a non-jury trial, Appellant was convicted on all counts. Id. at 5-6. On February 26, 2024, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of six months of probation and ordered to pay $647.75 in restitution to TJX Companies. See id. at 6.

Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied.

Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s claim.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Appellant wishes to challenge the sufficiency of evidence presented at the non-jury trial.” Appellant’s Brief at 5. In support, Appellant argues that “the Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence regarding retail theft by failing to produce sufficient evidence that [Appellant] personally altered, transferred, or removed any label, price tag marking, indicia of value or any other markings that aided in determining value affixed to any merchandise.”

Id. at 8.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are governed by the following standard: As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable to ____________________________________________

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1).

-2- J-S24012-25

the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, the fact that the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s convictions will be upheld.

Commonwealth v. Wright, 255 A.3d 542, 552 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted and formatting altered). “Importantly, the fact finder, which passes upon the weight and credibility of each witness’s testimony, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted and formatting altered).

Pursuant to Section 3929(a)(2) of the Crimes Code, a person commits “retail theft” if she alters, transfers or removes any label, price tag marking, indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a store or other retail mercantile establishment and attempts to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of

-3- J-S24012-25

depriving the merchant of the full retail value of such merchandise.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(2).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant legal authority, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., at 7-11. The trial court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s sufficiency claim and concluded that she was not entitled to relief. See id. at 10-11.

Specifically, the trial court noted that the there was “extensive direct and circumstantial evidence presented at trial” which “permitted [the trial court] to infer that [Appellant] altered the packing slips and tags which she possessed and used to obtain a benefit from TJX.” See id. We discern no error in the trial court’s conclusions. See Wright, 255 A.3d at 552. For these reasons, we affirm.4 Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 9/23/2025 ____________________________________________

4 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings.

-4- J-S24012-25

-5- 11:50:03 PMCirculated Received 2/20/2025 11.50.03 Superior 08/29/2025 Superior Court 10:17 Western AM District Copies to: DAS Copies 1: DAs Office Office PDs Office PDs Office Defendant Defendant Superior Court Superior Court of of PA PA Filed 220r202s 2/20/2025 11.so.0o 11:50:00 PM PM Superior Court Western District rued supenor court {'gg' $WDA 73./38% 2024 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ) ) Appellee, Appellee, ) ) VS. ) No. 838 WDA 2024 2024 ) ) TAISIIA PRIZHIMOVA, PRIZHIMOVA, ) ) Appellant.

Appellant. ) Co •< Appeal Appeal from the Opinion and the Opinion and Order entered entered on on June June 14, 14, 2024 2024 5 In the Court of the Court of Common Common Pleas Pleas of of Washington County Washington County Criminal Division at No: CP-63-CR-000003-2022 OPINION PURSUANT Pa.R.A.P.1925(a) PURSUANT TO PAR.A.P. 1925(a) r) This matter is is.before Court ("Court") before the Trial Court ("Court") pursuant pursuant to Pa.RA.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) regarding an appeal appeal of its June 14th, 2024 denial of Defendant's post-sentence motion following aanon jury non-jury trial in which the trial court found the Defendant guilty of Count 1: I: Retail Theft--Alter Theft—Alter Label/Pricing Label/Pricing Marking, Marking, 18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 3929(a)2), 3929(a)(2), aaSummary Summary offense; offense; Count Count 2: 2: Retail Retail Theft- Theft— Alter Label/Pricing Label/Pricing Marking, Marking, 18 I8 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. $§ 3929(a)(2), a a Summary offense; Count 3: Retail Retail Theft—Alter Label/Pricing Theft--Alter Labe/Pricing Marking, Marking, 18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 3929(a)02), 3929(a)(2), a Summary offense; a Summary offense; and and Court Court 4: 4: Retail Retail Theft—Alter TheftAlter Label/Pricing Marking, 18 Label/Pricing Marking, 18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 3929(a)2), 3929(a)(2), aaSummary offense. This Summary offense.

Court respectfully respectfully submits that that this appeal should be this appeal be denied denied and and this Court's Court's decision decision be be affirmed. affirmed.

PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL AND RELEVANT FACTUAL HISTORY tZOZ E id3S ® 3Al3,3H

The Information was originally originally filed January January 26, 2022 and an Amended Information was %.tr " "' filed May 2, filed May 2023. A 2, 2023. A non jury trial non-jury trial was held on February held on February 26, 2024. The Court 26, 2024. Court sets forth forth the the following summary following summary of facts facts from the the Non-Jury Non-Jury trial: TJX is the umbrella company that covers T.J.

T.J. Maxx, Maxx, Marshalls, Marshalls, HomeGoods, Sierra, Home6Goods, Siena, HomeSense, and other various retail establishments. establishments. See Non-Jury Non-Jury Trial Tr., Tr., 18, 18, 2/26/2024.

2/26/2024 Jessica Martinez, aafraud investigator for TJX, testified at trial. Id. at 17.

17. Martinez initiated an investigation involving aaT.I.

T.J. Maxx store located in McMurray, McMurray, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania. Id. Id, at 21.

2I Martinez began her investigation in June of 2021. Id. One of her job job duties includes drafting drafting incident reports relating to fraud investigations. investigations. Id. See Commonwealth's Exhibit 1.

I'1 The The first first fraud incident investigated investigated by by Martinez Martinez took place place on June 12, 2021 June 12, 2021 regarding online regarding an online purchase TJMaxx.com relating purchase at TJMaox.com relating to aapurple with yellow lace with yellow lace blouse blouse and aaswimsuit called called "underwire one piece." Id. at 24; see also Commonwealth's Exhibit 1.

1. The total purchase purchase $ 199.98. Id amounted to $199.98. Id. A A credit card ending in card number 6717 was used to pay pay for the online transaction. Id. The clothing items were shipped to were shipped to 287 McClane MeClane Farm Farm Road, Road, Washington, PA. PA. Id. Id. The name set forth on the TJMaox.com TJMaxx.com account that purchased purchased the items items was "Inna was Inna Patton". Id. at 24-25 24-25.

Martinez Martinez testified testified that that an actionable fraud subsequently occurred. Defendant fraud event subsequently entered the T.J. Maxx store and presented words, not the presented "non-TJX" merchandise; in other words, original blouse that that was purchased online. online. Defendant Defendant then requested requested aarefund in in the amount of the amount of $99.99. $99.99. Id. at 25.

Id. at 25. Defendant Defendant presented presented a apacking slip containing packing slip containing the the confirmation confirmation number that number that connects the blouse that was purchased online. Id. at 28. Defendant then then received aarefund which was credited on her credit card ending in 6717. Id. at 27. Defendant received aareceipt receipt

The TJX 'The 1 TJX "PA eCommerce" Invesigation report PA &Commerce" report specifically stated that that "In June of 2020, In Jue 2020, the the TJX National Task Force Force ("NFT") ("NFT") initiated an investigation intointo multiple unknown subjects subjects who are causing causing losses to aaT.J. Maxx store TJ. Max location location through through fraudulent fraudulent refunds. This investigation refunds. This investigation was was initiated initiated via via information information from from Associates Associates inin the stores. the stores Through Through the the course of the investigation, investigation, the the NTF NTF was was able to identify that the subjects to identify completed subjects completed fraudulent fraudulent refunds refunds against TJMaxx.com TIMaox.com purchases by refunding items that were not what were originally originally purchased purchased and sent to to them.

It was also found during the investigation that the prices of items being being refunded were being altered. The price being altered. price was was raised, which allowed the subjects to get more value/money being altered and raised, value/money back than what they they originally paid originally paid item." for the item."

for the refund transaction and exited the store. store. Id. at 26-27. Martinez testified that the packing packing slip that Defendant presented to complete the refund transaction was altered. altered. Id. at 29. Martine Martinez explained that the purpose of altering altering the packing packing slip slip is to get get the cashier to hand-type hand-type the refund refund transaction transaction into into the computer system the computer system and and enter the altered enter the date which altered date then approves which then approves Defendant Defendant for for the the refund. refund. Id. Id Martinez testified that aasecond actionable fraud event took place place on August 9, 2021 after August 9, an online purchase an online was placed purchase was placed on on May May 4, 2021. Id. 4,2021. at 30. {d. at 30. Three dresses were Three dresses were purchased purchased in in different sizes, totaling $ 137.79. Id. totaling $137,79. 30. The Id. at 30. The credit card used used to pay pay for for the the dresses dresses had had aacard card number ending in number, ending in 1613.

1613. Id. at at 31. The dresses 31. The dresses were were shipped shipped to to 287 McClane McClane Farm Farm Road, Road, Washington, Washington, PA. PA. Id. Id. Defendant subsequently entered Defendant subsequently entered the store, went the store, to the went to the register register and and requested requested aarefund refund for for a a non-TJX non-TJX item. item. There was no There was no price price tag on the tag on the item item Defendant Defendant sought sought to to return. at 32. return. Id. at 32. Defendant presented an Defendant presented an altered altered packing slip to packing slip to the cashier, which the cashier, was scanned which was scanned into into the computer system. the computer system. The The packing packing slip slip was was not connected to not connected to the the original original transaction transaction because because the the date on the date on the packing packing slip slip was altered. Id. was altered. at 32.

Id. at The cashier, 32. The cashier, therefore, had to therefore, had to hand- hand- type the type rest of the rest of the information into the information into the computer system, the computer system, which approved Defendant which approved Defendant for for the the refund. refund. Id. Martinez Martinez testified that packing slip presented that the packing presented by by Defendant Defendant had had been been altered. altered The price price of the changed on the original item purchased was changed on the the packing slip, as well packing slip, well as the the date date of the the original purchase. purchase. Id. Id. at 34.

34. The total amount credited back back to to Defendant's credit card was was $137.79. The original $137.79, original purchase purchase price price of the dress was was $79.99.

Martinez Martinez testified testified that that aathird actionable fraud event event occurred on August August 29, 2021.

2021 An online purchase purchase was initially made was initially made on April April 7, 7, 2021. Id. Id. at 35.

35. A single dress A single dress named named "bow bow mini dress" was dress" was purchased purchased for $99.99. Id. for $99,99. at 36.

Id. at 36. The credit card The credit card used used to pay for the pay for the dress dress ended ended in in card number number 6717. Id. The The dress was shipped to 287 was shipped 287 McClane McClane Farm Farm Road, Road, Washington, Washington, PA. Id. Id

The actionable fraud event took place on August 29,2021, 29, 2021, when Defendant returned aanon-TJX article of article of clothing clothing for for aarefund to the refund to the T.J. Maxx Maxx store store located at McMurray, located at Mc Murray, Pennsylvania. Id. Pennsylvania. Id presented an altered packing As done previously, Defendant presented slip with the SKU number of the packing slip original dress, provided her credit card and requested requested aarefund. Id. Defendant received a refund, a refund, which was placed placed on her credit card, in in the amount of $ 149.99. Martinez testified that the of $149.99. packing slip was altered so Defendant could receive an additional S50 $50 from the store. Id. Id, at 38.

Martinez testified to aafourth actionable fraud event which occurred on September 5, September 5, 2021. An online purchase was initially 2021. initially made on August dresses, each priced August 20, 2021. Two dresses, priced at $129.99, were purchased. purchased. The online transaction transaction totaled totaled $259.98. Id. at 40, 40. The The credit credit card used used to purchase the two dresses had aacard number ending in 9656 and the clothing clothing was shipped shipped to McClave Farm Road, Washington, PA. Id. On September McClane September 5, 2021, Defendant entered the te store, store, approached approached aaregister requested a register and requested arefund. refund. Defendant presented presented an an altered packing slip packing slip with the original original purchase information on it. it, Id. at 41 41. She presented presented non-TJX non.TJy merchandise and obtained aarefund and receipt from the store. Id. Martinez testified that Defendant had placed placed tags tags on the the non-TJX merchandise merchandise that that would would have have been on the the dress originally purchased dress originally purchased online. online Martinez Martinez testified that, that, as aaresult result of the four four fraud fraud events set forth events set T.J. forth in detail above, T.J Maxx Maxx lost lost a a total of $647.75. Id. total of 43.

Id. at 43 Detective Edward Walker of the Peters Township Police Department testified at trial. Id. Id at 56. He explained that Detective Chris Brown of the Allegheny County Police Department met with Walker and informed him of an investigation investigation Brown was working regarding aastring working on regarding string of alleged regarding TJ. alleged thefts regarding T.J. Maxx stores. Id. at at 55. Detective Detective Walker Walker subsequently open his his own investigation investigation after learning T.J. Maxx store in learning that the TJ. in McMurray, Washington County, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania might might be aavictim of this alleged alleged criminal activity. activity. Id. Id. Detective Walker received

information information from TJX, including from TJX, the TJX including the TJX "PA eCommerce" Investigation "PA &Commerce" Report, which Investigation Report, which included dollar amounts of the transactions, receipts, videos, photographs photographs of the merchandise merchandise and and photographs of the actors. Id. Id. at 56. Detective Walker testified that, that, based on his investigation, investigation, he believed there were two individuals involved in the suspected criminal activity activity regarding regarding the the T.J. Maxx store. store. Id. Walker identified the name of one of the individuals being being "Inna "Inna Paton" Paton" who lived at 287 McClane Farm Road in Washington County, Pennsylvania.

Washington County, Pennsylvania. Id. After After researching the 287 McClane researching tbe McClane Farm Farm Road Road address in in aadatabase, database, Detective Detective Walker obtained Walker obtained Defendant's name. name. Id. at 57, 57. Walker Walker testified that he he ran ran the driver's license license history of the history of the Defendant and was able to observe her photograph from her driver's license and identify identify her as being the person person in the photographs and video footage footage from T.J. Maxx. Id. Detective Walker Walker testified that that credit cards were used to to collect the the refunds. refunds. Id. at 58.

Id. at 58.

Detective attempted to Detective attempted serve aawarrant to serve warrant on on Defendant at 287 Defendant at 287 McClane MeClane Farm Farm Road which was Road which was the the same address where the original purchases were shipped to regarding regarding the four fraud events. Id. Id When When Detective Detective Walker Walker arrived at at the the 287 McClane MeClane Farm Farm Road Road residence, residence, he he observed several observed several shipping parcels outside the home. Id. at 59.

59. At least one of the packages packages was addressed from T.J. Maxx. Id. After consideration of all the evidence presented, this Court found the Defendant guilty guilty of the of the offense offense of of Retail Theft at Retail Theft at counts counts one one ((); 1); two two (2); (2); three three (3); and four (3); and four (4) (4) on on February 26, February 26, 2024. Defendant's counsel indicated that they they were wanting wanting to proceed proceed forward with sentencing sentencing day. the same day This This Court Court sentenced Defendant Defendant as follows: follows: At Count 1 I on the charge of Retail Theft the charge Theft— Alter Label/Pricing Marking-18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 3929(a)(2), 3929(a)(2), Defendant was sentenced to pay pay the costs of prosecution and be placed on probation for aaperiod period of ninety ninety (90) days to be supervised (90) days supervised

by the Washington Washington County Adult Probation Office. Additionally, Additionally, Defendant was ordered to pay pay restitution in the amount of of $99.99 to t0 TJX Companies. At Count 22on the charge charge of Retail Theft-Alter Label/Pricing Marking-18 Pa.C.S. §$ 3929(a)02), Theft 3929(a)(2), Defendant was placed placed on probation probation for for aaperiod of ninety ninety (90) (90) days days to to be be supervised by the supervised by Washington County the Washington County Adult Adult Probation Office. Count 2 2was to run consecutively to the sentence imposed imposed above at Count l1.

At Count Count 33on the Theft—Alter Label/Pricing the charge of Retail Theft-Alter Label/Pricing Marking- 18 Pa.C.S.

Marking-18 Pa.C.S. §$ 3929(a)(2), 3929(a)(2), Defendant Defendant was was ordered to to pay pay aafine fine in the the amount of $25. Additionally, amount of Additionally, Defendant Defendant was ordered to to pay pay restitution restitution in in the amount of $149.99 amount of $ 149.99 to t0 TJX Companies. At TJX Companies, At Count 44on the charge of Retail Theft--Alter Theft—Alter Label/Pricing Marking-18 Label/Pricing Marking I8 Pa.C.S. §$ 3929(a)(2), 3929(a)(2), Defendant was ordered to pay aafine in the amount of of $25, $25. Additionally, Additionally, Defendant was ordered to pay pay restitution in the amount of of $259.98 t0 to TJX Companies.

TJX Companies.

Defendant's aggregate sentence was six (6) months of probation and restitution in the of $$ 647.75 to be paid to TJX Companies. On March 6, 2024, the Defendant filed a amount of a post-sentence motion and this Court scheduled aahearing for May May 22, 2024, at which Defendant's motion was denied. It is from the June I4th, 14th, 2024 Order that Defendant appeals. appeals. This Court now issues the following opinion having having received Defendant's concise statement.

Defendant/Appellant argues that this Court committed an abuse of discretion or an error of law in that: that 1. Appellant wishes to challenge the sufficiency of evidence presented I. presented at the non- jury trial. Specifically, Appellant avers that the Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence regarding regarding retail theft by by failing failing to produce produce sufficient evidence that Defendant personally altered, transferred, or removed any label, price tag marking, indicia of value or any other markings markings that aided in determining value affixed to any merchandise. merchandise. It was unclear from the evidence whether Appellant personally personally benefitted from the alleged alleged fraudulent acts. acts

STANDARD OF REVIEW STANDARD sufficiency claims is The standard of review of sufficiency is as follows: follows:

An appellate court An appellate court "evaluate[s] "evaluate[s] the record in the record in the light most the hight most favorable favorable to to the the verdict verdict winner winner giving the giving prosecution the benefit the prosecution benefit of all reasonable reasonable inferences to to be be drawn from from the evidence. evidence Evidence will Evidence will be deemed sufficient be deemed sufficient to to support the verdict support the verdict when when it establishes each it establishes each material material element of element of the crime charged the crime charged and and the the commission commission thereof by the thereof by the accused, beyond aareasonable accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, doubt. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need the Commonwealth need not establish guilt not establish guilt to to aamathematical mathematical certainty. certainty. [T]he facts [Tlhe facts and and circumstances circumstances established established by by the Commonwealth need the Commonwealth need not not be absolutely be absolutely incompatible with the incompatible with the defendant's defendant's innocence. innocence. Any doubt about Any doubt about the defendant's guilt the defendant's guilt is is to to be be resolved by resolved the fact by the fact finder finder unless unless the evidence is the evidence is so so weak weak and and inconclusive inconclusive that, that, as as aamatter matter of of law, no probability probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances." Commonwealth v. v Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722 (Pa. A.3d 719,722 Super. 2013) (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations (citations and quotation quotation marks omitted). marks omitted)

"The facts and circumstances established by by the Commonwealth Commonwealth need not not preclude every preclude every possibility possibility of innocence." Commonwealth v. of innocence." 870 A.2d v. Matthews, 870 924 (Pa.Super. 2005) A.2d 924 The fact- (Pa.Super. 2005) The fact- finder may any doubts regarding may resolve any guilt unless the evidence is so weak and regarding the defendant's guilt inconclusive that as a a matter of law no probability probability of fact may may be drawn from the combined circumstances. Id. circumstances. "The Commonwealth { "The Commonwealth may may sustain sustain its burden of its burden of proving proving every every element element of of the the crime beyond crime beyond aareasonable doubt by reasonable doubt by means means of of wholly wholly circumstantial evidence." Id. circumstantial evidence."

In In addition, addition, when when reviewing reviewing the sufficiency of the sufficiency of the the evidence claim the evidence claim the court court is is required required to to give the prosecution give prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence evidence.

Commonwealth v. 817 A.2d v. Robinson, 817 1153 (Pa.Super. 2003), A.2d 1153 quoting Commomwealth (Pa.Super. 2003), quoting Commonwealth v. v Widmer, Widmer, 560 Pa. Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 308, 744 A.2d 745 745 (2000). (2000). However, However, "the "the inferences inferences must must flow flow from from facts and and

circumstances circumstances proven proven in in the the record, and must record, and must be quality as be of such volume and quality as to to overcome the presumption presumption of of innocence and satisfy innocence and the jury satisfy the jury of of an an accused's accused's guilt guilt beyond beyond aareasonable doubt." reasonable doubt." Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Scott, 409 Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 313, 597 A.2d 1220 1220 ((1991) 1991).

DISCUSSION

Title 18, Section 3929, Subsection Subsection (a)(2), defines the criminal offense of Retail Theft, in pertinent parts, as follows:

(a) Offense defined.--A (a) defined.--A person person is is guilty of aaretail retail theft theft if he: he: (2) alters, (2) alters, transfers transfers or removes any label, price removes any price tag tag marking, marking, indicia indicia of of value value or any any other markings markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a a store or other retail mercantile establishment establishment and attempts to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant merchant of thethe full full retail retail value value of such merchandise; merchandise; I8 Pa.C.S.A.

Pa.C.S.A. §$ 3929(a)(2).

3929(a)02).

Thus, the Commonwealth had the burden of proving that ((1) proving that 1) Defendant altered, transferred transferred or removed removed any any label, label, price price tag marking, indicia tag marking, indicia of value value or any other markings markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in aastore or other retail mercantile establishment and and (2) (2) attempted to purchase such merchandise personally personally or in in consort with another at less less than than the the full full retail retail value value with with the intention of depriving depriving the merchant of the full retail value of such merchandise.

setting forth Defendant's sufficiency challenge in her Concise Statement, Defendant In setting contends that the Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence regarding retail theft by failing to failing to produce produce sufficient sufficient evidence that that Defendant Defendant personally altered, transferred, transferred, or removed removed any any label, price tag label, price tag marking, marking, indicia of value or any other markings that aided in determining

value affixed to any merchandise. merchandise. It was unclear from the evidence whether Defendant personally personally benefitted from the alleged fraudulent acts. acts

This Court submits that the the evidence presented at trial, trial, when when viewed viewed in in the light most most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to support the finding finding that all elements of the offense of retail theft theft were proven beyond aareasonable doubt. doubt. The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Jessica Martinez, aafraud investigator for TJX, who introduced aadetailed investigation investigation report report that that outlined four four specific instances in in which which Defendant Defendant was was captured on camera returning returning non-TJX merchandise to aaTJX store for aarefund. The investigation report sets forth including Defendant's time of entry forth details including entry into the store, time of Defendant exiting the store and store and the store location. the store location. The investigation report The investigation includes photos report includes photos which demonstrate which demonstrate Defendant approaching approaching the register register during these transactions. The investigation report includes photographs of the merchandise returned, and photographs and comparative photographs photographs of the merchandise that was originally purchased. was originally purchased. All All four instances instances included included altered or transferred transferred tags, tags, tags tags not not original purchase indicative of original purchase price price or TJX tags tags on non-TJX merchandise, as well as other altered indicia altered indicia of of value by way value by way of of packing packing slips. slips. This This report showed four report showed four different different actionable actionable fraud events executed by by Defendant on camera, in which Defendant illegally obtained a a material benefit by by returning returning non-TJX non.TJX merchandise to to aaT.J.

T.J, Maxx store using altered packing slips slips.

Martinez identified Defendant at trial as being being "Suspect B" in the investigation report regarding regarding all four incidences. The Commonwealth also presented Detective Walker's testimony, who who established that that there there were multiple multiple packages packages on Defendant's Defendant's porch, porch, including including at least least one from T.J. Maxx., Maox., when he served aawarrant

Defendant Defendant argues that that the Commonwealth did did not not reach reach the the burden of proving proving the the element that element that Defendant Defendant personally made any personally made any alteration alteration or or removing any label, removing any label, price price tag, tag, marking, marking, value, value, etc. Although Although there there was no showing Defendant no direct evidence showing Defendant modifying modifying the the packaging slips or altering packaging slips altering or transferring transferring the tags, tags, the Commonwealth was not required required to produce such evidence in order to secure a conviction. As noted above, the Commonwealth need a conviction. not establish Defendant's guilt guilt to aamathematical certainty, certainty. Franklin, 69 A.3d at 722.

722. Moreover, Moreover, the facts and circumstances established by by the Commonwealth need not be absolutely be absolutely incompatible with Defendant's innocence. innocence. Id. It It is aawell-settled well-settled principle principle of law law that that the the Commonwealth may may sustain its burden beyond a burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by by means of wholly wholly circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact, fact, which passes passes upon upon the weight and credibility of each witness's testimony, is free to believe all, part, part, or none of the evidence. Commorwealth the evidence. Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d A.3d 1065, 1078 1078 (Pa. (Pa. 2017).

The Commonwealth presented presented aasubstantial amount of circumstantial evidence, that when considered collectively and with the direct evidence presented at trial, was legally legally sufficient to prove prove beyond beyond aareasonable doubt that Defendant committed retail theft. Direct evidence was presented showing the presence of Defendant in the store on four separate occasions presenting "non-TJX" merchandise, requesting refunds, possessing and presenting altered packing slips non-TJX" containing confirmation containing confirmation numbers numbers that connect to to "non-TJX" "non.TJX" merchandise, merchandise, obtaining refunds refunds credited to her credit card which she presented to the cashier on each occasion and exiting the store. The extensive direct and circumstantial evidence presented at trial trial permitted permitted this this Court to infer that Defendant altered the packing packing slips and tags which she possessed and used to obtain aa benefit from TJX TJX.

The Commonwealth therefore therefore proved, through through both evidence, both direct and circumstantial evidence, that ((I) that 1) Defendant altered, transferred or removed removed aalabel, tag marking, label, price tag marking, indicia indicia of of value or value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to to any any merchandise displayed, displayed, held, held, stored or offered for sale in aastore and and (2) attempted to purchase such merchandise personally personally or in depriving the n consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving merchant of the full retail value of such merchandise. merchandise

CONCLUSION

In In light of the light of the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, we we respectfully submit that respectfully submit that Defendant's Defendant's challenge challenge to to the the • sufficiency of the evidence presented at the non jury trial is without merit and request non-jury request this Honorable Court to to affirm the the conviction and sentence of the the Defendant.

Defendant.

DATE: BY THE • R

2enenueR,(2,202 SSE PETTIT, UDGE UDGE

II