Commonwealth v. Henck

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Anthony Jacob Henck’s judgment of sentence for home improvement fraud under 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1). The court held that the evidence, including misleading statements about the project’s completion time, false contact information, and subsequent contradictory excuses, was sufficient to support an inference of intent to defraud. The court also rejected Henck’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support Henck's conviction under 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1). The home-improvement fraud statute does not contain the theft-by-deception statute's restriction that intent to deceive may not be inferred solely from subsequent nonperformance; therefore, nonperformance may be considered with other circumstances as evidence of intent. Henck's false or misleading representations concerning the completion time, incorrect contact information, contradictory excuses, and refusal to disclose the cabinets' location supported the jury's finding that he intended to defraud the Storinos when he induced them to enter the contract.
2. The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Henck without a presentence investigation report or by imposing a high-end standard-range sentence of 16 to 32 months followed by 24 months of probation. Henck waived any challenge to the absence of a PSI, and, in any event, the sentencing court had sufficient information about the offense, Henck's criminal history, mental-health and substance-use issues, and rehabilitative prospects to make an informed sentencing decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Henck made a false or misleading statement to induce the Storinos to enter a home-improvement agreement, with intent to defraud or injure them, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1).
2. Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing sentence without a presentence investigation report and without stating adequate reasons for the sentence.

Disposition

affirmed