Commonwealth v. Washington

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Jeffrey Washington’s judgment of sentence for access device fraud. The court held that Pennsylvania had subject matter jurisdiction because the victim’s lack of consent occurred in Pennsylvania and that venue was proper in Montgomery County under the statutory venue provision for access device fraud, even though Washington committed the transactions in New York.

Holdings

1. Pennsylvania courts had subject matter jurisdiction because the unauthorized use of the victim's access devices included the defendant's failure to obtain the victim's consent, and that omission occurred in Pennsylvania where the victim resided at the time of the unauthorized use.
2. Venue was proper in Montgomery County because 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(e) permits an access device fraud prosecution where the property or services were received or provided, or where lawful charges were billed, and the record showed that Key Bank operated a branch in Montgomery County and the victim resided there.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pennsylvania courts had subject matter jurisdiction over access device fraud when the defendant's physical conduct occurred in New York but the unauthorized access device belonged to a Pennsylvania resident.
2. Whether venue was proper in Montgomery County under the access device fraud statute when the funds came from an account held by a bank with a Montgomery County branch and the victim resided there.

Disposition

affirmed