J-A12012-25
2025 PA Super 183
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFREY WASHINGTON :
:
Appellant : No. 3046 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 16, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No: CP-46-CR-0002913-2024
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2025
Appellant, Jeffrey Washington, seeks review of the judgment of
sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial
court). In 2024, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of access device fraud
(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(1)(ii)), and he was sentenced to a prison term of nine
to 23 months. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction and venue in this case because the offense was committed
outside of Pennsylvania. Finding no merit in that claim, we affirm.
On October 25, 2023, while physically present in the state of New York,
Appellant used an altered check and a fake identification card belonging to the
victim, James Tammaro. A counterfeit check belonging to the victim was
cashed in the amount of $3,500.00, and in a separate transaction, the victim’s
identification was used by Appellant to withdraw $5,000.00 from the victim’s
bank account.
J-A12012-25
At the time, the victim was a resident of Lower Salford Township in
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The institution which held those funds,
Key Bank, had branch locations in Pennsylvania, including one in Montgomery
County.
Following Appellant’s two transactions in New York, a bank manager at
a Key Bank branch in that state contacted the victim. The victim confirmed
with the bank manager that he was not the individual who had obtained the
subject funds. Further, video surveillance recordings from a Key Bank branch
in New York showed that the person who had cashed the fraudulent check and
withdrawn funds from the victim’s account was Appellant. Police arrested
Appellant and transported him to Pennsylvania, where he pleaded guilty to
access device fraud and was sentenced as outlined above.
Appellant timely appealed, and in his brief, he raises a single issue:
“Whether the Trial Court had subject matter jurisdiction (and Venue) to take
the Appellant’s plea of guilty where the crimes occurred in New York but the
victim was located in Pennsylvania.” Appellant’s Brief, at 3. 1
When appealing from a judgment of sentence entered pursuant to a
guilty plea, a defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a court.
Commonwealth v. Czapla, 430 A.2d 313 (Pa. Super. 1981). The court’s
subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that is “not susceptible to waiver,” and
____________________________________________
1 Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.See Trial
Court 1925(a) Opinion, 12/4/24, at 2-8 (giving reasons why the judgment of
sentence should be upheld).
-2-
J-A12012-25
it may be raised for the first time at any stage of the proceedings. See
Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 208 (Pa. 2007). Whether a court
has subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that poses a pure question of law,
subject to a de novo standard of review. See
id., at 211.
“Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the competency of a court to hear
and decide the type of controversy presented.” Commonwealth v. Bethea,
828 A.2d 1066, 1074 (Pa. 2003). “[A] court's competency hinges upon a
demonstration that a criminal act occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court.” Jones,
929 A.2d at 208. “Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive
law.” Bethea,
828 A.2d at 1074 (citing McGinley v. Scott,
164 A.2d 424,
428 (Pa. 1960)); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 931(a) (defining the unlimited original
jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas).
Matters arising from a violation of Pennsylvania’s Crimes Code “are
entrusted to the original jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas for
resolution.” Id. (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 102). “Every jurist within that tier of the
unified judicial system is competent to hear and decide a matter arising out
of the Crimes Code.” Id. (citing Pa. Const. Art. 5, § 5.).
In addition to subject matter jurisdiction, a court’s authority to hear a
case depends on whether venue is proper in the court’s judicial district. Id.,
at 1074. “Venue in a criminal action properly belongs in the place where the
crime occurred.” Id. “This practice recognizes the necessity of bringing a
party to answer for his actions in the place where the crime itself occurred
-3-
J-A12012-25
because that is where the evidence and the witnesses will most likely be
located.” Id.
“Subject matter jurisdiction and venue are distinct. However, since
jurisdiction references the power of a court to entertain and adjudicate a
matter while venue pertains to the locality most convenient to the proper
disposition of a matter, venue can only be proper where jurisdiction already
exists.” Id., at 1074-75 (citing 92A C.J.S., Venue § 2).
The “general rule” governing whether an act falls within the territorial
boundaries of a Pennsylvania court is as follows:
(a) General rule -Except as provided in this section, a person
may be convicted under the law of this Commonwealth of an
offense committed by his own conduct or the conduct of another
for which he is legally accountable if either:
(1) the conduct which is an element of the offense or the result
which is such an element occurs within this Commonwealth; or
(2) conduct occurring outside this Commonwealth is sufficient
under the law of this Commonwealth to constitute an attempt to
commit an offense within this Commonwealth.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 102.
"Conduct" is defined for the purpose of this rule as “[a]n action or
omission and its accompanying state of mind, or, here relevant, a series of
acts and omissions.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 103.
In a criminal case, courts should only exercise jurisdiction beyond the
territorial limits of the judicial district in which each court sits when at least
one essential element of an offense has occurred within that district:
-4-
J-A12012-25
The law is clear that the locus of a crime is always in issue, for the
court has no jurisdiction of the offense unless it occurred within
the county of trial, or unless, by some statute, it need not[.] For
a county to take jurisdiction over a criminal case, some overt act
involved in that crime must have occurred within that county. In
order to base jurisdiction on an overt act, the act must have been
essential to the crime, an act which is merely incidental to the
crime is not sufficient.
Commonwealth v. Seiders, 11 A.3d 495, 497 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, the statutory venue provision governing subsection
4106(a)(1) mandates that offenses committed under that subsection “may be
deemed to have been committed at either the place where the attempt to
obtain property or services is made, or at the place where the property or
services were received or provided, or at the place where the lawful charges
for said property or services are billed.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(e).
Here, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of access device fraud (18
Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(1)(ii)). This offense is defined as using “an access device
to obtain or in an attempt to obtain property or services with knowledge that
. . . the access device was issued to another person who has not authorized
its use[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(1)(ii). An “access device” is defined in
section 4106 as
[a]ny card, including, but not limited to, a credit card, debit card
and automated teller machine card, plate, code, account number,
personal identification number or other means of account access
that can be used alone or in conjunction with another access
device to obtain money, goods, services or anything else of value
or that can be used to transfer funds.
-5-
J-A12012-25
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(d).2
It is clear that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case
because an essential element of access device fraud is the defendant’s use or
attempted use of an access device belonging to another person who has not
authorized the defendant to do so. The statute therefore criminalizes conduct
in the form of an omission – the failure to obtain consent for the access
device’s use. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 103 (recognizing that an omission may be
“conduct” which satisfies an element of a criminal offense occurring within
Pennsylvania).
Where a person who owns an access device resides in Pennsylvania at
the time of its unauthorized use, the failure to obtain that individual’s consent
is an omission by the defendant occurring within that state. See id. This is
true regardless of whether the defendant is physically present outside of
Pennsylvania’s territorial boundaries at the time. Accordingly, the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas had subject matter jurisdiction because
the victim resided in Pennsylvania when Appellant used his access devices
without authorization.3
____________________________________________
2 The victim’s identification card and checkbook fit this statute’s definition of
an “access device.” See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(d).
3 It does not appear that any Pennsylvania appellate decisions have addressed
the precise jurisdictional issue now before us. However, we are persuaded by
and have employed the rationale of other state courts which have found there
to be subject matter jurisdiction under analogous circumstances. See e.g.,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-A12012-25
Venue also was proper in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery
County. Under subsection 4106(e) of the access device fraud statute, the
offense may, for venue purposes, be deemed to have been committed “at the
place where the property or services were received or provided, or at the place
where the lawful charges for said property or services are billed[.]” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(e). The funds Appellant obtained as a result of the
unauthorized transactions came from the victim’s account with Key Bank. The
record shows that Key Bank operated a branch location in Montgomery
County, the same county where the victim resided. This made Montgomery
County the place where the subject property or services were received or
provided, or where the charges for said property or services were billed. Thus,
Appellant’s challenges to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and venue
have no merit, and the judgment of sentence must be upheld.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 50 N.E. 3d 845, 857-58 (Mass. App. Ct.
2016) (“Where each cardholder victim resided in Massachusetts at the time
that her credit card was fraudulently used, we consider the victim's
nonconsent as a predicate act proving an offense element that took place in
Massachusetts for purposes of establishing a jurisdictional basis for the
defendant's convictions of credit card fraud and attempted credit card fraud.”)
(Internal quotations omitted); State v. Roberts,
143 So.3d 936, 938-39 (Fla.
2d DCA 2014) (holding that Florida court had jurisdiction over offense of
fraudulent use of personal identification information because defendant failed
to obtain victim’s prior consent in Florida, where the victim resided, and doing
so was a duty imposed by the law of that state).
-7-
J-A12012-25
Date: 8/26/2025
-8-
