Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 12/22/19 Zak Goldstein 12/22/19

PA Superior Court Reverses Theft Conviction Due to Insufficient Proof of Jurisdiction

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Vallespil, holding that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime unless the Commonwealth proves that the offense took place in Pennsylvania. In this case, the prosecution simply failed to introduce any evidence whatsoever as to where the theft crime took place.

Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Vallespil

On October 31, 2017, the defendant contacted the complainant. The defendant had been working for the complainant, but on this day, he told the complainant that he would not be working for him anymore. On that same day, the complainant arrived at work and noticed that some of his tools were missing. The complainant then contacted the police. Shortly after the police arrived, the complainant called the defendant with the police present and asked that he return the tools. The defendant admitted to previously having the tools, but he said that he had sold them. The defendant stated he would need to speak with the buyer of the tools to get them back. The Commonwealth never introduced any evidence as to where the defendant was at the time of the call or where the complainant had last seen the tools.

The police told the defendant that he needed to return the tools the following day. No charges were filed that evening so that the defendant would have time to get the tools back. The defendant then reached out to the complainant requesting more time, but his request was denied. The defendant subsequently failed to return the tools. The defendant was then arrested and charged with theft from a motor vehicle, receiving stolen property, and theft by unlawful taking. The defendant elected to have a jury trial.

At the conclusion of the prosecutor’s case, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to establish jurisdiction. Following argument, the trial court denied that motion. At the conclusion of the defense’s case, defense counsel again moved for a judgment of acquittal, but again his motion was denied. After deliberations, the jury acquitted the defendant of all charges except receiving stolen property. On that charge, the defendant was then subsequently sentenced to one to five years in a state correctional facility. The defendant filed a timely appeal. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the Commonwealth failed to establish the location of the criminal act.

Why does the location of the crime matter?

The reason it matters is because in Pennsylvania (and everywhere else in the United States), a person can only be convicted for a crime in the state in which they committed said crime. In Pennsylvania, jurisdiction is governed by 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 102. Specifically, §102(a)(1) states that an individual can only be convicted if “the conduct of which is an element of the offense or the result which is such an element that occurs within this Commonwealth.” Further, in Pennsylvania, it is not enough that the crime took place in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth must also establish the particular county in which the crime occurred because district attorneys only have jurisdiction to prosecute cases that occurred in their particular county. In other words, if a defendant commits a crime in Philadelphia, the District Attorney for Bucks County ordinarily cannot prosecute the case unless certain exceptions apply. This is why, if you have ever watched a preliminary hearing in Philadelphia, one of the first questions a prosecutor will ask is whether a particular location is in the city and county of Philadelphia. The reason they do that is so they can establish jurisdiction.

The Superior Court’s Decision

In a divided opinion, the Superior Court held that the Commonwealth failed to establish jurisdiction and thus the defendant’s conviction must be vacated. In its opinion, the Superior Court carefully analyzed the trial record. After doing so, the Superior Court found that “nowhere in the testimony presented at trial is there any indication that [the defendant] or the tools were within the Commonwealth when [he] ‘received, retained, or disposed’ the tools.” More specifically, the Superior Court stated “the Commonwealth never established the defendant’s location, at the time he received, retained or disposed of the tools.” As such, the defendant’s conviction will be vacated, and he will not be subjected to another trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Theft Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 10/14/19 Zak Goldstein 10/14/19

PA Superior Court: Double Jeopardy Protections Do Not Prevent Multiple Prosecutions for Unrelated but Similar Burglaries and Thefts

The Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Jefferson, holding that a defendant is not entitled to Double Jeopardy relief when he pleads guilty to cases that were not part of the same criminal episode as his remaining open cases. This is not a surprising decision given the facts of these particular cases. Nonetheless, these cases highlight another tool that defense attorneys can use to fight the charges against their clients.

Commonwealth v. Jefferson

The defendant had multiple cases involving theft and burglary-related charges. The facts of each one will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. The first case occurred on October 19, 2015. On that date, a witness observed the defendant and another individual in the backyard of a home located on Rittenhouse Street in Philadelphia. The witness, who lived in the neighborhood and knew the homeowner, did not recognize the two men. After a brief conversation, the defendant and the other individual entered a vehicle and left. The witness called 911 to report the incident and provided the number on the license plate to the authorities. Additionally, upon inspection of the home, the homeowner noticed that there were pry marks along the metal frame of the door. The defendant did not have permission to be inside the homeowner’s residence. The defendant was subsequently charged with attempted burglary, criminal mischief, and conspiracy.

The second case involved an incident that took placed on Mansfield Avenue in Philadelphia. The resident of the property in question observed the defendant and another individual break into this home. This resident saw his basement door open which caused him to run outside to flag down a police officer. After finding an officer, he jogged back home and observed the defendant running across the awnings of his home as well as nearby buildings. He also noticed that a black SUV (the same car that was used in the Rittenhouse burglary), which was later to be determined stolen, was parked in the driveway of his residence. The defendant was charged with two separate dockets: the first was burglary, criminal mischief, and other charges, the second docket was for receipt of stolen property, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

While the defendant was awaiting trial on the above cases, he was subsequently charged with six separate dockets with one count of criminal mischief at each case. These charges stemmed from the previously mentioned flight from the Mansfield Avenue residence which resulted in the defendant damaging six awnings during his escape. This resulted in thousands of dollars in damage to these residences. The defendant pleaded guilty to all six of these criminal mischief cases.

After the defendant pleaded guilty to these six other cases, he filed motions seeking to bar prosecution of the more serious burglary cases. The defendant argued that prosecution was barred by 18 Pa.C.S. § 110(1)(ii) which prohibits subsequent prosecutions for cases that arise from the same criminal episode. The trial court denied his motion, with the exception of the criminal mischief charge in the Mansfield burglary case. The defendant then filed an interlocutory appeal arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the remaining cases against him. On appeal, the Commonwealth conceded that the Mansfield burglary should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 110 because the flight from the burglary, which damaged the awnings, was part of the same criminal incident. However, the Commonwealth argued that the stolen car and the Rittenhouse burglary cases should not be dismissed because they were not related to the Mansfield burglary..

What is Rule 110?

Rule 110 is Pennsylvania’s statute that prohibits multiple prosecutions that arise from the same criminal episode. In other words, it is the codified version of both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions’ prohibition against Double Jeopardy. There is a four-part test to determine whether subsequent prosecution should be barred:

The former prosecution must have resulted in an acquittal or conviction;
The current prosecution is based upon the same criminal conduct or arose from the same criminal episode as the former prosecution;
The prosecutor was aware of the instant charges before the commencement of the trial on the former charges; and
The current offense occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution.

If all of these elements are met, then the case should be dismissed. As a practical matter, attorneys usually only litigate the second element because the other elements are easy to determine whether they have been satisfied. In the instant case, the Commonwealth only argued that the second element had not been satisfied, meaning the Commonwealth argued that the incidents were unrelated.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court denied the defendant’s appeal. The Superior Court held that there was no logical relationship between the Rittenhouse burglary case, the stolen car, and the awnings cases. The awnings cases were the result of the defendant fleeing the scene from the Mansfield burglary. As such, it had no connection to the Rittenhouse burglary. Further, the Superior Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the use of the same stolen car in both burglaries connected the incidents for purposes of triggering double jeopardy protections. Therefore, the defendant will have to face trial for both the Rittenhouse burglary and the stolen car cases.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

Zak Goldstein 9/28/19 Zak Goldstein 9/28/19

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Abused Discretion in Dismissing Case Due to Witnesses Being Late

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Ligon, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed a criminal case due to the late arrival of witnesses despite the fact that the prosecutor indicated that he was ready to begin the trial and that they were on their way.

Commonwealth v. Ligon

Philadelphia police arrested the defendant in March 2012 and charged him with multiple crimes, including charges of robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and various violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. The charges stemmed from an alleged incident that took place in September 2011 involving a Mr. Brady and his grandmother Ms. Martin.

The defendant’s case would be subsequently continued five times before his preliminary hearing was held and the municipal court judge found that there was enough evidence to go to trial on the charges. After his preliminary hearing, his case was then assigned to a Court of Common Pleas judge. When it reached the trial room, his case again was continued a “copious” amount of times. Eventually, his case again was continued and then reassigned to a different trial judge. This trial judge then granted two more continuances, one due to a court conflict and one because the assigned prosecutor had another trial.

The trial finally began on December 5, 2016 and on that day, the parties picked a jury. The following morning, before the jury came into the courtroom, the assigned prosecutor told the trial court that the complaining witnesses had not arrived. The prosecutor stated that although she had arranged a ride for the complaining witnesses, they did not answer the door. The prosecutor further stated that she had been in constant contact with them, having spoken with both the day before trial and having met with one of them on the Friday preceding trial. Based on these conversations, the prosecutor asked for “a little bit more time” for the witnesses to arrive. The trial court said that it could “probably give [the Commonwealth] till 11 [AM].”

When the court reconvened at 11:00 AM, a different prosecutor addressed the court and explained that the probation officer of Mr. Brady was attempting to contact him and that the Commonwealth had arranged for additional transportation to get him because Mr. Brady was in a wheelchair. The trial court then stated that it would recess the proceedings until 11:45 AM. At 12:00 PM, the assigned prosecutor stated that the witnesses were “on their way” and that she was ready to proceed with trial and asked if she could begin with her opening statement. The trial court replied that the witnesses were supposed to be there at 9:30 AM. The prosecutor then repeated that the witnesses were on their way. She then stated that she could do the opening statement and then put on another witness by the end of which she was “absolutely certain” the complaining witnesses would arrive. The trial court declined to allow the prosecutor to proceed with her case and discharged the case against the defendant. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it discharged the case against the defendant.

What is the Abuse of Discretion Standard?

It can often be difficult for an appellant to win a case on an abuse of discretion standard. The abuse of discretion standard requires appellate courts to give great deference to the trial court in making its decision. As stated in a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, an abuse of discretion only occurs “where the trial court misapplies the law, or where the judgment is exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Further, appellate courts are not supposed to step in the shoes of the trial court. As such, this standard can be very difficult to win under, and usually the appellate courts will defer to the trial court. It is worth noting that it is usually defendants who, on appeal, argue that the trial court abused its discretion.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it discharged the case against the defendant. In its brief opinion, the Superior Court stated that a trial court must take into account the public interest when determining whether to dismiss a case. The Superior Court stated that the trial court did not do this. The Superior Court’s opinion omits any real discussion on why the public interest was harmed by the dismissal of this case. Further, the Superior Court essentially stated that trial courts are to assume that prosecutors are telling the truth when they say they will be ready for a case.

Further, the Superior Court cited Commonwealth v. Carson in support of its position that the trial court abused its discretion. Carson is easily distinguishable from the instant case. In Carson, the trial court stated the reason the case was discharged was because of its court schedule and specifically chastised the Allegheny District Attorney’s Office for its tardiness and its excuses. In the instant case, the trial court did not state its schedule was the reason why the case was being discharged. It stated that the case had not gone to trial in the 1,782 days after the complaint had been filed. Further, it ignored the fact that the Commonwealth offered no corroborative evidence that their witnesses were actually coming to court. As such, the only evidence to support this was the Commonwealth’s representations. Nonetheless, the Superior Court still found that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case and therefore the defendant will have to face trial for these charges (assuming the witnesses actually show up to court).

Facing criminal charge? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 8/11/19 Zak Goldstein 8/11/19

PA Superior Court: A Shed Counts as a Building under the Burglary Statute

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Reed, holding that a detached shed counts as a “building for purposes” of Pennsylvania’s Burglary statute even where the complainant does not provide a detailed description of the structure at trial.

In Reed, the complainant rented the upstairs apartment at a given address to the defendant and his girlfriend. The property consisted of a house divided into an upstairs apartment and a downstairs apartment, a basement, and two outdoor sheds situated on off-street parking next to the house. The former tenant of the upstairs apartment which the defendant eventually rented stored his property in the smaller of the two sheds even after moving out. The owner of the property and his brother stored some of their belongings in the larger shed. When new tenants would move in, the owner of the property would inform them not to use the sheds and that they should instead store their belongings in the basement as necessary. The downstairs tenant also testified that tenants were not supposed to use or go into either shed.

On February 8, the downstairs tenant saw the defendant and his female roommate messing around inside the larger shed at 2am. Likewise, a neighbor from across the street witnessed the defendant and a female in the shed at around the same time. The neighbor approached the defendant and told him that he was not supposed to be in the shed. The defendant and the female responded that they had permission to be in the shed from the former tenant. The neighbor responded that they did not have permission and that it was not the former tenant’s shed. The defendant and the female left, but a couple of hours later, the neighbor saw them in the shed again.

Both the downstairs tenant and the neighbor told the owner of the property that people had been in the shed. Based on this information, the owner called the police and spoke with an officer. The owner told the officer that she believed that the property had been burglarized. The owner then texted a friend and asked a friend to go check on the shed. The friend did so and found that the handle and lock on the shed were broken and that there was a new, unfamiliar padlock on the right-hand side of the shed. They also reported that a truck tire and window previously inside the shed were now outside of the shed.

On some later date, the police officer, owner of the property, and owner’s friend went and visited the shed together. They discovered that about 26 items which had previously been stored in the shed were missing. These items included clothing and power tools. The owner of the property located some of these items for sale on a Facebook page. The police contacted the owner of that page and learned that the operator of the page had purchased those items from the defendant’s girlfriend.

Armed with this information, police arrested the defendant and charged him with Burglary, Criminal Trespass, and conspiracy. The defendant proceeded by way of jury trial and was found guilty. The trial court sentenced him to ten days’ to twelve months’ incarceration followed by a year of probation. The defendant appealed.

Is breaking into a shed a burglary in Pennsylvania?

On appeal, the defendant challenged the burglary and criminal trespass convictions by arguing that the shed did not qualify as a “building” or “occupied structure” under the Burglary statute. The second-degree felony burglary statute provides: a person commits burglary "if, with the intent to commit a crime therein, the person enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof that is not adapted for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the offense no person is present.

Likewise, a criminal trespass occurs “if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, [the defendant] breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.”

Neither statute defines burglary, and here, the Commonwealth conceded that the shed was not an occupied structure because it had not been adapted for overnight accommodations – meaning it was not set up so that someone could live in it. Therefore, the Superior Court turned to Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of a building. The dictionary defines a building as “a structure with walls and a roof.” Here, the testimony provided that the shed was likely a structure with walls and a roof. Although no witness specifically testified that the shed had four walls and a roof, the fact that the complainant stored power tools and other belongings there and kept it padlocked suggested that it was likely fully enclosed. Therefore, the evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the defendant had committed a burglary and a criminal trespass. Thus, in most cases, a shed will qualify as a building for purposes of the burglary statute even where the complainant does not thoroughly describe the dimensions of the shed.

Can you be convicted of burglary if you are not actually seen breaking into a building?

The defendant appealed on other sufficiency grounds, as well, but the Superior Court affirmed the conviction. For example, the defendant also argued for the criminal trespass conviction that no one had seen him “break in” as required by the statute. Instead, he had only been observed inside of the shed, suggesting that he could have arrived after someone else had already broken into it. The Court rejected this argument, however, finding that it was reasonable to infer from the evidence that he was the person who had broken the lock and stolen the items from the shed. Therefore, he will not receive a new trial.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein