Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 12/25/19 Zak Goldstein 12/25/19

PA Superior Court: Constructive Possession Allows for Firearms Conviction Even When Firearm Not Immediately Accessible

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Gomez, affirming the defendant’s conviction for gun charges even though the gun was not on him and was not immediately accessible to him because it was in a locked safe. The Court also affirmed the defendant’s conviction for receiving stolen property with respect to the firearm, which had been reported stolen, because it found that the circumstances showed a guilty conscience on the part of the defendant. This second part of the holding is important because it highlights the fact that mere possession of stolen property, including a gun, cannot support a conviction for theft or receiving stolen property. Instead, a defendant must have knowledge that the property was stolen.

Commonwealth v. Gomez

The defendant was stopped in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania while operating his vehicle. After he was stopped, he repeatedly refused to provide his license, registration, and insurance information. The defendant was not the sole occupant in the car as there were two other individuals in the car with him. According to the officers, the defendant and his companions were making furtive movements and were acting “strangely.” Specifically, the defendant called his attorney and also invited people on social media to come witness the stop by the police. His companions were flailing their hands and kicking bags. Based on these actions, the officers stated that they believed they were in danger. After repeatedly asking the defendant and his companions to exit the vehicle, the officers broke the window and physically removed them from the car.

The police then searched the vehicle. They found and recovered two firearms that had the defendant’s DNA on them. These firearms had previously been reported stolen. One of the firearms was recovered in a locked safe, while the other was found in the front center console. Also, the key to the safe was found on the defendant’s key ring. In addition to the firearms, the police also recovered heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, suboxone, marijuana, and other drug paraphernalia. The defendant was arrested and subsequently charged with possession with the intent to deliver (hereinafter “PWID”), various charges under the uniform firearms act (including persons not to possess a firearm (hereinafter “VUFA 6105”), receiving stolen property, and several traffic related offenses.

The Commonwealth chose to proceed under a bifurcated trial for the charges against the defendant. Specifically, the Commonwealth elected to try the defendant under the VUFA 6105 cases first and then would try him under the remaining charges. The reason the Commonwealth would do this is because they are then allowed to introduce the defendant’s prior conviction showing that he is prohibited from possessing a firearm. In the defendant’s case, he had a prior conviction for PWID which made him ineligible to possess a firearm.

The defendant chose a jury trial for the VUFA 6015 charges. At his trial, the above-mentioned facts were presented as well as his prior PWID convictions. Following the presentation of the evidence, the jury was instructed on the relevant law. Notably, defense counsel did not make any objections. At the conclusion of deliberations, the defendant was found guilty of the two charges. A few months later, the defendant proceeded with a bench trial on his remaining charges. The defendant stipulated to all the evidence presented at his previous trial. He was found guilty of the remaining charges. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to 12.5-25 years of state incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely post-sentence motion which was denied. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, the defendant made three arguments: first, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew the weapons were stolen; second, that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he had actual possession of the gun that was found in the safe (he did not appeal his conviction for the firearm found in the center console); and finally that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury regarding possession of the firearm. For purposes of this blog, only the defendant’s second argument will be addressed.

Can I Be Convicted of a Possessory Offense Even if I am Not Actually Holding the Contraband?

Yes. You can still be convicted of a possessory offense even if you are not in actual physical possession of the contraband. Constructive possession is a legal term of art that allows a trier of fact to find that a defendant was in possession of the contraband even when they are not physically controlling it. To find that someone “constructively possessed” contraband, the finder of fact will analyze the facts to determine if the totality of the circumstances shows that the defendant was the possessor of the contraband. The trier of fact is allowed to rely on circumstantial evidence in making its decision too.

How Can a Prosecutor Prove that I Knew an Object Was Stolen?

Mere possession of a stolen good is not sufficient to convict a defendant of RSP. A prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the object was stolen or should have known that it was. To prove this, a prosecutor, like he can to prove possession, can use circumstantial evidence to show that a defendant knew or should have known an item was stolen. Prosecutors will often use the timing of a stolen good to show that a defendant had knowledge that it was stolen. For example, let’s assume that someone reports their car stolen at 12:00 PM. If a defendant was seen with the vehicle at 12:30 PM, a prosecutor can argue that he stole the car (or at the very least knew it was stolen) given the length of time between when the car was reported stolen and when the defendant was seen with it. This is just one example. Prosecutors can also argue that a defendant’s statement, how he was acting when he was arrested, alterations to the object, etc. can be sufficient proof to show that the defendant knew or should have known the object in question was stolen.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court upheld the defendant’s conviction for illegally possessing the firearm in the safe. Regarding whether the evidence was sufficient to find that the defendant possessed the firearm, the court analyzed the facts of the case. The Superior Court found that even though that the gun was in the safe, and not immediately accessible to him, there was sufficient evidence to show that it was his firearm. Specifically, the defendant’s DNA was on the gun; he was in possession of the key to the safe where the gun was found; and the gun was found in his vehicle. As such, the Superior Court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of illegally possessing the gun in the safe.

Additionally, the defendant’s other issues that he raised on appeal were also rejected. The Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he knew or should have known that the firearms were stolen. The Superior Court agreed with the defendant’s argument that there was not any direct evidence presented at trial that he knew the guns were stolen. However, the Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he knew or should have known they were stolen. In support of this, the Superior Court referenced the defendant’s prior convictions showing that he was not eligible to possess the firearms and his actions during the traffic stop. The Superior Court conceded “that this is not evidence that he knew the firearms in his possession were stolen…Nevertheless, these circumstances are sufficient to enable a fact-finder to infer that [the] defendant believed that the firearms were probably stolen.” Accordingly, he will be forced to serve his sentence and will not get a new sentencing hearing or a new trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

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 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

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.