In the Interest of: J.M., a Minor ( 2016 )

J-S38018-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: J.M.
No. 1910 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Dispositional Order of May 29, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-JV-0000784-2015
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON and JENKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 29, 2016
Appellant, J.M., appeals from the dispositional order entered on May
29, 2015, adjudicating him delinquent of theft by unlawful taking, criminal
mischief and conspiracy.1 We affirm.
The juvenile court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
Complainant was at home at 1:00 a.m., on March 14, 2015,
when his neighbor ([A]ppellant) knocked on his door and
advised complainant that he had mistakenly left a light on in
his car.
Complainant gave his car keys to [Appellant] for him to []
extinguish the light and waited forty-five minutes to an hour
for the return of the keys. When the keys were not
returned, complainant called the police and reported the car
stolen.
While complainant was outside of his house talking with a
neighbor, the police came and were waived over. While
complainant spoke with police, [A]ppellant rode by them in
complainant’s car which was being driven by another.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921, 3304, and 903, respectively.
J-S38018-16
Complainant saw the police begin to chase and saw
[A]ppellant in the passenger seat as the car passed him and
police. [While police pursued the vehicle, it crashed into
parked cars and Appellant and two other males alighted
from the vehicle and fled. Police apprehended Appellant
and the complainant identified him as the person to whom
he gave his car keys.] Appellant was in the police car at the
time complainant recovered his car and the front end of the
car was wrecked.
Juvenile Court Opinion, 10/23/2015, at 1.
Following a hearing on May 15, 2015, the juvenile court adjudicated
Appellant delinquent of the aforementioned charges. On May 29, 2015, the
juvenile court imposed probation with GPS tracking until further order of
court. This timely appeal resulted.2
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Was not the evidence insufficient to convict [A]ppellant
of theft by unlawful taking and conspiracy to commit
theft by unlawful taking, where the Commonwealth failed
to establish that [A]ppellant intended to permanently
deprive the complainant, [A]ppellant’s neighbor, of his
automobile?
2. Was not the evidence insufficient to convict [A]ppellant
of criminal mischief, where the Commonwealth presented
no evidence that [A]ppellant was driving the automobile
which was damaged and no evidence as to how the
damage actually occurred?
____________________________________________
2
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 24, 2015. On August 14, 2015,
the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal. Appellant complied late, claiming he did not
receive the court’s Rule 1925(b) order. The trial court issued an opinion
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on October 23, 2015.
-2-
J-S38018-16
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (suggested answers omitted).
Because both of Appellant’s issues challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence presented by the Commonwealth, we shall examine the claims in
one general discussion. First, Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to deprive the
complainant of his vehicle permanently to support his adjudications for theft
by unlawful taking and conspiracy. Id. at 9. He avers:
There is no question that the complainant willingly gave his
car keys to [Appellant] after [Appellant] told him the light
was on in his car. However, because [Appellant] was not
the driver of the vehicle, there is no evidence that
[Appellant] stole the complainant’s vehicle. [Appellant] is
not the individual who got behind the wheel and drove the
car without the complainant’s permission. The lack of
evidence regarding how the driver obtained the keys from
[Appellant] and whether [Appellant] was even a willing
participant renders any finding of guilt on the theft charge
based purely on speculation and conjecture.
* * *
The Commonwealth did not establish that [Appellant]
conspired to permanently deprive the complainant of his
vehicle, and therefore the finding of guilt for conspiracy
cannot stand. […]Because the driver of the complainant’s
vehicle returned to the same street where the complainant
lived within the hour of the complainant giving his keys to
[Appellant], the totality of the circumstances establishes
that the driver of the car/or [Appellant] was, in fact,
intending to return the vehicle to complainant. An intent to
permanently deprive cannot be established from the facts of
record.
Id. at 10-11. Next, Appellant contends the Commonwealth did not present
sufficient evidence to support his adjudication for criminal mischief, arguing:
-3-
J-S38018-16
[Appellant] was not driving the complainant’s vehicle, and,
therefore, was not responsible for the damage to the
vehicle. As [Appellant] was not the driver of the vehicle, he
could not have intentionally damaged the property of the
complainant. Additionally, there was no testimony as to
how any damage occurred, only that there was front end
damage to the car.
Id. at 12.
In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
an adjudication of delinquency, our standard of review is as follows:
When a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute
a crime if committed by an adult, the Commonwealth must
establish the elements of the crime by proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. When considering a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence following an adjudication of
delinquency, we must review the entire record and view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
In determining whether the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof, the test to
be applied is whether, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all
reasonable inferences therefrom, there is sufficient evidence
to find every element of the crime charged. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by wholly
circumstantial evidence.
The facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with a
defendant's innocence. Questions of doubt are for the
hearing judge, unless the evidence is so weak that, as a
matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the
combined circumstances established by the Commonwealth.
In re V.C., 66 A.3d 341, 348-349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal citation and
bracket omitted).
-4-
J-S38018-16
A juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent of conspiracy if the
Commonwealth sufficiently proves the elements set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 903, which provides, in relevant part, the following:
A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or
persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or
facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that
they or one or more of them will engage in
conduct which constitutes such crime or an
attempt or solicitation to commit such crime;
or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in
the planning or commission of such crime or of
an attempt or solicitation to commit such
crime.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a).
Conspiracy requires proof that:
1) the juvenile entered into an agreement with another to
commit or aid in the commission of a crime; 2) he shared
the criminal intent with that other person; and 3) an overt
act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. This
overt act need not be committed by the juvenile; it need
only be committed by a co-conspirator.
The essence of a criminal conspiracy is a common
understanding, no matter how it came into being, that a
particular criminal objective be accomplished. Therefore, an
adjudication of delinquency for conspiracy requires proof of
the existence of a shared criminal intent. An explicit or
formal agreement to commit crimes can seldom, if ever, be
proved and it need not be, for proof of a criminal
partnership is almost invariably extracted from the
circumstances that attend its activities. Thus, a conspiracy
may be inferred where it is demonstrated that the relation,
conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and the overt acts
of the co-conspirators sufficiently prove the formation of a
-5-
J-S38018-16
criminal confederation. The conduct of the parties and the
circumstances surrounding their conduct may create a web
of evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy
beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the conspirator did not
act as a principal in committing the underlying crime, he is
still criminally liable for the actions of his co-conspirators in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
… [M]ere presence at the scene of a crime and knowledge of
the commission of criminal acts is not sufficient to establish
a conspiracy. Nor is flight from the scene of a crime, without
more, enough. However, such factors, combined with other
direct or circumstantial evidence, may provide sufficient
evidence sustaining an adjudication of delinquency for
conspiracy.
In re V.C., 66 A.3d at 349-350 (internal citation, quotations and original
brackets omitted).
A juvenile will be adjudicated delinquent of theft by unlawful taking “if
he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of
another with intent to deprive him thereof.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a).
“Deprive” is defined, in pertinent part, as “[t]o withhold property of another
permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a major portion of
its economic value, or with intent to restore only upon payment of reward or
other compensation[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3901. A juvenile will be adjudicated
delinquent of criminal mischief if he “damages tangible property of another
intentionally, recklessly, or by negligence in the employment of fire,
explosives, or other dangerous means[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304.
Here, the complainant gave Appellant the keys to his car to turn off
the vehicle’s interior light and asked Appellant to put the keys back in his
mailbox afterwards. N.T., 5/15/2015, at 3. Appellant was with two other
-6-
J-S38018-16
males at the time. Id. at 5-6. The complainant waited between 45 minutes
to an hour for Appellant to return, before he called the police. Id. at 4.
While talking to police at his residence, the complainant and the police
witnessed the complainant’s car drive past with Appellant in the passenger
seat. Id. at 4, 6. The police activated their overhead lights and pursued the
vehicle. Id. at 4. About a half a block away, with police in pursuant,
Appellant and the two other males “jumped out” of the vehicle “and left it
running.” Id. Police arrested Appellant and the complainant was able to
identify Appellant. Id. at 6. There was front-end damage to the
complainant’s car and a parked Jeep. Id. at 6-7. At the time of the
dispositional hearing, the complainant had yet to receive an estimate for the
damage to his vehicle. Id. at 7.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, as our standard requires, we find there was sufficient
evidence to support Appellant’s delinquency adjudications. First, the
Commonwealth met its burden of proof in establishing the elements of a
conspiracy. Appellant obtained the complainant’s car keys under false
pretenses and without permission to use the vehicle. Appellant, in turn,
gave those keys to another to drive the vehicle while Appellant rode as a
passenger. Their combined acts sufficiently proved the formation of a
criminal confederation. The intent to deprive emerges from the continued
operation of the complainant’s vehicle despite police intervention. The driver
and Appellant fled the car on foot and left the car running. There was no
-7-
J-S38018-16
evidence that Appellant, or his co-conspirator, intended to return the
vehicle. Moreover, their flight from police further evidenced their guilt.
Thus, Appellant’s adjudications for conspiracy and theft by unlawful taking
were sufficiently proven. Moreover, the complainant’s vehicle suffered
damage as the result of the driver’s recklessness. Appellant is criminally
liable for the actions of his co-conspirator. Hence, the Commonwealth also
presented sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s adjudication of
delinquency for criminal mischief.
Dispositional order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/29/2016
-8-