Commonwealth v. Ros

• Decision Date: 07 July 2022
• Docket Number: 1393 EDA 2021,J-A13033-22
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. JARENNY ROS Appellee
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. JARENNY ROS Appellee

No. 1393 EDA 2021

No. J-A13033-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 7, 2022

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered June 24, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s) CP-51-CR-0002778-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM

KING J.

Appellant the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the motion to quash the bill of information filed by Appellee, Jarenny Ros, and dismissed the charges brought against Appellee. We reverse and remand.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts of this appeal as follows:

Philadelphia Police Officer Jonathan Arch testified that, in the early hours of May 31, 2020, he received a radio call for a burglary in progress at a shopping center located at 3000 Island Avenue in the city and county of Philadelphia. Officer Arch arrived at that location at approximately 2:45 a.m., where he observed a white Nissan Altima, which did not have a license plate, speeding through the shopping plaza. The vehicle hit a curb and became disabled, at which time a male, alleged to be Zahir Smith … exited from the driver side door. Subsequently, one female, alleged to be Julisa Prak … exited the front passenger door, and another woman, alleged to be [Appellee], fled from the rear of the vehicle. The officer ordered [Appellee] to stop, and placed her in custody in the back of his patrol car. Officer Arch testified that he observed that the windows and doors of the Snipes store at the shopping center were all broken, and that he observed clothing and sneakers in and around the white Altima. On cross examination, Officer Arch stated that there was a riot taking place in the shopping center at the time he encountered the defendants, and that many people were looting stores in that location. He further testified that he did not see the white Altima or the defendants themselves near the Snipes store, that there are several stores in the shopping center in question, and that many of those stores also appeared to have been looted. The officer positively identified all three defendants as the individuals he encountered fleeing the white Altima.

Philadelphia Police Detective Francesco Campbell testified that on the date in question, he executed a search warrant on the vehicle. Inside was a large amount of merchandise from the Snipes store. He indicated that he knew it was from Snipes because a store employee identified the merchandise from its tags, and estimated its value in the thousands of dollars. Officers also recovered a firearm from underneath the merchandise. As a result of this incident, all three codefendants were arrested and charged with burglary, multiple violations of the Uniform Firearms Act [("VUFA")], and related charges.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 9/7/21, at 1-2).

On April 8, 2021, the court conducted a preliminary hearing, and Appellee and her co-defendants' cases were held for court. On April 20, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information charging Appellee with burglary, criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, conspiracy, VUFA, and possessing an instrument of crime ("PIC"). Appellee filed a "motion to quash bills of information" on May 12, 2021. In the motion, Appellee asserted that "there is no evidence [Appellee] was involved with the burglary or participated in the conspiracy. There is also no evidence of dominion or control over [or] knowledge of the firearm." (Motion, filed 5/12/21, at ¶3).

On June 24, 2021, the court conducted a hearing regarding Appellee's pretrial motion. That same day, the court granted Appellee's motion and dismissed all charges. Specifically, the court held that the Commonwealth had failed to make a prima facie case with respect to all charges against Appellee. The Commonwealth timely filed a notice of appeal on July 8, 2021. On July 21, 2021, the court ordered the Commonwealth to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The Commonwealth timely filed its Rule 1925(b) statement on July 26, 2021.

The Commonwealth now raises one issue for our review:

Did sufficient evidence support a prima facie case for the charges of burglary, criminal trespass, conspiracy, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, [VUFA], and [PIC], where [Appellee] and her two co-defendants were observed fleeing the scene of the crime, a Snipes retail store; the windows to the store had been broken; goods belonging to the store were found scattered throughout the car [Appellee] fled from; and a gun was found in the back seat underneath the stolen goods?

(Commonwealth's Brief at 6).

The following principles apply to this Court's review of an order granting a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus:

We review a decision to grant a pre-trial petition for a writ of habeas corpus by examining the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Whether the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of establishing a prima facie case for each charged crime is a question of law, to which this Court's standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. To demonstrate that a prima facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material element of the charged offense(s) as well as the defendant's complicity therein. To meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may submit additional proof.

Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 203 A.3d 1115, 1117 (Pa.Super. 2019) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

"The Commonwealth establishes a prima facie case when it produces evidence that, if accepted as true, would warrant the trial judge to allow the case to go to a jury." Commonwealth v. Ouch, 199 A.3d 918, 923 (Pa.Super. 2018) (emphasis in original). "The Commonwealth need not prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the prima facie standard requires evidence of the existence of each and every element of the crime charged." Id.

On appeal, the Commonwealth argues that the facts established at Appellee's preliminary hearing "permitted a reasonable inference that [Appellee] unlawfully entered the Snipes store and participated with her two companions in stealing the merchandise." (Commonwealth's Brief at 15). Further, the Commonwealth asserts that this evidence "supported an inference that [Appellee] had knowledge of the gun, had the power to exercise control of the gun, and … had constructive possession of the gun." (Id. at 17).

The Commonwealth insists that it established a prima facie case for all the charges against Appellee. The Commonwealth concludes that this Court must reverse the order granting Appellee's pretrial motion. We agree.

The Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines burglary in relevant part as follows:

§ 3502. Burglary

(a) Offense defined.-A person commits the offense of burglary if, with the intent to commit a crime therein, the person:

* * *

(4) 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.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(4).

The Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines criminal trespass in relevant part as follows:

§ 3503. Criminal trespass

(a) Buildings and occupied structures.-

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that

he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:

* * *

(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(a)(1)(ii).

The Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines theft by unlawful taking or disposition in relevant part as follows:

§ 3921. Theft by unlawful taking or disposition

(a) Movable property.-A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, moveable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a). The Crimes Code defines "movable property" as:

Property the location of which can be changed, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, and documents although the rights represented thereby have no physical location. "Immovable property" is all other property.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3901. "Deprivation" occurs if a person: (1) "withhold[s] property of another permanently"; or (2) "dispose[s] of the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover it." Id.

The Crimes Code defines the offense of receiving stolen property as follows:

§ 3925. Receiving stolen property

(a) Offense defined.-A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that is has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a). "[T]o establish the mens rea element of the crime of receiving stolen property, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused possessed property with 'guilty knowledge,' i.e., knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen." Commonwealth v. Newton, 994 A.2d 1127,1132-33 (Pa.Super. 2010). "A person' knows' that goods are stolen if he is 'aware' of that fact." Id. at 1132. Regarding the latter part of the test, "it is clear that [the statute] is designed to criminalize situations where the defendant...