PA Superior Court: Trial Court Should Ask Jury to Determine Amount Stolen in Theft Case

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Seladones. In Seladones, the defendant challenged her sentence of one to 18 months’ incarceration for her conviction for theft by unlawful taking. The defendant argued that she could only be sentenced to the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor offense because the jury never specifically found that she had stolen any particular amount. The Superior Court agreed and reversed her judgment of sentence.

The Facts of Seladones

In Seladones, the complainant kept about $10,000 worth of currency and coins in her house. She was hospitalized with COVID, and the defendant agreed to go to the house to check on the complainant’s cats while she was in the hospital. The defendant had done that for the complainant on previous occasions without incident. Once the complainant was discharged from the hospital, she realized that her $10,000 was missing.

She called the police and told them that she thought the defendant probably stole the money. The police began investigating, and they interviewed the defendant. They lied to the defendant, telling her that the complainant did not want to see anyone prosecuted but just wanted someone to own up to the theft. Of course, that was not true, but the complainant confessed, and the officer promptly arrested her. The officer had been secretly wearing a microphone, so the confession was on tape.

Can the police lie to you?

It is important to remember that the police can lie to you but you cannot lie to them. In this case, the officer very clearly lied and said that she would not be arrested if she confessed. That was not a binding promise, and she was immediately arrested. The full audio-taped confession was used against her in court. If she had lied to the police, however, she could have potentially been charged with all sorts of offenses relating to such a lie.

The Criminal Prosecution

The Commonwealth charged the defendant with one count of theft by unlawful taking as a felony of the third degree. The defendant went to trial and argued that the confession was coerced. The jury rejected that argument and found her guilty.

At sentencing, the defendant argued that the court should grade the offense as a misdemeanor of the third degree because it had not asked the jury to find how much money the complainant stole. Theft by unlawful taking becomes a felony when someone steals more than $2,000, but it is a third degree misdemeanor when the Commonwealth fails to prove the amount stolen or the amount is under $50. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that she had been charged with theft as a felony of the third degree and had confessed to stealing far more than $50. The court sentenced her to one to 18 months’ incarceration, which is a sentence that would only be allowed for an offense more serious than a third degree misdemeanor. The defendant appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Superior Court agreed with the defendant. She had been charged with and confessed to stealing far more than $50, but she had not agreed to stealing that amount in court. The jury verdict form did not contain any special interrogatory asking the jury to make a finding as to whether she stole at least $2,000. Theft by unlawful taking requires a theft of more than that amount in order for it to be a felony, and any fact which potentially increases the penalty for an offense must be found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. Because the jury never determined that she in fact stole the required amount for a felony of the third degree, the trial court erred in grading the charge as a felony and sentencing the defendant for a felony. The Court ruled that the trial court should have included a question on the jury verdict form as to whether the jury found that the defendant stole $2,000 or more. Because it did not, the offense had to be graded as a low level misdemeanor, and the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

This is an interesting case because it shows that the judge may not usurp the role of the jury and decide the gradation of the defense no matter how strong the Commonwealth’s evidence was. Further, the rules of criminal procedure do not actually give the court authority to issue special interrogatories to a jury, and there is prior precedent suggesting that such interrogatories are disfavored. The use of interrogatories has become more prevalent in recent years due to some important decisions from the United States Supreme Court, but it is not totally clear that the rules in Pennsylvania actually authorize them. Nonetheless, this is a good decision for the defense. The jury must find any fact which potentially increases the sentence or other penalties for an offense.

Facing criminal charges or appealing? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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.

PA Superior Court: Prison Sentence Okay For Adult Charged With Crimes Committed Decade Ago When Juvenile

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Torres, upholding the defendant’s convictions and lengthy prison sentence for rape of a child and related charges even though the defendant committed the crimes while he was a juvenile himself. In this case, the Superior Court approved of a long jail sentence for a defendant who committed serious sex crimes when he was a juvenile but was not arrested and charged until years later when he was an adult.

Had the defendant been prosecuted when the crimes happened, he would have been prosecuted in family court and likely received a year or two in a treatment facility. But because he was not prosecuted until a decade later, he was charged an adult, and he received a sentence of 19 - 40 years’ incarceration. This is obviously an absurd result, and the defendant will hopefully appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Facts of Torres

Between June 2008 and March 2011, Torres lived with his mother, four of his younger half-siblings, and his maternal grandmother in Lancaster Township. During that period, he sexually abused three of his half-siblings; his half-sister and two half-brothers. At the time of the offense, the three children were between the ages of two-and-a-half and six years old, and Torres was between the ages of 13 to 15. He was often left in charge of his younger half siblings because their mother was working sixteen hour days to support their family.

The half-sister reported that Torres would make her go to his bedroom and digitally penetrate her vagina, force her to perform oral sex on him, force her to swallow his ejaculate, and force her to have sex with him. In May 2009, she told her mother, and her mother called the police. The half-sister was interviewed by Lancaster County Children’s Alliance, but she did not tell the interviewer about the abuse. The other half-siblings were not interviewed at the time, and no charges were filed.

Almost nine years later, in March 2018, the half-sister told her parents again that Torres sexually abused her in the past. After this report, Torres’ two younger half-brothers disclosed the abuse they suffered at the hands of Torres. The details are not necessary for reviewing the legal issues, but the abuse was unquestionably horrific.

Although Torres committed these crimes as a juvenile, the Commonwealth filed the charges in 2018 when Torres was 23 years old. Accordingly, prosecutors charged Torres as an adult instead of as a juvenile.

Procedural History

After the prosecution filed charges, Torres filed a motion to dismiss. He claimed that the Commonwealth acted in bad faith by failing to investigate the half-sister’s report and failing to interview the other children in 2009, which led to the adult charges instead of family court charges. He argued that he could not be charged in adult criminal court with offenses he committed as a juvenile and that he should be prosecuted in Family Court under the Juvenile Act. The trial court denied Torres’s motion in November 2020.

A jury convicted Torres of all the sexual offenses after a three-day trial that began on August 23, 2021. The probation department conducted a pre-sentence investigation. Torres appeared for sentencing in 2022, and the trial court sentenced Torres to 19 to 40 years’ incarceration even though he had committed these crimes as a juvenile.

Torres filed a post-sentence motion arguing that the “adult-based sentence” violated his constitutional rights given that the crimes were committed when he was a juvenile and the sentence would have focused on treatment and rehabilitation if he had been charged closer in time to when they occurred. The trial court denied the post-sentence motion, and he appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, Torres first asserted that the trial court violated his due process rights when it denied his motion to dismiss, arguing the nine-year gap between the police report and the filing of charges prejudiced him because he lost the ability to have the charges handled in juvenile court. Next, Torres claimed the adult-based punishment of 19-40 years in prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment because Torres was between the ages of 13 and 15 years old when the crimes were committed. Lastly, Torres claimed the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to an aggregate period of 19-40 years’ incarceration.

The Superior Court denied all of Torres’s claims.

In denying Torres’s first claim, the Superior Court based its decision on precedent set in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent 2023 decision in Commonwealth v. Armolt. There, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a 42-year-old-male who committed offenses when he was a juvenile should be tried in juvenile court because the Commonwealth’s bad faith in delaying the charges caused him to lose the benefits of juvenile court. The Supreme Court explained that no bad faith existed because, for the purposes of the Juvenile Act, a “child” is defined as someone under the age of 18 or someone under the age of 21 who committed an act of delinquency before reaching the age of 18 years. The Supreme Court found that the Juvenile Act only extends juvenile jurisdiction to those who committed an offense while under the age of 18 if they are prosecuted before they turn 21.

The Superior Court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning to Torres’s case because he was between 13 and 15 when the offense occurred but 23 when charged, so the Juvenile Act did not apply to him. Because the Juvenile Act did not apply, the Superior Court approved of the trial court’s denial of Torres’s motion to dismiss appropriate.

The Superior Court also rejected his challenge to the sentence. The Superior Court reasoned that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not require strict proportionality between the crime committed and the sentence imposed. Instead, the Eighth Amendment forbids extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime. The Superior Court opined that most cases where cruel and unusual punishment has been found involved life sentences for juveniles tried as adults. The Court instead explained that Torres was sentenced to 19-40 years in prison and not a life sentence, making those cases inapplicable. Further, the Court decided that because the Juvenile Act did not apply, Torres was not entitled to any special sentencing benefits.

Finally, the Superior Court decided the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a long sentence. The Superior Court noted a sentencing judge has broad discretion because that judge is in the best position to “view the defendant’s character, displays of remorse, defiance, or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime”. The Superior Court further explained that the sentencing court considers the crime’s effect on the victims and community as a whole along with the defendant’s prior record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for rehabilitation. Finally, the Court explained that when a trial court has the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, its discretion should not usually be disturbed. Here, the sentencing judge had a pre-sentence investigation and conducted a full hearing. At Torres’s sentencing hearing, the trial court provided a full history of Torres’s life, paying close attention to his upbringing including, the sexual, physical, and emotional abuses Torres himself endured as a child. The Superior Court confirmed that the trial court considered all the proper sentencing factors and found the sentence appropriate, ultimately upholding the sentence.

The decision in Torres clearly illustrates just how much leeway and discretion the prosecution and trial courts have when it comes to criminal cases. Had the Commonwealth prosecuted Torres as a juvenile when the allegations first came to light, while he was under the age of 18, he certainly would have avoided an aggregate 19–40-year sentence and would likely not be under any court supervision at this time. The case also shows the enormous difference between being charged as a juvenile and being charged ten years later as an adult. When charged as a juvenile, the consequences are likely to focus on treatment. But when charged for something old as an adult, even if the defendant has stayed out of trouble for a decade or more, the defendant could face decades in prison. The system is clearly in need of major reform.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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.

Third Circuit: Defendant Has Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Girlfriend's Rental Car

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of United States v. Christopher Montalvo-Flores, finding that the District Court should have found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car he was operating. The evidence from the suppression hearing showed that his girlfriend loaned him the car, but it also showed that he did not sign the rental paperwork and he did not have a driver’s license. Nonetheless, the Court found that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and therefore could challenge an unlawful search of that vehicle.

The Facts of Montalvo-Flores:

In November 2019, officers executed an arrest warrant at a hotel in New Jersey for Montalvo-Flores, the defendant, in connection with his suspected involvement in a robbery. A search incident to arrest of the defendant yielded keys to an Enterprise rental car that was leased by his girlfriend. Although the defendant insisted that the keys were his, officers had knowledge that the defendant did not have a valid driver’s license. Police officers located the car in the hotel parking lot, they discovered that it was not reported lost or stolen, and they learned that its registered owner was Enterprise Rental Car Company. Earlier that day, police officers observed the girlfriend give the defendant the keys. They also observed the defendant operating the rental car.

Police officers then called Enterprise’s regional risk manager to obtain permission to search the car. The officers told Enterprise’s manager that the defendant was operating the car while involved in criminal activity. The Enterprise manager, noting that the rental contract prohibited the use of the car for criminal purposes and that the defendant was not listed on the rental agreement, purported to give officers consent of the lessee, the girlfriend, to search the car. Inside the car, officers found 304 grams of cocaine in the trunk and $35 in the center console. As a result, the defendant was charged with possession of intent to distribute cocaine in federal court.

The Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and money that officers recovered after searching the rental car. He argued that he lawfully possessed and controlled the car based on permission to use the car given to him by his girlfriend. In response, the government acknowledged that the girlfriend gave him permission to operate it, but the prosecution asserted that police lawfully searched the car without a warrant because the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy due to his lack of a valid driver’s license and the fact that he was not listed on the car’s rental agreement. The government also argued that the police had consent from the car’s registered owner, Enterprise, to search the car. The United States District Court held a hearing on the motion to suppress ion order to determine the legality of the search and whether the drugs and money would be admissible at trial.

The Suppression Hearing

During the suppression hearing, the officers acknowledged that the defendant’s girlfriend rented the car and that the defendant possessed the keys. Detective Holmes, the main witness for the government, testified that prior to the search, fellow officers observed the girlfriend giving the defendant the car and that fellow officers observed the defendant operate the car. The government also acknowledged the defendant’s possession of the car when a witness for the government testified that he called Enterprise and told the agent that the person operating the car did not have a license, had warrants, and was part of an armored truck robbery. The officers used the keys to open the car and found the cocaine and cash that the defendant moved to suppress after the Enterprise agent gave permission to search.

The District Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that he lacked standing because he failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. The District Court based its opinion on Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018). The District Court concluded that, contrary to evidence given at the suppression hearing, the defendant “was never observed possessing, operating, or otherwise exercising any sort of control over the rental vehicle aside from possessing the keys thereto.” After the denial of the suppression hearing, the Defendant proceeded by way of stipulated bench trial. The District Court found him guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to 40 months of incarceration followed by three years’ supervised released. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. It found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s rental car. The Court of Appeals opined that there was clear error in the District Court’s factual finding that the Defendant “was never observed possessing, operating, or otherwise exercising any sort of control over the rental vehicle aside from possessing the keys thereto.”

The Court began by citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) in explaining that when making a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis, a trial court must begin with a two-prong approach to determine first, whether the defendant “exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and second, whether his expectation was one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” The Court noted that the defendant bears the burden of proving each element.

In finding a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Third Circuit based its opinion on the unrebutted testimony of the detective. That testimony showed the defendant proved the first prong when the officers took his keys from him and he exclaimed “those are my rent-a-car-keys!” Officers needed the keys to open the locked car parked outside his hotel. This showed that the defendant believed he had privacy in the car and took steps to preserve his privacy.

During its analysis of the second prong, the Court explained that when deciding whether the expectation of privacy is reasonable, a must make a fact-based analysis dependent on the strength of the defendant’s interest in the car and the nature of his control over it, noting that ownership is not necessary. The Third Circuit cited a case where the Supreme Court held that “the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.” Noting that “one who . . . lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude.” The Appeals Court listed several facts to show that the defendant’s expectation of privacy was reasonable, noting: the lessee, the girlfriend, was the defendant’s girlfriend; she gave the car’s keys to him; he possessed the keys when arrested; the car was parked outside his hotel room; it was locked; and he was observed by police possessing and operating it. The Court reasoned that the context strongly suggested that the defendant had dominion and control of the car with his girlfriend’s permission finding the District Court’s determination was clear error.

Because the Appeals Court found the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, the government needed to justify its warrantless search at the suppression hearing by showing probable cause to search the car. The Appeals Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress, and it ordered the case be remanded for further proceedings. This case demonstrates the fact-specific nature of suppression hearings and how a good attorney can establish a legitimate privacy interest through tactical cross-examination. This ruling shows that while a defense attorney may do a good job through skillful cross-examination in establishing a legitimate privacy interest of the defendant, trial courts do not always make the proper rulings. This case recognizes that while the initial battle may be lost the war for innocence does not stop at “guilty.”

Facing criminal charges or appealing a conviction in state or federal court? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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.

Not Guilty: Attorney Goldstein Obtains Full Acquittal in Rape Case

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently obtained a full acquittal in a rape case. In Commonwealth v. P.S., the defendant was charged in Philadelphia with rape of a child and related charges for allegedly assaulting his biological daughter. According to the complainant, the assaults began when she was between the ages of 3 - 5 and continued until she was about 13 or 14. She did not report them until she was around 16, but prosecutors arrested P.S. and charged him with a number of sex crimes. 

P.S. retained Attorney Goldstein to defend against the allegations. Attorney Goldstein investigated the case, obtained discovery from the District Attorney’s Office, and learned that the complainant’s mother, from whom the client had separated shortly before the allegations were first made in Family Court, had been claiming that P.S. assaulted the complainant for years. Attorney Goldstein investigated further and obtained family court transcripts which showed that the complainant had told judges that the assaults did not actually happen and that there was a lengthy history of litigation over child custody and child support. The family court records showed that the complainant’s mother had made these unfounded allegations supposedly on behalf of her daughter anytime she wanted to deny P.S. from having custody, but she had continued to let him see her and had never gone to the police. This behavior obviously did not make sense if the mother believed that child abuse was actually occurring. 

P.S. proceeded to trial before a judge in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The complainant testified that P.S. assaulted her, but her testimony differed wildly from what she had told social workers in a videotaped interview which took place at the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance. Through cross-examination, Attorney Goldstein was able to show that P.S.’s story had changed repeatedly, she had previously told a judge that the assaults did not actually happen, all of her medical exams had been totally normal, and her mom had been telling her that her father had molested her since she was about three years old. Finally, when the complainant’s mother testified, it quickly became clear that she had fabricated the allegations by insisting that these horrible things happened only after she began suing P.S. for child custody and child support. 

The trial judge promptly acquitted P.S. at the end of the one day waiver trial. The judge found that the allegations were fabricated and that the complainant’s mother had essentially traumatized her daughter and put her up to making the allegations. Instead of facing decades in prison and a lifetime of Megan’s Law registration, P.S. has now been found not guilty and will be eligible to have the charges expunged. 

Allegations of child abuse and child sexual assault are among the most serious possible charges and the most difficult to defend. Judges and juries often have a difficult time believing that children could lie about something so horrible. Fortunately, our attorneys are experienced in investigating these cases and cross-examining the complainants and witnesses in order to effectively fight back against false charges. We have won many of these cases at preliminary hearings, at trial, on appeal, and in PCRA litigation. 

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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.