In the Interest of: R.M.D. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S57012-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M.D. a Minor, : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 310 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Order entered on January 13, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division, No. CP-67-JV-0000718-2011 BEFORE: MUSMANNO, OLSON and STRASSBURGER*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Filed: February 12, 2013 R.M.D. appeals from the dispositional Order entered after he was adjudicated delinquent of burglary, conspiracy, criminal attempt of theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a), 903(a), 901(a), 3925(a). We affirm. The juvenile court has set forth the relevant underlying facts: [On December 18, 2011,] Christopher Edmondson [ Edmondson ], [was] visiting his girlfriend in the area of DriveRight Auto[, located at 1459 South George Street in York County.] [] Edmondson saw three individuals, one wearing a red sweatshirt and later identified upon arrest as [R.M.D.], in the area of DriveRight Auto at or around 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. that night. [] Edmondson observed those three individuals on four different occasions during that time period. [] Edmondson also testified that, immediately after hearing a car door shut, he witnessed a few of the individuals walking between, and trying to gain entry to, the cars at the DriveRight Auto lot. Upon seeing this and phoning the police, [] Edmondson testified that he heard the individual in the red sweatshirt yell at the other two to hurry. [] Edmondson stated that [he] had a visual of the individuals, except for a brief period when the individuals disappeared into a nearby parking lot. [] Edmondson stated that *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S57012-12 he saw them come out of that parking lot and [that they] were headed back in the direction of DriveRight when [Officer] Greybill arrived. ¦ [Officer] Greybill [] testified that she was dispatched to DriveRight Auto at 6:25 p.m. that evening in response to [] [Edmondson s] call. [Officer] Greybill testified that, upon arriving at the scene, she observed an individual in a red sweatshirt, later identified as [R.M.D.,] on the east side of South George Street in the area of DriveRight Auto. [Officer] Greybill testified that [Officer] Sampere arrived shortly thereafter as backup. [Officer] Sampere immediately began collecting information from the individuals and observed that there were four sets of keys underneath where one of the individuals had been sitting. The officers also performed a parameter search of the area that uncovered other sets of keys later identified as being keys to cars owned by DriveRight Auto. The officers also discovered, during their search, that a window to DriveRight Auto had been broken. Large pieces of glass from that window were collected and tread marks left on that glass were analyzed. [The tread marks on the glass matched the tread found on boots belonging to the individuals.] ¦ Robert Lyon [ Lyon ], service manager at DriveRight Auto ¦ testified that, upon arrival at the scene, he noticed a broken window to the rear of the building and keys to the vehicles were missing. [] Lyon stated that, as of the close of business on Saturday, December 17, he was unaware of any damage to the DriveRight Auto building. He further testified that it would be impossible for anyone to remove the missing keys without entering the building. [] Lyon then testified that a dealer tag had been removed from a loaner vehicle and screwed upon a silver Mazda, previously identified by [] Edmondson as a vehicle the individuals had gotten into. [] Lyon also testified that he discovered a screwdriver ¦ laying in the immediate vicinity of DriveRight Auto. Juvenile Court Opinion, 3/16/12, at 5-7 (unnumbered) (footnotes omitted). A juvenile Petition was filed against R.M.D. alleging the abovementioned crimes. Following an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court determined that R.M.D. had committed all of the charged offenses and -2- J-S57012-12 adjudicated him delinquent. R.M.D. filed a Motion for reconsideration, stating that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving burglary and conspiracy. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court denied the Motion. Subsequently, the juvenile court committed R.M.D. to Loysville Youth Detention Center and ordered him to complete the Loysville Program. R.M.D. filed a timely Notice of appeal. The juvenile court ordered R.M.D. to file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise statement. R.M.D. filed a timely Concise Statement and the juvenile court issued an Opinion. On appeal, R.M.D. raises the following question for our review: Was the evidence of record was [sic] insufficient to sustain a finding that the Commonwealth met its burden of proof as to the criminal offenses of burglary and criminal conspiracy to commit burglary? Brief for Appellant at 6. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offense charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is equally applicable to cases where the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, it is the province of the trier of fact to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence produced. The fact[-]finder is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with the defendant s innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the -3- J-S57012-12 fact[-]finder unless the evidence [is] so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances. In the Interest of T.B., 11 A.3d 500, 504 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation and brackets omitted). R.M.D. contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudications of delinquency of burglary and criminal conspiracy. Appellant at 15, 16, 19. Brief for R.M.D. argues that the evidence did not support the adjudication for burglary because there was no evidence demonstrating that he entered the DriveRight Auto building. Id. at 16-17. R.M.D. points out that Edmondson never testified to any of the individuals entering the building and the officers did not testify to any physical evidence showing he entered the building. Id. at 17-18. R.M.D. argues that the only evidence showing he committed the burglary was that the keys recovered from the two individuals who accompanied him had been removed from the building within the preceding two days of the incident in question. Id. at 18-19. R.M.D. asserts that the fact-finder could not determine that it was morelikely-than-not that he was involved in the burglary. Id. at 19. R.M.D. also contends that the Commonwealth did not establish that he and the other two individuals conspired to commit burglary. Id. at 21. R.M.D. claims that the evidence, at best, demonstrates a conspiracy to steal cars. Id. The juvenile court has addressed R.M.D. s claims and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support his adjudications of delinquency of -4- J-S57012-12 burglary and criminal conspiracy. See Juvenile Court Opinion, 3/16/12, at 3-8 (unnumbered). We agree with the juvenile court and adopt its sound reasoning for the purpose of this appeal. See id. Dispositional Order affirmed. -5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
