J-S02018-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOHN J.J. PREIMO

Appellant No. 2123 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence imposed June 9, 2011

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0005257-2009, CP-51-CR-0005258-

2009, CP-51-CR-0005256-2009

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and MOULTON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2017

Appellant, John J.J. Preimo (“Preimo”), appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed on June 9, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County following his conviction on multiple counts of forgery, 

criminal conspiracy, theft by deception, and tampering with evidence.1 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4101, 903, 3922, and 4910, respectively. These crimes 

are defined, in relevant part, as follows:

Forgery: “A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to defraud or injure 

anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be 

perpetrated by anyone, the actor: (1) alters any writing of another without 

his authority; [or] (2) makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues or 

transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not 

authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or place or in a 

numbered sequence other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an 

original when no such original existed[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a)(1)-(2). 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S02018-17

- 2 -

Preimo contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions 

and that the trial court committed an evidentiary error. Following review, 

we affirm.

At the conclusion of an April 2011 waiver trial that spanned six days, 

the trial court found Preimo guilty. Preimo’s convictions stemmed from a 

“fraudulent real estate scheme operated by [] Preimo in which he purported 

to buy and sell properties.” Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 4/28/16, at 3. 

As the trial court explained:

In some circumstances, Preimo took money from would-be 

purchasers and led them to believe that they had purchased a 

home, while in other circumstances, Preimo took money from 

investors seeking to flip properties bought at auction and never 

provided any return. As part of the scheme, Preimo used forged 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Conspiracy: “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[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 903(a)(1).

Theft by deception: “A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains 

or withholds property of another by deception. A person deceives if he 

intentionally . . . creates or reinforces a false impression[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A 

§ 3922(a)(1).

Tampering with evidence: “A person commits a misdemeanor of the 

second degree if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is 

pending or about to be instituted, he: (1) alters, destroys, conceals or 

removes any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity or 

availability in such proceeding or investigation; or (2) makes, presents or 

uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false and with intent to 

mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or 

investigation.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910.
J-S02018-17

- 3 -

and otherwise fraudulent documents and attempted to cover up 

his dealings with lies and deceit once the victims started to 

demand their money back. At trial . . . Preimo attempted to 

shift the blame to co-defendant Michelle Williams (“Williams”). 

While this [c]ourt found Williams guilty for some of the crimes, 

this [c]ourt found that Preimo was at the head of the conspiracy 

and that the scheme was his creation. While Preimo testified on 

his own behalf asserting his innocence, this [c]ourt found him to 

be wholly incredible and indicated so at the time he was found 

guilty of the [] charges.

Id. at 3-4.2

On June 9, 2011, the trial court sentenced Preimo to an aggregate 

term of four to eight years in prison followed by ten years of reporting 

probation. Preimo did not file a direct appeal. On February 10, 2012, he 

filed a PCRA petition. Ultimately, by order entered on June 19, 2015, the 

PCRA court granted Preimo’s petition requesting an appeal nunc pro tunc

from the June 9, 2011 judgment of sentence.

Preimo timely filed the instant appeal as well as a Rule 1925(b) 

statement of errors complained of on appeal raising four issues, three of 

which he asks this Court to consider in this appeal:

I. Whether the verdict was contrary to law as being based on 

insufficient evidence[?][3]

____________________________________________

2 Ms. Williams elected not to testify at trial. N.T. Trial, 4/12/11, at 250-53. 

3

In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Preimo identified seven subject areas of 

testimony in support of his insufficiency claim. Rule 1925(b) Statement, 

8/10/15, at 1-2 (unnumbered). See also Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 

4/28/16, at 2-3. 
J-S02018-17

- 4 -

II. Whether the trial court erred in finding that [Preimo] 

controlled the actions of Ms. Williams[?]

III. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing evidence of 

the property problem title with Patricia Bourke to be 

introduced into evidence[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 9.

Appellant’s first two issues involve sufficiency of evidence. As this 

Court reiterated in Commonwealth v. Nypaver, 69 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 

2013):

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in 

the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient

evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, 

we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for 

the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and 

circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the 

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no 

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of 

proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt 

by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in 

applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and 

all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 

finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and 

the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.

Id. at 714 (quoting Commonwealth v. Fabian, 60 A.3d 146, 150–51 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (additional citation omitted)).

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court examined the evidence and 

testimony in the context of the crimes of which Preimo was convicted, as 
J-S02018-17

- 5 -

well as Preimo’s assertion regarding control over the actions of Ms. Williams. 

Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 4/28/16, at 4-9. The trial court concluded 

that the testimony, as summarized in its opinion with citations to the record, 

“viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was more than 

sufficient for this [c]ourt to find Preimo guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt,” 

of the crimes with which he was charged. Id. at 9.

Again, this Court may not weigh the evidence or substitute our 

judgment for that of the trial court as fact-finder. Nypaver, 69 A.3d at 714. 

Further, we recognize that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the 

trial court as finder of fact was free to believe all, part or none of the 

evidence. Id. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the 

evidence admitted at trial—viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth—was sufficient to enable the trial judge, as fact-finder, to 

find every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Therefore, the sufficiency challenges raised in Preimo’s first two issues fail. 

We hereby incorporate by reference and adopt as our own the trial court’s 

analysis of Preimo’s sufficiency claims. See Trial Court Rule 1925(a) 

Opinion, 4/28/16, at 4-9.

 In his third issue, Preimo contends that the trial court erred by not 

allowing evidence of a problem with the property title regarding 2619 Brown 
J-S02018-17

- 6 -

Street, one of the properties involved in Preimo’s dealings with Patricia 

Bourke.4 As such, Preimo raises a challenge to an evidentiary ruling.

In Nypaver, this Court explained:

[O]ur standard of review regarding the trial court’s evidentiary 

rulings is deferential. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 

406 (Pa. Super. 2012). Accordingly,

The admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion 

of the trial court and will be reversed only if the trial court 

has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is not 

merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding 

or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment 

that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, 

prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of 

record.

Id. at 411 (quoting Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356, 

363 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

Id., 69 A.3d at 716.

Preimo argues that the trial court abused its discretion “because the 

person behind the forgeries was a key contested fact that satisfied a 

required element of the charges directed at [Preimo]. The identity was at 

the heart of the inquiry.” Appellant’s Brief at 26. 

In the course of Preimo’s direct testimony, he testified that the 

signatures of three of the Brown Street property’s sellers, the Marsh 

____________________________________________

4

In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Preimo does not identify the property 

involved in his evidentiary challenge. The trial court surmised it was the 

Brown Street property. Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 4/28/16, at 10. 

In his brief, Preimo does identify the Brown Street property as the one at 

issue. Appellant’s Brief at 26.
J-S02018-17

- 7 -

brothers, were already on the deed when he attended the closing for the 

property in 2002. N.T. Trial, 4/11/11, at 131-32. He stated that he 

expressed a concern about the deed to the attorney for William Singer, 

another one of the sellers. Id. at 131. When Preimo mentioned that Singer 

also had previously expressed concerns, the prosecutor objected. Id. After 

the trial court explained that Preimo could not testify about what either 

Singer or his counsel said, his counsel took a different approach, asking 

Preimo instead whether he signed the deed for the Marsh brothers. Id. at

132. He replied that he did not sign for them, did not know where the 

signatures came from, and did not receive any information about the 

signatures. Id. 

Preimo’s counsel asked questions about the location of the closing and 

then asked Preimo if he had inquired about the Marsh brothers. Id. at 133. 

In response to Preimo’s reply of “Correct,” the following exchange took place 

between his counsel and the trial judge:

Counsel: All right. And my understanding is that what was 

stated was objected to and you sustained that objection.

The Court: Well, I understand that it came already signed. 

Other than hearsay, he doesn’t know who did or didn’t sign it.

Counsel: Right. But you don’t want to hear the statements with 

regards to –-

The Court: It’s not that I don’t want to hear it, it’s how does it 

come in without it being hearsay?

Counsel: Very good.
J-S02018-17

- 8 -

Id. at 133. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling regarding the 

attempted hearsay testimony. Further, as the trial court noted, “Moreover, 

this [c]ourt found Preimo’s testimony to be wholly incredible and, as such, 

any introduction of hearsay statements through Preimo would not have been 

believed by this [c]ourt.” Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 4/28/16, at 11. 

Preimo’s third issue fails for lack of merit.

Preimo is not entitled to relief on his sufficiency claims or his 

evidentiary challenge. Therefore, we shall affirm his judgment of sentence. 

In the event of further proceedings, the parties shall attach a copy of the 

trial court’s April 28, 2016 opinion to their filings.

Judgment affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2017
appropriate colloquy ensuring that such waiver was knowingly and intelligently made, 

On April, 6 2011, Preimo waived his right to a jury trial and following an 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

affirm the sentence imposed in this matter. 

0005258-2009. This Court requests that the Superior Court uphold the convictions and 

Deception, Tampering with Records, and Forgery on bill of information CP-51-CRconvicted of Criminal Conspiracy Engaging in Theft By Unlawful Taking, Theft by 

Records on bill of information CP-51-CR-0005257-2009. Preimo was charged and 

convicted of Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy, Theft by Deception, and Tampering with 

Records on bill of information CP-51-CR-0005256-2009. Preimo was charged with and 

of Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy, two counts of Theft by Deception, and Tampering with 

Defendant John Preimo ("Preimo") was charged with and convicted of two counts 

CARPENTER, J. 

II II I Ill I ll/l l/lll//l ll/l 

7439556791 

CP-57-CR-0005257-2009 Co : 

0 . mm v Pre1mo. John J J JOHN PREIMO pirnon : 

v. 

CP-51-CR-0005256-2009 

CP-51-CR-0005257-2009 

CP-51-CR-0005258-2009 

FILED 

APR 2 8 2016 

. Criminfi~ Appeals Unit 

First Judrc,al District of PA 

APRIL 28, 2016 

OPINION 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY 

TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION 

Circulated 03/23/2017 11:46 AM
2 

1. The evidence was insufficient on the charges of forgery, criminal conspiracy, 

theft by deception an tampering with records for the following reasons: 

a. Jonathan Clark was untruthful and contradictory on multiple aspects of 

his testimony. His testimony differed from a lawsuit he filed and there 

was no other documentation to back up his testimony. Thus his 

testimony should have been totally discounted. 

b. The second prosecution witness stated that he has no dealings with 

the defendant, had never met with him and only dealt with Michelle 

Williams, whose position with Apple Abstract was to manage the office 

and keep financial records. 

c. Michelle Williams was never hired to buy or sell real estate or set up 

deals. She was a title clerk only and not associated with Chicago Title 

Company. 

d. Patricia Bourke stated that only Michelle Williams brought her contract 

for Brown Street. She never stated that defendant had anything to do 

with the dealings or that he profited from them 

Preimo's 1925(b) response which raised the following issues on appeal: 

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(b). On August 10, 2015, this court received 

was served an Order directing him to file a concise statement of the matters complained 

On July 13, 2015, this court received a Notice of Appeal. On July 20, 2015, Preimo 

the judgment of sentence imposed on June 9, 2011. 

Court granted Preimo's petition in the nature of a request for a nunc pro tune appeal from 

August 8, 2014, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss. On June 19, 2015, this 

appointed and, on December 5, 2013, counsel filed an Amended PCRA Petition. On 

On February 10, 2012, Preimo filed a PCRA petition. PCRA counsel was 

reporting probation. 

Preimo to an aggregate sentence of 4-8 years of incarceration followed by 10 years of 

Deception and Tampering with Evidence. On June 9, 2011, this Court sentenced 

a jury, found Preimo guilty of multiple counts of Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy, Theft by 

this Court proceeded to trial. On April 13, 2011, this Court, de novo, and sitting without 

-r-. 
3 

the head of the conspiracy and that the scheme was his creation. While Preimo 

Court found Williams guilty for some of the crimes, this Court found that Preimo was at 

attempted to shift the blame to co-defendant Michelle Williams ("Williams"). While this 

started to demand their money back. At trial (and in these issues on appeal) Preimo 

documents and attempted to cover up his dealings with lies and deceit once the victims 

any return. As part of the scheme, Preimo used forged and otherwise fraudulent 

money from investors seeking to flip properties bought at auction and never provided 

believe that they had purchased a home, while in other circumstances, Preimo took 

some circumstances, Preimo took money from would-be purchasers and led them to 

operated by defendant Preimo in which he purported to buy and sell properties. In 

The discussion below provides the details of the fraudulent real estate scheme 

DISCUSSION 

4. [This] Court erred in denying defendant's request for a nunc pro tune postsentence motion. 

3. [This] Court erred in finding that the defendant controlled the actions of Ms. 

Williams. Any of the above crimes were committed by Michelle Williams and 

there was no evidence that the defendant controlled Ms. Williams as she was 

an independent contractor. Buying or selling property or making deals for 

property purchases was not within the scope of her employment. 

2. [This] Court erred in not allowing evidence of the property problem title with 

Ms. Bourke to be introduced into evidence. 

e. Additionally, Ms. Bourke stated that defendant gave her a promissory 

note for her entire loss when there was a problem with the property 

titles. 

f. Mr. Rubin stated that he and defendant had a contractual relationship 

and that all funds given to him were loans. 

g. Two of Mr. Rubin's attorneys testified that defendant did not steal from 

Mr. Rubin and agreed to repay any money that he had borrowed. 
4 

1 Com. v. Heberling, 678 A.2d 794, 795 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citing Com. v. Williams, 650 A.2d 420 (Pa. 

1994)). 

2 Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 668 A.2d 1143, 1144 (Pa. Super. 1995). 

3 Commonwealth. v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548, 549 (Pa. 1992). 

4 Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008). 

evidence was insufficient; otherwise the claim is waived.4 

the sufficiency of the evidence must specify the element or elements upon which the 

evaluated and all evidence received must be considered.3 Additionally, any challenge to 

the use of wholly circumstantial evidence. In applying the test, the whole record must be 

satisfy its burden of proving an element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt through 

of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstance.2 The Commonwealth may 

unless, the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law, no probability 

innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder 

circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of 

evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder. The facts and 

beyond a reasonable doubt.1 In applying this test, the Superior Court may not weigh the 

there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime 

viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, 

The standard applied when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence is whether, 

Sufficiency of the evidence I Preimo's responsibility 

first discusses Issues A and C together and then writes to Issues Band D separately. 

With regard to the issues raised by Preimo in his 1925(b) statement, this Court 

incredible and indicated so at the time he was found guilty of the instant charges. 

testified on his own behalf asserting his innocence, this Court found him to be wholly 
5 

5 N.T. 4/7/2011 at 72-79 

6 Id. at 77 

1 Id. at 76-77, 80-84, 93. 

8 Id. at 77. 

9 Id. at "85, 88-91. 

for other purposes, including to "invest" in mineral rights on properties outside of 

the checks as though such properties had been purchased and used Bourke's money 

and Preimo had discussed.9 However, Preimo never bought the properties, but cashed 

several checks totaling over $300,000 to buy the above designated properties, as she 

properties and Williams would be the supposed title agent. 8 Bourke gave Preimo 

established business model, Preimo would negotiate the buying of the designated 

Clarence Street, 4331 L Street, and 850-854 East Ontario Street.7 In line with Preimo's 

Brown Street, 2530 West Montgomery Avenue, 5440 West Oxford Avenue, 2084-86 

with Preimo (not Williams) in the buying and selling of properties, specifically 2619 

real estate dealings.6 After hearing about Preimo's business, Bourke decided to invest 

Preimo also informed Bourke that co-defendant Williams acted as the title agent in his 

inexpensively, both at private sale and at auction, and then resold them for a profit.5 

Preimo told Bourke that his company "We Buy Anything" bought properties 

Preirno (not Williams) as a potential investor. Over the course of several meetings, 

testified that she was interested in investing in real estate and in 2007 was introduced to 

Conspiracy, Theft, Forgery, and Tampering with Records. Specifically, Patricia Bourke 

testimony of all of the witnesses and victims amply supported the charges of 

Williams in the at issue deceptive real estate operation. This Court disagrees. The 

convictions and that this Court erred in finding that Preimo controlled the actions of 

On appeal, Preimo asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his 

- 
6 

10 Id. at 87-92, 104, 156-57. 

11 Id. at 106, 157-58, 195. 

12 Id. at 120-22. 

13 Id. at 182-83. 

14 Id. at 138-40. 

15 Id. at 153-54. 

16 td. at 145-149, 156-57, 195, 199-200. 

17 Id. at 5-6. 

18 /d. at 7-20. 

transferring the property away from the Marshes was forged.18 Further the testimony 

death of their uncle, William Singer, and that they had never sold the property to Preimo 

or the LLC.17 The testimony established that the deed shown to Bourke allegedly 

brother, Carl Marsh, were the real owners of the 2619 Brown Street property, upon the 

Further, Robert Marsh and William Marsh testified that they, along with their 

the property itself.16 

been used to pay off a debt of Preimo's and to purchase a lien on the property but not 

Brown Street transaction had not occurred as planned and that Bourke's money had 

found that it had not 15 Preimo engaged in a series of lies to cover up that the 2619 

Olson.14 Bourke investigated whether the sale of 2619 Brown had been recorded and 

another document purporting to be a sales agreement from the LLC to a Vincent 

supposedly documenting the sale from the owners (the Marshes) to the LLC and 

The property had a lien that would also be purchased. A deed was presented to Bourke 

plan to buy the property for approximately $150,000 and to resell it for over 800,000.13 

purchase of this property from the property owners, the Marshes, with co-defendant 

Williams acting as the purported title agent.12 Preimo convinced Bourke that he had a 

With regard to 2619 Brown Street, Preimo set up an LLC with Bourke for the 

although Preimo promised to return it, he never did. 11 

Philadelphia and to pay off his debts.'? Bourke demanded her money back and 
7 

19 Id. 

zo Id. at 47-56. 

21 N.T. 4/8/2011 at 19-21. 

22 /d. at 27-38. 

Preimo were one payment of approximately $25,000 and one payment of approximately 

fact, purchased these properties and the only monies he ever received back from 

any agreements of sale, deeds, or other documentation to support that Preimo had, in 

Phitadelphia,22 as well as other properties in outside counties. Rubin never received 

1861 East Madison Street, 4331 L Street, 1621-45 N. American Street in the City of 

selling properties for profit, specifically the properties located at 2658 Emerald Street, 

2007, Rubin invested in excess of $280,000 with Preimo for the purpose of buying and 

Sale and then either reselling them for a profit or keeping them as investments.21 In 

Preimo was in the real estate business and involved in buying properties at Sheriff's 

circumstances under which he began investing with Preimo with the understanding that 

In addition to Bourke's testimony, Seymour Rubin testified similarly regarding the 

forgeries. 

the evidence presented and found that Preimo was primarily responsible for the 

the events regarding Ms. Bourke, this Court did not believe him. This Court weighed all 

including Bourke. While Preimo testified in his own behalf and placed his own spin on 

evidence of Preimo's intent to engage in a scheme to defraud the victims in this case, 

that Preimo was responsible for the forged documents and that these forgeries were 

family. 20 This Court found that the circumstantial evidence led to the logical conclusion 

any one by the name of Edward Marsh and there is no one by that name in the Marsh 

transfer the property was also forged.19 William Marsh testified that he does not know 

showed that the power of attorney form that gave authority to an Edward Marsh to 
8 

23 Id. at 30, 55. 

24 Id. at 56-57. 

zs N.T. 4/6/2011 at 127-29. 

26 Id. at 129-30. 

21 Id. at 130-31, 135 

za 1d. at 131-34, 137. 

reimburse Clark for his loss. While some portions of Clark's testimony may have been 

the defective title at the time of the sale to Clark and sold it anyway without any intent to 

never received any money from Preimo.28 This Court found that Preimo was aware of 

balance paid from a claim to be submitted to the insurance company; however Clark 

passed and Preimo offered to pay Clark approximately $30,000 cash and have the 

Preimo who claimed that a mistake had been made such that clear title could not be 

learned that another entity owned the E Street property.27 He was put in contact with 

later, after Clark had spent approximately $30,000 renovating the property, Clark 

would be completed by Apple Abstract {Preimo's company) and, upon receiving the 

paperwork from Apple Abstract, made a $23,000 payment to the company.26 Months 

auction company. 25 After completing the deposit, Clark was told that the title work 

the winning bid for the E Street property after which he made a $5000 deposit to the 

did not, in fact, own the property. In May 2007, Clark went to an auction and tendered 

purchased a property located at 3324 E Street from Preimo only to discover that Preimo 

Another witness, Jonathan Clark provided testimony that he believed that he had 

Rubin's account, this Court found him to be incredible. 

the forgeries of Rubin's name. Again, while Preimo testified and attempted to refute 

never received any such payments.24 This Court found that Preimo was responsible for 

Preimo to Rubin, containing Rubin's signature that he never signed and for which he 

$40,000.23 Moreover, Rubin identified various receipts for payments in cash, from 
9 

29 Id. at 26. 

30 Id. at27-30, 81-82. 

making a $2500 deposit, the Vegas paid an additional $17, 500 for the property in 

the Vegas wished to purchase a home upon relocating from Puerto Rico.30 After 

that Cruz had put Mr. Vega and his son-in-law, Latore, in touch with Preimo because 

testimony of Angel Cruz, Fermin Latore, and Jaison Potts. The testimony established 

Vegas and Jaison Potts. Regarding this property, this Court heard the collective 

operation sold the house located at 2872 Jasper Street to two different buyers - the 

Much akin to the circumstances of Cruz and Clark, Defendant's real estate 

the Theft and Conspiracy charges. 

Clark and Cruz, and never returned the money he had taken. These facts supported 

circumstances in which he knew he could not pass good title, hid this fact from both 

Court found that Preimo had intentionally sold the E Street property under 

provided contradictory testimony such that he was unbelievable is without merit. This 

property, when in fact they had not. Preimo's contention that Clark was not credible or 

took money from would-be purchasers and led them to believe that they had bought a 

that Cruz's testimony supported that of Clark and demonstrated that Preimo repeatedly 

September 2008. Cruz entered an agreement with Preimo to pay a $2,000 deposit and 

then monthly payment of $400 for a total purchase price of $8,000.29 This Court found 

had purchased the same property as Clark (the E Street property) from Preimo in 

Moreover, yet another person defrauded by Preimo, Angel Cruz, testified that he 

including the testimony of Preimo himself. 

contradictory, this Court evaluated Clark's testimony in light of all the other witnesses, 
10 

31 Id. at 86-94. 

32 Id. at 94. 

33 Id. at 54-56. 

34 Com. v. Weiss, 776 A.2d 958, 967 (Pa. 2001). 

abuse of discretion is not a mere error in judgment but, rather, involves bias, ill-will, 

court and will not be reversed by a reviewing court absent an abuse of discretion.34 An 

The admissibility of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial 

Street property and has addressed it accordingly. 

problem title, this Court, from the context of the trial, assumes it to be the 2619 Brown 

disagrees. While the statement of error is not specific as to which property involved a 

property problem title with Ms. Bourke to be introduced into evidence." This Court 

On appeal, Preimo avers that this Court "erred in not allowing evidence of the 

Evidence regarding property title issues 

with Records. 

reasonable doubt, of Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy, Theft by Deception, and Tampering 

Commonwealth, was more than sufficient for this Court to find Preimo guilty, beyond a 

The above summarized testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

occupied by the Vegas and ultimately sought to evict them from the property. 

Washington Mutual Bank and made settlement on the property in January 2009 for 

$18,000.33 After purchasing the property, Potts discovered that the property was 

Potts testified that he bought 2872 Jasper Street through Preimo Real Estate from 

unbeknownst to the Vegas, Preimo had sold the Jasper Street property to Jaison Potts. 

approximately one and a half years after which they were evicted32 because 

September 2008 and the Vegas moved into the property.31 The Vegas lived there for 
35 Com. v. Collins, 70 A.3d 1245, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2013). 

36 N.T. 4/11/2011 at 133:14-25. For further context. see pages 131-35. 

11 

Nonetheless, even if the claim were properly presented, the claim has no merit, as Preimo 

solely an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by this Court on June 9, 2011. 

Preimo's PCRA petition, which is not subject of the instant appeal. The instant appeal is 

proceeding, as the request to file post sentence motions was denied in the disposition of 

sentence motions nunc pro tune. This claim is not properly raised in the instant 

On appeal, Preimo avers that this Court erred in denying his request to file post 

Nunc pro tune post-sentence motion request 

through Preimo would not have been believed by this Court. 

testimony to be wholly incredible and, as such, any introduction of hearsay statements 

the presentation of the hearsay statement. Moreover, this Court found Preimo's 

In accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, this Court properly precluded 

MR. GOSSETT: All right. And my understanding is that what was stated 

was objected to and you sustained that objection. 

THE COURT: Well, I understand that it came already signed. Other than 

hearsay, he doesn't know who did or didn't sign it. 

MR. GOSSETI: Right. But you don't want to hear the statements with 

regards to -- 

THE COURT: It's not that I don't want to hear it, it's how does it come in 

without it being hearsay? 

MR. GOSSETT: Very good.36 

provides: 

regarding signatures on a deed to the Brown Street property. Specifically, the transcript 

providing testimony about what William Singer or his attorney, Larry Abel, had said 

instant matter, this Court sustained the Commonwealth's hearsay objections to Preimo 

partiality, prejudice, manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of law.35 In the 
12 

37 Com. v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Superior Court should affirm this 

Court's finding of guilt, this Court's decision regarding the introduction of evidence, and 

the sentence imposed in this matter. 

failed to satisfy the requisite prongs of Pierce37 for obtaining relief based upon a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

--