J-A33023-14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellant

v.

THOMAS DANTZLER,

 Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 681 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered January 28, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008351-2012

BEFORE: LAZARUS, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED APRIL 17, 2015

I respectfully dissent.

As the Majority correctly observes, this appeal concerns whether the 

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary and habeas 

hearings to establish a prima facie case that Dantzler entered into a 

conspiracy with Heard to commit, inter alia, aggravated assault. In my 

view, when the evidence presented at these hearings is viewed in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth met its burden of 

proof, and therefore, the trial court erred by granting the “Defendant’s 

Motion to Quash Information.” 

If a fact-finder were presented with, and found credible, the evidence 

submitted by the Commonwealth in the preliminary and habeas hearings, it 

could conclude that Smith and Tiffany assaulted Dantzler on March 27, 
J-A33023-14

- 2 -

2012; thus, creating a motive for Dantzler to exact revenge against Smith.1 

The fact-finder could further find that, a few weeks after the assault, 

Dantzler and Heard appeared in front of Smith’s home where Heard took a 

picture, and then a short time later while sitting in the passenger side of a 

black Dodge Durango driven by Dantzler, Heard warned Ms. Amos not to be 

home that night. The evidence also establishes that, only a few hours later, 

Ms. Amos saw Heard outside of her home and heard shots fired; two bullets 

struck Smith. Moreover, a surveillance camera captured a person dressed 

similarly to Heard enter a dark-colored Dodge Durango around the time of 

the shooting and mere blocks from the shooting. The police later 

determined that Dantzler’s wife owns a black Dodge Durango. Accordingly, 

a factfinder could conclude that Dantzler provided a getaway vehicle for 

Heard. 

From all of this evidence, a fact-finder could draw a reasonable 

inference that Dantzler and Heard agreed that Heard would shoot Smith and 

that Heard did follow through on the agreement by shooting Smith. In other 

words, this evidence establishes a prima facie case that Dantzler conspired 

with Heard to commit aggravated assault, and thus, the Commonwealth can 

 

1 The Majority states that any motive Dentzler had is irrelevant to a 

determination as to whether the Commonwealth established that Dentzler 

entered into a conspiracy with Heard. Majority Memorandum at 7-8. The 

Commonwealth was not required to present evidence of a motive in order to 

demonstrate a prima facie conspiracy case against Dentzler; however, such 

evidence certainly is relevant to “creating a web of evidence implicating 

Dantzler in a conspiracy[.]” Id. at 7. 
J-A33023-14

- 3 -

prosecute Dantzler for all of the crimes for which he was charged under a 

conspiracy theory. See Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004, 

1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“The general rule of law pertaining to the culpability 

of conspirators is that each individual member of the conspiracy is criminally 

responsible for the acts of his co-conspirators committed in furtherance of 

the conspiracy.”).

In my view, a trial court does not have the discretion to dismiss 

charges when, at a preliminary or habeas hearing, the Commonwealth 

presents sufficient evidence to demonstrate a prima facie case against the 

defendant. Because I conclude that the Commonwealth met its burden in 

this case, I would reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further 

proceedings.