J. S21016/17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

KEITH D. CERQUEIRA :

APPELLANT :

:

: No. 1004 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order June 22, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-SA-0000012-2016

 

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 29, 2017

Appellant, Keith D. Cerqueira, appeals from the June 22, 2016 Order 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County finding 

Appellant guilty of the summary offenses of Driving an Unregistered Vehicle 

and Operation of a Vehicle Without Official Certificate of Inspection.1 After 

careful review, we affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history, as gleaned from the certified 

record, are as follows. Appellant is an employee of Brady Auto Sales 

(“BAS”), a licensed car dealer in Penn Hills, Pennsylvania. In June 2014, 

Appellant purchased a 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt (“the Vehicle”) from BAS. The 

 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 1301(a) and 75 Pa.C.S. § 4703(a), respectively.
J. S21016/17

- 2 -

Vehicle needed a new motor and its inspection sticker had expired in January 

2014. 

On June 29, 2015, after completing repairs on the Vehicle and before 

Appellant obtained a valid inspection sticker, Appellant signed a 

Consignment Agreement with BAS. The Consignment Agreement provided 

that Appellant could store the Vehicle on the lot of BAS, but it was Appellant 

who would remain the owner of the Vehicle until the Vehicle was sold. Also, 

pursuant to BAS policy, the Vehicle could not be sold until the Vehicle had a 

valid inspection certificate.

The Consignment Agreement also granted BAS the exclusive right to 

sell the Vehicle and once the Vehicle was sold, Appellant and BAS would split 

the profits. 

 On July 24, 2015, Appellant was driving the Vehicle on a highway 

using car dealer license plate issued to BAS. Appellant had not yet obtained 

a valid inspection certificate and Officer Tony J. Anthony stopped Appellant 

because the Vehicle’s inspection certificate had expired. 

Officer Anthony conducted a vehicle information inquiry through the 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, which revealed that the car was 

still registered to Appellant and the Vehicle’s registration had expired in April 

2015. 
J. S21016/17

- 3 -

Officer Anthony issued Appellant two traffic citations: Driving an 

Unregistered Vehicle and Operation of a Vehicle Without Official Certificate of 

Inspection. 

On December 16, 2015, Magisterial District Court found Appellant

guilty of both violations. On January 14, 2016, Appellant appealed to the 

Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas. After a bench trial on June 

21, 2016, the trial court found Appellant guilty of both violations and 

sentenced Appellant to pay an aggregate fine of $100. 

Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied 

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal: 

1. Whether the Commonwealth proved [Appellant] guilty beyond 

a reasonable doubt of violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 1301(a) when it 

failed to offer any evidence to disprove [Appellant]’s 

affirmative defense that the car did not need to be registered 

due to 1) the car having a dealer license plate to [Appellant]’s 

employer [BAS], 2) the car and its title being in possession of 

[Appellant]’s employer [BAS], and 3) [BAS] owning the car 

due to a valid consignment agreement with [Appellant]. 

2. Whether the court erred in finding [Appellant] guilty of 75 

Pa.C.S. § 4703(a) [inspection violation] when the car was not 

required to be registered within the Commonwealth due to it 

being exempt from registration as a dealer owned/possessed 

vehicle. 

Appellant’s Brief at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted). 

Driving an Unregistered Vehicle 

Appellant concedes that he was driving with an expired vehicle 

registration. He, however, argues that the Vehicle was exempt from vehicle 
J. S21016/17

- 4 -

registration under the car dealer’s exemptions to the registration statute, 75 

Pa.C.S. § 1336(a)(2) and (b)(3). See Appellant’s Brief at 8.

Our standard of review is well settled for sufficiency of evidence 

claims:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of 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 this test, we may not 

weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the 

fact-finder.

Commonwealth v. Costa-Hernandez, 802 A.2d 671, 673 (Pa. Super. 

2002).

To sustain a conviction for Driving an Unregistered Vehicle, the 

Commonwealth must prove that an individual is driving a vehicle that is not 

registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 

1301(a). 

The legislature, however, has provided for several exemptions from 

the vehicle registration requirement, including one for car dealers. This 

exemption permits a car dealer to not register individual vehicles and utilize 

“special registration plates which may be displayed on vehicles in lieu of 

registering each vehicle individually.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1335(a). A car dealer 

may only take advantage of the dealer registration exemption, however, if 
J. S21016/17

- 5 -

the dealer is using the vehicle for certain enumerated purposes and the 

vehicle is being “held for sale.”2 75 Pa.C.S. § 1336(a)(2) and (b)(3).

In this case, Appellant argues that that the car dealer exemption 

applied because the Vehicle was being “held for sale” and he was using the 

Vehicle either to transport it to or from a repair facility, or for personal use. 

See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1336(a)(2) and (b)(3). The evidence, however, clearly 

demonstrated that the Vehicle was not being “held for sale.” Thus, 

Appellant is not entitled to defense of the exemption, regardless of his use of

the Vehicle, and the trial court properly refused to apply the car dealer 

exemption as a defense to this case. 

It was undisputed that BAS would not attempt to sell the Vehicle until 

the Vehicle passed inspection. When Appellant was driving the Vehicle, the 

Vehicle had not yet passed inspection. In fact, Appellant admitted that when 

he was driving the Vehicle, he was driving it to prepare the Vehicle for its 

emission test. N.T. Trial, 6/21/16, at 51-52, 54, 78. Thus, the Vehicle was 

not ready for sale and BAS could not be holding it for sale. 

Since the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the car 

was not “held for sale,” we need not address the other elements that 

 

2 We note that it is Appellant’s burden to prove that a vehicle registration 

exemption applies. See generally Commonwealth v. Yogel, 453 A.2d 

15, 16 (Pa. Super. 1982) 
J. S21016/17

- 6 -

Appellant would have to prove to assert the defense based on the car dealer 

exemption.3 

Appellant further argues that although his name is on the certificate of 

title, that is not conclusive evidence of ownership of the Vehicle. See

Wasilko v. Home Mut. Cas. Co., 232 A.2d 60, 61 (Pa. Super. 1967). 

Although we agree with the premise of Appellant’s argument, Appellant’s 

argument ignores the statutory language. The issue is not who “owns” the 

car, but who “holds the car for sale.” In this case, the Vehicle had not 

passed the emission test and was not ready for sale. Thus, BAS could not 

hold the Vehicle for sale. Therefore, the indicia of ownership of the Vehicle 

is not relevant to the analysis.4

 

3 Appellant argues that he is entitled to the exemption under 75 Pa.C.S. § 

1336(a)(2) where the Appellant would have to establish that he was 

operating the Vehicle “[f]or testing, for safety inspection, repairing or 

transporting to or from a repair facility.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1336(a)(2). 

Appellant admitted at trial that he was not en route to a repair shop at the 

time of the traffic stop, but was driving to get the Vehicle ready for a notyet-scheduled emission test. Thus, Appellant could not establish either 

element of this defense.

4 Even if we were to address the issue of who owned the car, the evidence 

established that it was Appellant and not BAS who owned the car. Appellant 

was the titled owner of the Vehicle and the registration was in his name. 

Commonwealth Exhibit 1, Vehicle Record Abstract. Moreover, Appellant 

agreed in the Consignment Agreement that the Vehicle “shall remain the 

property of [Appellant] until sold.” Defendant’s Exhibit E, Consignment 

Agreement. 

 
J. S21016/17

- 7 -

In sum, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove that 

Appellant was driving a vehicle with expired registration pursuant to 75 

Pa.C.S. § 1301(a), and Appellant presented insufficient evidence to prove 

that any dealer registration exemptions applied. Thus, the trial court 

properly convicted Appellant of Driving an Unregistered Vehicle. 

Operation of a Vehicle Without Official Certificate of Inspection

In response to the conviction for operating the Vehicle without a 

certificate of inspection, Appellant again argues that the Vehicle was exempt 

from the inspection requirement because the Vehicle was exempt from the 

inspection requirement “as a dealer owned/possessed vehicle” pursuant to 

75 Pa.C.S. § 4703(a). Appellant’s Brief at 2.

Section 4703 states, in pertinent part, “no motor vehicle required to 

bear current registration plates issued by this Commonwealth . . . shall 

be operated unless the vehicle displays a currently valid certificate of 

inspection issued under this chapter.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 4703(a) (emphasis 

added). Appellant argues that because the Vehicle was eligible for the car 

dealer registration exemption, the Vehicle is not required to “bear current 

registration plates” and is, therefore, exempt from the inspection 

requirements set forth in 75 Pa.C.S. § 4703(a). 

As discussed above, BAS did not hold the Vehicle for sale, and thus, 

Appellant was not exempt from the registration requirements. Therefore, 
J. S21016/17

- 8 -

Appellant is not exempt from the inspection requirements and, thus, this 

argument fails.5 

In conclusion, we find that the trial court did not err in convicting 

Appellant of Driving an Unregistered Vehicle and Operation of a Vehicle 

Without Official Certificate of Inspection. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/29/2017

 

5 Appellant concedes that he did not have a valid inspection certificate.