J-S23040-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARIA CRUZ 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2348 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 19, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-23-CR-0007399-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 29, 2018

Appellant, Maria Cruz, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, which sitting as finder of 

fact in Appellant’s non-jury trial convicted her of Unauthorized Use of a Motor 

Vehicle, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3928(a). Sentenced to one year of probation, Appellant 

contends the court erred by not granting at the preliminary hearing her motion 

to quash the bill of information for the Commonwealth’s purported failure to 

make out a prima facie case against her. We affirm.

The trial court aptly sets forth the pertinent facts and procedural history 

as follows:

On October 12, 2016, Appellant was arrested and charged with 

Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, Receiving Stolen Property, 

Theft by Deception-False Imprisonment, and Theft by Unlawful 

Taking-Movable Property.
J-S23040-18

- 2 -

A Preliminary Hearing was held on November 11, 2016, in front of 

the Honorable Judge Leonard V. Tenaglia in Darby, Delaware 

County. At the hearing, the Commonwealth presented evidence 

from Mr. William Wilmont and Edward Hurley. Mr. Wilmont 

testified that he is employed by Chester Pike Auto Sales in 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania. N.T. 11/23/17 at 6. Appellant 

had purchased two vehicles, a Town and Country Minivan and a 

Nissan Rogue, from the lot in Philadelphia, South Philly Auto 

Sales; both vehicles were registered to Appellant. N.T. at 9. After 

complications with the Appellant’s payment schedule, she was 

instructed to bring both vehicles back and was told that she would 

be refunded the money she had already paid for vehicles. N.T. at 

7.

On September 7, 2016, a repossession company repossessed the 

Nissan Rogue and transported it to Chester Pike Auto Repair, in 

Delaware County. N.T. at 12. Appellant and her daughter 

eventually turned in the Minivan and Appellant’s money, in the 

amount of $5,260.00, was refunded to her. N.T. at 6-7. Appellant 

turned in a set of keys for each vehicle. N.T. at 8. The Minivan 

was transported to the lot at Chester Pike Auto Sale, located up 

the street, also in Delaware County. N.T. at 10.

The following day, both cars were missing from the respective lots. 

N.T. at 8. Mr. Wilmont called the police to report the Minivan 

stolen from the lot. N.T. at 8.

Mr. Hurley testified that he runs Chester Pike Auto Repair in 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania, working on repairs and towing 

vehicles. N.T. at 16, 20. On September 7, 2016, Mr. Hurley came 

to work and noticed that a Nissan Rogue, which was parked on 

the front of their lot, [and] with the keys hanging on his board, 

was missing. N.T. at 16. Mr. Hurley contacted the Sharon Hill 

Police Department to report the vehicle as stolen. N.T. at 16.

On October 11, 2016, Mr. Hurley received a phone call from 

Chester Pike Auto Sales relaying a message that the missing 

vehicles were located in a lot in Philadelphia. Mr. Hurley drove to 

the location in Philadelphia and observed the vehicle in a private 

parking lot. Mr. Hurley contacted the Philadelphia Police 

Department. Upon their arrival, police officers made contact with 

Appellant and her daughter. After about an hour of investigation, 

Appellant turned over keys to the Minivan to the police and began 

removing her belongings from the Minivan. N.T. at 19.
J-S23040-18

- 3 -

After the Preliminary Hearing, Appellant was bound over to the 

Court of Common Pleas on the following charges: One count of 

Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, one count of Receiving 

Stolen Property and one count of Theft by Unlawful Taking, all in 

reference to the Minivan.

On January 19, 2017, counsel for Appellant filed a Motion to Quash 

the Information. On February 27, 2017, after a hearing and a 

review of the Notes of Testimony from the November 23, 2017, 

Preliminary Hearing, [the trial] court denied the Motion.

After a non-jury trial conducted on June 19, 2017, Appellant was 

found guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and not guilty 

of Receiving Stolen Property and Theft by Unlawful Taking.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/2/17, at 1-3.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and, on August 15, 2017, filed 

her Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal raising the 

following issue: “The Court erred in not granting [Appellant’s] Motion to 

Quash the Information due to the absence of any evidence that Ms. Cruz 

committed any offense in Delaware County.” Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

Statement, filed 8/15/17.

In Appellant’s brief, she presents the following question for our review:

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING THE 

[APPELLANT’S] MOTION TO QUASH THE INFORMATION 

DUE TO THE COMMONWEALTH’S FAILURE TO MAKE A 

PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR ANY OFFENSE AT HER 

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY 

EVIDENCE THAT MS. CRUZ COMMITTED ANY OFFENSE IN 

DELAWARE COUNTY?

Appellant’s brief at 5.

Appellant’s issue on appeal is that the Commonwealth’s evidence at the 

preliminary hearing was insufficient to establish a prima facie case as to the 
J-S23040-18

- 4 -

elements of the charged offenses and with respect to the offenses having 

occurred in Delaware County. Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim, 

however, because, as this Court has held:

The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to avoid the incarceration 

or trial of a defendant unless there is sufficient evidence to 

establish a crime was committed and the probability the defendant 

could be connected with the crime. Commonwealth v. Wodjak,

502 Pa. 359, 466 A.2d 991 (1983). Its purpose is not to prove 

defendant's guilt. Once appellant has gone to trial and been found 

guilty of the crime, any defect in the preliminary hearing is 

rendered immaterial.

Commonwealth v. Tyler, 587 A.2d 326, 329 (Pa.Super. 1991) (emphasis in 

original). See also Commonwealth v. Lee, 662 A.2d 645, 650 (Pa. 1995) 

(holding adjudication of guilt on a charge renders moot any allegation that 

Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case for that charge at the 

preliminary hearing).

Here, Appellant was found guilty at her non-jury trial of engaging in the 

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in Delaware County. This guilty verdict 

renders immaterial and moot the defects alleged to have occurred in the 

preliminary hearing. Consequently, we need not address Appellant’s issue, as 

it is confined to the preliminary hearing phase of her case.

Judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.
J-S23040-18

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/29/18