J-A13006-22

2022 PA Super 119

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.G.

APPEAL OF: K.G.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1784 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered July 1, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-JV-0001149-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and KING, J.

OPINION BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 07, 2022

Appellant, K.G., a juvenile, appeals from the dispositional order1 entered 

on July 1, 2021, adjudicating him delinquent of unauthorized use of 

____________________________________________

1

 Initially, we recognize the following:

Since we lack jurisdiction over an unappealable order, it is 

incumbent on us to determine, sua sponte when necessary, 

whether the appeal is taken from an appealable order.

An appeal lies only from a final order, unless permitted by rule or 

statute. Generally, a final order is one that disposes of all claims 

and all parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).

Int. of L.B., 229 A.3d 971, 975 (Pa. Super. 2020) (internal case citations, 

quotations, and brackets omitted).

 

This Court has found:

Appeals from the juvenile court, which is a court of record, to the 

Superior Court...are governed not by the Juvenile Act, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6301–6320 but by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A13006-22

- 2 -

____________________________________________

Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341, an appeal may be taken as of right 

from any final order of a juvenile court. 

In order to determine what constitutes a final appealable order, 

this Court must look beyond the technical effect of the 

adjudication to its practical ramifications. 

In re M.H.M., 864 A.2d 1251, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004) (internal case citations,

quotations, and brackets omitted).

Finally, we have previously determined:

In juvenile proceedings, the final order from which a direct appeal 

may be taken is the order of disposition, entered after the juvenile 

is adjudicated delinquent. The order of disposition in a juvenile 

matter is akin to the judgment of sentence in a criminal matter in 

that both are final orders subject to appeal. 

* * *

[A dispositional order] imposing no further penalty on [] new 

adjudications [is] the disposition of that matter. Compare 

Commonwealth v. Rubright, 414 A.2d 106, 109 (Pa. 1980) (in 

criminal court, a “determination of guilt without further penalty ... 

constitutes a final, appealable order.”)

In Int. of P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 649 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal quotations, 

original brackets, and some case citations omitted). 

Here, there is no dispute that the July 1, 2021 order constituted a final order. 

In that order, the trial court adjudicated Appellant delinquent for unauthorized 

use of automobiles (UUA), found Appellant in need of treatment, supervision 

or rehabilitation, ordered restitution be paid to the victim and costs paid to 

the court, and released Appellant from detention. See Order of Court, 

7/1/2021. However, the trial court did not impose additional conditions of 

treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. Instead, the trial court recognized 

that Appellant previously admitted to committing an unrelated drug offense, 

but adjudication in that matter had been deferred and also that there was still 

an open criminal matter to decide in Delaware County. N.T., 7/1/2021, at 22-

24. As such, in this matter, the trial court left the “disposition open” and 

relinquished jurisdiction to “Courtroom 3E, Hearing Officer Betsy Wahl.” Id.; 

see also N.T., 7/1/2021, at 23 (“Adjudicate him delinquent. Relinquish 

jurisdiction to E Court, and leave disposition open so they can decide what to 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A13006-22

- 3 -

automobiles (UUA), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928(a), and ordering the payment of 

court costs and restitution to the owner of the vehicle. Upon careful 

consideration, we vacate the July 1, 2021 order of disposition.

We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history, as gleaned from 

the certified record. The Commonwealth charged Appellant with the 

aforementioned crime, as well as theft by unlawful taking – moveable property 

and receiving stolen property,

2

following an incident that occurred on July 29, 

2020. The trial court held an adjudicatory hearing on July 1, 2021. At that 

hearing, the car owner testified that she parked her 2014 silver Nissan Versa 

in front of her house on Girard Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 

24, 2020. N.T., 7/1/2021, at 14. The following day, the car owner reported 

to the police that the car had been stolen. Id. Four days later, on July 29, 

2020, at approximately 7:56 a.m., Officer Christopher Smith of the 

Philadelphia Police Department “observed a silver Nissan Versa that was in 

____________________________________________

do with this.”); see also Appellant’s Brief at 7 n.1. (“Courtroom 3E, or ‘E 

Court’ as it is often called, is a courtroom in which a Juvenile Court Hearing 

Officer presides over, inter alia, dispositional review hearings and placement 

review hearings.”). Taken together, our review of the certified record and 

applicable law leads us to conclude that the July 1, 2021 order was final and 

appealable. The trial court adjudicated Appellant delinquent and ordered 

Appellant’s detainer to be lifted, imposed court costs and restitution, and 

deferred any additional treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation to be decided 

by a hearing review officer who was presiding over review of Appellant’s other 

adjudicatory matters. By relinquishing jurisdiction to the hearing officer, the 

practical ramification of the July 1, 2021 order was to impose no further 

treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation penalties upon Appellant in this 

matter. Because there were no further claims pending before the trial court

on this docket, the July 1, 2021 order was final and appealable. 

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(a) and 3925(a), respectively.
J-A13006-22

- 4 -

the parking lane [on the 1700 block of North 23rd Street] enter the travel lanes 

in front of [him] and [the driver] did not use a turn signal.” Id. at 5. After 

verifying that the vehicle had been reported stolen, Officer Smith initiated a 

traffic stop. Id. Officer Smith detained Appellant, the driver and lone 

occupant of the car. Id. Officer Smith then contacted the car owner who 

confirmed ownership of the car and signed a form stating that she did not give 

Appellant permission to drive the vehicle. Id. The police subsequently 

released the automobile to the car owner. Id. Officer Smith also testified 

that, at the time of Appellant’s arrest, there was no damage to the vehicle. 

More specifically, the ignition system, dashboard, and steering column were 

not broken or damaged, the vehicle identification number was intact, and 

there were no signs of forced entry. Id. at 8-10. In fact, Appellant was 

operating the vehicle with keys. Id. at 10. Moreover, Appellant was 

cooperative with police, pulled over immediately upon command, and did not 

attempt to flee. Id. at 8-9.

At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case and upon defense 

counsel’s oral motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial court dismissed the 

charges of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property. Id. at 19. 

The parties stipulated to character evidence that Appellant “has a reputation 

for being law abiding, honest[,] and peaceful[.]” Id. The trial court ultimately 

adjudicated Appellant delinquent for UUA. Id. at 22. On July 9, 2021, 

Appellant filed a motion to reconsider the adjudication which was denied by 
J-A13006-22

- 5 -

operation of law on September 7, 2021. See Trial Court Opinion, 

11/17/2021, at *1 (unpaginated). This timely appeal resulted.3

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

A. Was [] the evidence insufficient to sustain a finding that 

[Appellant] committed the offense of unauthorized use of an 

automobile where the [Commonwealth] failed to prove that he 

acted with the requisite mens rea?

B. Did [] the juvenile court err and abuse its discretion in 

adjudicating [Appellant] delinquent where it found he was in 

need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation based solely 

on the fact that [Appellant] had committed delinquent acts and 

as such, the adjudication of delinquency was based on 

insufficient evidence?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

Appellant summarizes both issues as follows:

The evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding 

that [Appellant] committed UUA because the Commonwealth 

failed to prove that [Appellant] acted recklessly with respect to 

the owner’s lack of consent. The evidence showed only that he 

was driving the car with keys [four] days after it had been stolen. 

The surrounding circumstances, together with evidence of 

[Appellant’s] good character, did not support a finding of 

[delinquency].

After finding [that Appellant committed] UUA, the juvenile court 

adjudicated him delinquent upon hearing that he had admitted to 

a misdemeanor in another case and had unknown pending 

charges in another county. The mere fact that a juvenile has 

committed delinquent acts cannot support a finding that he is in 

need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. The juvenile 

____________________________________________

3

 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 7, 2021. On October 28, 

2021, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied 

timely on October 29, 2021. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on November 17, 2021.
J-A13006-22

- 6 -

court knew nothing else about [Appellant]. It was an abuse of 

discretion to adjudicate him delinquent.

Id. at 8-9. 

The Commonwealth agrees and concedes that Appellant is entitled to 

relief on both appellate issues:

The Commonwealth does not contest that, on the specific record 

and circumstances of this case, [Appellant’s] adjudication of 

delinquency for unauthorized use of an automobile was not 

supported by the facts. Insufficient evidence existed to support 

an inference that [Appellant] possessed the requisite mens rea, 

that he was at least reckless with regard to the stolen status of 

the car. Additionally, the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

adjudicating [Appellant] delinquent without first conducting a 

hearing to determine [Appellant’s] need for treatment, 

supervision, or rehabilitation.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 5.

When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting an adjudication of delinquency, this Court employs a well-settled 

standard of review:

When a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a 

crime if committed by an adult, the Commonwealth must establish 

the elements of the crime by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

following an adjudication of delinquency, we must review the 

entire record and view the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth. In determining whether the Commonwealth 

presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof, the test 

to be applied is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable 

inferences therefrom, there is sufficient evidence to find every 

element of the crime charged. The Commonwealth may sustain 

its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt by wholly circumstantial evidence.

The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth 

need not be absolutely incompatible with a defendant's innocence. 
J-A13006-22

- 7 -

Questions of doubt are for the hearing judge, unless the evidence 

is so weak that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be 

drawn from the combined circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth. The finder of fact is free to believe some, all, or 

none of the evidence presented.

In Interest of J.G., 145 A.3d 1179, 1188 (Pa. Super. 2016) (internal 

citations omitted).

“A person is guilty of [UUA,] a misdemeanor of the second[-]degree[,]

if he operates the automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat, or other 

motor-propelled vehicle of another without consent of the owner.” 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3928(a). “In order to establish the mens rea element of the crime 

of unauthorized use of automobiles, the Commonwealth must prove that the 

accused was at least reckless with respect to the owner's lack of consent to 

the accused's operation of the vehicle.” Commonwealth v. Dunlap, 505 

A.2d 255, 257 (Pa. Super. 1985) (citation omitted); see also 

Commonwealth v. Carson, 592 A.2d 1318, 1321 (Pa. Super. 1991) (“[A] 

conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle must be predicated on proof that 

the defendant operated the vehicle without the owner's consent and that the 

defendant knew or had reason to know that he lacked the owner's permission 

to operate the vehicle.”); see also Commonwealth v. Matthews, 632 A.2d 

570, 572 (Pa. Super. 1993) (The Commonwealth may establish the necessary 

mens rea by showing whether the person in possession of the automobile 

“knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen”). “[T]he mere 

possession of stolen property is insufficient to permit an inference of guilty 

knowledge; there must be additional evidence, circumstantial or direct, which 
J-A13006-22

- 8 -

would indicate that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the 

property was stolen.” Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held:

It is difficult to enumerate every circumstance that would warrant 

a conclusion that the appellant had reason to know the property 

was stolen. Some of the significant circumstances can be the 

appellant's conduct; the appellant's relationship to the victim; the 

elapsed time between the appellant's possession and the theft; 

the situs of the theft and the situs of the possession; the kind of 

property; the quantity of the property; and the identifying 

characteristics of the property.

* * *

The possession of an automobile which does not belong to the 

driver is not so strange, unusual, or unique that it points to guilty 

knowledge as more likely than innocent knowledge on the part of 

the driver. The borrowing or leasing of an automobile for 

temporary use is not an uncommon occurrence. If every person 

possessing an automobile which they did not own would be held 

accountable as having knowledge that the automobile was stolen, 

every person who borrowed a car would be in peril of [] 

conviction[.]

Commonwealth v. Henderson, 304 A.2d 154, 156-157 (Pa. 1973).

Moreover, our Supreme Court has previously determined “the Juvenile 

Act requires a juvenile court to find that a child has committed a delinquent 

act and that the child is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation, 

before the court may enter an adjudication of delinquency.” Commonwealth 

v. M.W., 39 A.3d 958, 964 (Pa. 2012) (emphasis in original), citing 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6341. “A determination that a child has committed a delinquent 

act does not, on its own, warrant an adjudication of delinquency.” Id. at 966. 

“If the court finds on proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the child 

committed the acts by reason of which he is alleged to be delinquent it shall 
J-A13006-22

- 9 -

enter such finding on the record and shall specify the particular offenses, 

including the grading and counts thereof which the child is found to have 

committed.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(b). “The court shall then proceed 

immediately or at a postponed hearing, [] to hear evidence as to whether the 

child is in need of treatment, supervision or rehabilitation, as established by a 

preponderance of the evidence, and to make and file its findings thereon.” Id.

The Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure provide additional guidance:

Under these rules and the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq., 

a determination for each case requires separate and distinct 

findings. First, the court is to hold an adjudicatory hearing, 

governed by Rule 406 or receive an admission from the juvenile 

of the allegations, governed by Rule 407. Second, after hearing 

the evidence or receiving an admission, the court is to rule on the 

offenses pursuant to Rule 408, stating with particularity the 

grading and counts of each offense. Third, after ruling on the 

offenses or entering its findings, the court is to determine if the 

juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation 

pursuant to Rule 409. After the court has made these findings 

and if the court finds that the juvenile is in need of treatment, 

supervision, or rehabilitation, the court is to hold a dispositional 

hearing as provided for in Rule 512 and is to enter a dispositional 

order pursuant to Rule 515. Nothing in these rules precludes the 

court from making these determinations at the same proceeding 

as long as the requirements of Rules 406 through 409 are 

followed.

Pa.R.J.P. 401. 

“If the court determines that the juvenile is in need of treatment, 

supervision, or rehabilitation, the court shall enter an order adjudicating the 

juvenile delinquent and proceed in determining a proper disposition under 
J-A13006-22

- 10 -

Rule 512.”

4

 Pa.R.J.P. 409(2)(a). “The court shall receive any oral or written 

evidence from both parties and the juvenile probation officer that is helpful in 

determining disposition, including evidence that was not admissible at the 

adjudicatory hearing [and the] court shall give the juvenile and the victim an 

opportunity to be heard.” Pa.R.J.P. 512 (A)(1)-(2). The court is required to 

colloquy the juvenile and conduct an independent inquiry to determine 

whether the juvenile understands his post-dispositional and appellate rights. 

See Pa.R.J.P. 512(C). “Pursuant to [Pa.R.J.P. 512](D), when the court has 

determined the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, and 

rehabilitation, the court is to place its findings and conclusions of law on the 

record by announcing them orally in the courtroom, followed by written order. 

The court is to consider the following factors: a) the protection of the 

community; b) the treatment needs of the juvenile; c) the supervision needs 

of the juvenile; d) the development of competencies to enable the juvenile to 

become a responsible and productive member of the community; e) 

accountability for the offense(s) committed; and f) any other factors that the 

court deems appropriate.” Pa.R.J.P. 512, Comment. The court is not 

precluded from “further explaining its findings in the dispositional order 

pursuant to [Pa.R.J.P.] 515.” Id. “When the court enters a disposition after 

an adjudication of delinquency[,] the court shall issue a written order [,] which 

____________________________________________

4 “To the extent practicable, the judge or juvenile court hearing officer that 

presided over the adjudicatory hearing for a juvenile should preside over the 

dispositional hearing for the same juvenile.” Pa.R.J.P. 512, Comment.
J-A13006-22

- 11 -

the court has determined to be consistent with the protection of the public 

interest and best suited to the child's treatment, supervision, rehabilitation 

and welfare, which disposition shall, as appropriate to the individual 

circumstances of the child's case, provide balanced attention to the protection 

of the community, accountability for the offenses committed, and 

development of the juvenile's competencies to enable the juvenile to become 

a responsible and productive member of the community.” Pa.R.J.P. 515.

Here, upon review of the certified record and applicable law, we agree 

there was insufficient evidence to support Appellant’s adjudication of 

delinquency for UUA and that the trial court further erred by failing to hear 

additional evidence and make an independent finding that Appellant needed

treatment, supervision or rehabilitation before entering the adjudication of 

delinquency order. In this case, the Commonwealth did not present evidence 

that Appellant knew or had reason to know that he lacked the owner's 

permission to operate the vehicle. Appellant used keys to operate the vehicle 

in question. As set forth in detail above, there was no apparent, physical 

evidence presented which would have alerted Appellant that the car had been 

stolen. Moreover, four days had elapsed after the car owner reported her 

vehicle stolen. Therefore, based upon all of the foregoing, we agree with the 

Commonwealth and conclude that the Commonwealth failed to prove that 

Appellant acted recklessly, let alone with actual knowledge, with respect to 

the owner's lack of consent to operate the vehicle. There was simply no 

evidence that Appellant knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen
J-A13006-22

- 12 -

and Appellant’s mere possession of the vehicle was not enough. Hence, there 

was insufficient evidence to support an adjudication of delinquency for UUA. 

As such, we vacate the order adjudicating Appellant delinquent and discharge 

the juvenile on this petition.

Finally, we note that the trial court erred by adjudicating Appellant 

delinquent without hearing evidence as to whether Appellant needed

treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. Instead, the trial court merely

inquired about the status of other open criminal matters related to Appellant

and, immediately thereafter, adjudicated Appellant delinquent in this case. 

See N.T., 7/1/2021, at 22-23. Ultimately, in its subsequent opinion, the trial 

court determined that “[i]n light of [Appellant’s] prior admission for drug 

possession and an open matter in Delaware County, [the trial c]ourt believed 

that [Appellant] was in need of treatment, supervision and rehabilitation.” 

Trial Court Opinion, 11/17/2021, at *3-4 (unpaginated). The record makes 

clear that the trial court only examined Appellant’s criminal history, did not 

hear evidence about treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation before 

adjudicating Appellant delinquent, and failed to follow the Rules of Juvenile 

Procedure as detailed above. More specifically, the trial court did not receive 

additional evidence pertaining to amenability to treatment, supervision, or 

detention, failed to advise Appellant of his post-dispositional rights, and failed 

to enter its reasons for its findings and conclusions of law into the record. 

Such actions were erroneous and, as a result, Appellant is entitled to relief for 

this additional reason.
J-A13006-22

- 13 -

Order vacated. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/7/2022