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 pres ented 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 vie wed 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 ev idence 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 n ot 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 ent er 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 vehi cle 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 est ablishes 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 Com monwealth met its burden in this case, I would reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.