J-S68028-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.G., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: R.G., A MINOR

No. 91 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Dispositional Order November 19, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-JV-0003855-2013

BEFORE: ALLEN, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2014

Appellant R.G., a minor (“Appellant”), appeals from the dispositional 

order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 

based on the offenses of theft by unlawful taking1and conspiracy.2 After 

careful review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts underlying this dispositional order 

as follows:

In the matter sub judice, B.R., eighteen years of age along with 

a school mate during lunch period at the Overbrook High School 

were standing in the hallway when they were approached by 

[Appellant] and R.H.[] R.H. stood in front of the [victim] and 

[Appellant] stood to his side while R.H. demanded that the 

complainant “run his pockets.” The [victim] knew this to mean 

for him to empty his pockets. The [victim] responded that he 

only had a cell phone and showed it to R.H.[] R.H. and the 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
J-S68028-14

- 2 -

[victim] struggled with the cell phone until R.H. was successful in 

snatching it from the [victim’s] hand. Both [Appellant] and R.H. 

ran away down the hallway together and out of sight into the 

crowd. The [victim] immediately informed the school police and 

R.H. and [Appellant] were apprehended and subsequently 

arrested.

Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 4/16/2014 (“1925(a) Opinion”), pp. 

2-3. Appellant appeared before the trial court for an adjudicatory hearing on 

November 12, 2013. On November 19, 2013, the trial court adjudicated 

Appellant delinquent as to theft by unlawful taking and conspiracy. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on December 19, 2013. Appellant 

filed a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal 

on January 7, 2014, and a supplemental 1925(b) statement on April 14, 

2014.3 The trial court filed its 1925(a) Opinion on April 16, 2014.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Was not the evidence insufficient to support the adjudication of 

guilt as to conspiracy and theft where [A]ppellant was merely 

present with R.H., who alone demanded goods from the 

complainant and took the [victim’s] cell phone?

Appellant’s Brief, p. 3.

____________________________________________

3 On April 24, 2014, the trial court filed an order accepting R.G.’s 

supplemental 1925(b) statement as timely filed. The supplemental 1925(b) 

statement stated the sole issue raised as follows:

The evidence was insufficient to convict [A]ppellant of theft and 

conspiracy.

Appellant’s Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal, 4/14/2014, p. 2 

(pagination supplied).
J-S68028-14

- 3 -

Appellant’s issue raises sufficiency of the evidence claims regarding 

the delinquency adjudication for theft and conspiracy. He claims he was a 

mere bystander, and that the other youth, R.H., was the lone perpetrator. 

See Appellant’s Brief, pp. 7-10. We disagree.

When examining challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, our 

standard of review is as follows:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

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 [the above] test, 

we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for 

the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and 

circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the 

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no 

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of 

proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt 

by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in 

applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and 

all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 

[trier] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and 

the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal 

denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa.2011). 

The Crimes Code defines theft by unlawful taking, in relevant part, as 

follows:
J-S68028-14

- 4 -

§ 3921. Theft by unlawful taking or disposition

(a) Movable property.–A person is guilty of theft if he 

unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable 

property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a). 

“The material elements of conspiracy are: “(1) an intent to commit or 

aid in an unlawful act, (2) an agreement with a co-conspirator and (3) an 

overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Gross, 101 

A.3d 28, 34 (Pa.2014); 18 Pa.C.S. § 903. “An ‘overt act’ means an act done 

in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.” Id. “The conduct of the 

parties and the circumstances surrounding such conduct may create a web 

of evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008, 1017 

(Pa.Super.2005). 

A conspiratorial agreement may be inferred from “a variety of 

circumstances including, but not limited to, the relation between the parties, 

knowledge of and participation in the crime, and the circumstances and 

conduct of the parties surrounding the criminal episode. These factors may 

coalesce to establish a conspiratorial agreement beyond a reasonable doubt 

where one factor alone might fail.” Bricker, 882 A.2d at 1017. This Court 

has explained the agreement element of conspiracy as follows:

The essence of a criminal conspiracy is a common 

understanding, no matter how it came into being, that a 

particular criminal objective be accomplished. Therefore, a 

conviction for conspiracy requires proof of the existence of a 

shared criminal intent. An explicit or formal agreement to 
J-S68028-14

- 5 -

commit crimes can seldom, if ever, be proved and it need not 

be, for proof of a criminal partnership is almost invariably 

extracted from the circumstances that attend its activities. 

Thus, a conspiracy may be inferred where it is demonstrated 

that the relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and 

the overt acts of the co-conspirators sufficiently prove the 

formation of a criminal confederation. The conduct of the parties 

and the circumstances surrounding their conduct may create a 

web of evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the conspirator did not act 

as a principal in committing the underlying crime, he is still 

criminally liable for the actions of his co-conspirators in 

furtherance of the conspiracy.

Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 996-97 (Pa.Super.2006). 

The “overt act [necessary to establish criminal conspiracy] need not be 

committed by the defendant; it need only be committed by a coconspirator.” McCall, 911 A.2d at 996. Further, “[e]ach co-conspirator is 

liable for the actions of the others if those actions were in furtherance of the 

common criminal design.” Commonwealth v. King, 990 A.2d 1172, 1178 

(Pa.Super.2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Baskerville, 681 A.2d 195, 

201 (Pa.Super.1996)).

Here, the evidence presented established the elements of theft by 

unlawful taking and criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The 

evidence established that Appellant and R.H. approached the victim 

together, R.H. forcibly took the victim’s cell phone while Appellant looked on, 

and the two fled the scene together. All these facts demonstrated 

Appellant’s conscious object and desire to commit the theft. That Appellant 

did not personally take the cell phone is of no moment. The actions of both 

co-conspirators illustrated the shared intent and agreement to rob the 
J-S68028-14

- 6 -

victim. Accordingly, Appellant is as culpable for the theft as is the actual 

perpetrator. See King, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 306.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict 

winner, we agree with the trial court that:

The conduct and circumstances surrounding their conduct create 

“a web of evidence” linking R.G. to the alleged conspiracy 

beyond a reasonable doubt when viewed in conjunction with 

each other and in the context in which they occurred. 

[Appellant] was not an “innocent bystander[,]” but rather, he 

was an active participant.

1925(a) Opinion, p. 3 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm 

the trial court’s dispositional order.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/23/2014