Opinion
1321 MDA 2022 J-A16012-23
11-22-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PANKAJUMAR N. PATEL Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 25, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0003745-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM
PANELLA, P.J.
Pankajumar Patel appeals his judgment of sentence for criminal mischief - damage to property, which Patel was charged with after key scratches were found on a vehicle parked in his employer's parking lot. At Patel's non-jury trial, the Commonwealth played a video from the surveillance cameras in the parking lot that purportedly showed Patel keying the vehicle, and the trial court found Patel guilty. Patel argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the criminal mischief conviction, emphasizing that the video played at trial does not show Patel causing the damage in question to the vehicle. We disagree and affirm his judgment of sentence.
Patel was employed at the driver licensing division at PennDOT's Riverside Office Center ("ROC") in Dauphin County for approximately ten years, including at the time of the incident in question. Patel regularly took walks in the employee parking lot during his breaks, including his lunch break. Marie Mayhew also worked at the ROC, but in a different unit than Patel. Patel and Mayhew had never met, though Patel's wife worked in Mayhew's unit at some point.
On May 17, 2021, Mayhew called the police to report she had found key scratches on her vehicle parked in the ROC employee parking lot the preceding Friday, on May 14. Capitol Police Officer Justin Seibel responded to the report on May 18. He spoke with Mayhew and examined the damage to her car. PennDOT's internal security also provided Officer Seibel with a video clip from one of the surveillance cameras in the parking lot. The video was from a few minutes after noon on May 14, and showed a man later identified as Patel walking by Mayhew's vehicle in the parking lot.
On May 21, Officer Seibel interviewed Patel one-on-one about the damage to Mayhew's car. The officer stated that Patel, whose first language is Gujarati, was struggling with his English "but he seemed to understand me." N.T., 7/25/2022, at 28.
Officer Seibel informed Patel he was investigating the damage to Mayhew's vehicle and that "everything was on surveillance cameras," though he did not show any video footage to Patel. Id. at 24. According to Officer Seibel, Patel explained to him that he must have accidentally touched the vehicle. Patel provided the following verbatim handwritten statement to Officer Seibel:
I am Mr. Patel explaining accidenty 5/14/21 touch but if any expense need I Pay for it from my finger nail it happens. I am extremely sorry for this all thing this true & never been happenCommonwealth's Exhibit 4 (misspellings and grammatical mistakes in original).
The officer charged Patel with criminal mischief - damage to property, as a misdemeanor in the second degree. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where Patel had an interpreter.
The Commonwealth presented Mayhew as its first witness. Mayhew stated she worked at PennDOT's ROC and that she had seen Patel in passing, but she had never met him. See N.T., 7/25/2022, at 12. Mayhew explained she bought a new vehicle on April 3, 2021. She parked it at the ROC employee parking lot when she went to work, and within three weeks, she noticed key marks all over the back of her car. See id. at 13. Mayhew believed the scratches happened at work, and she therefore went to an employee at PennDOT's HR department to report the incident. She knew there were surveillance cameras used to monitor the parking lot, which, according to Mayhew, are clearly visible and record all activity in the parking lot. See id. at 17-18. Mayhew asked the HR employee to review the video from the parking lot, but the video footage did not show anything incriminating happen to Mayhew's car in the parking lot. See id. at 13.
Mayhew testified she continued to park in the ROC parking lot, but she began to check for new scratches every day in which she parked her car in the parking lot. She stated that she checked the car in the morning, and then again in the afternoon when she left work. Id. On May 14, a Friday, Mayhew stated that she found "more scratches" on her car when she did her afternoon check of the car. See id.
Mayhew stated that she again went to her HR department to report the new scratches the following Monday morning, May 17. See id. In addition, Mayhew stated she also called the police to file a report on May 17. See id. at 16.
Mayhew was asked at trial to describe the damage to her car, which she described as:
There were several key scratches on the back. The back was very bad there, was like 7 key scratches, some were a couple inches, some were over 2 feet.
***
…There was one [on the] front car - of the car was like 12 inches, and then all the rest of the scratches were on the back of the car.Id. at 14-15.
Officer Seibel also testified. He reiterated he responded on May 18 to a report of a parked car being keyed at ROC on May 14, at which time he spoke with Mayhew. According to Officer Seibel, Mayhew told him the scratches on her car had occurred on May 14 and she did not mention anything about any key scratches occurring prior to May 14. See id. at 28.
Officer Seibel stated he was also provided with a video clip from the surveillance cameras used in the parking lot. The Commonwealth played the video clip, which is 57 seconds long and lasts approximately from 12:06 to 12:07 p.m. on May 14.
For context, the video, which this Court has reviewed, shows who everyone agrees is Patel briskly walking down a line of cars in the ROC parking lot. One of those cars belongs to Mayhew and Patel passes by the rear of Mayhew's car at approximately 12:06:23. He continues to briskly walk down the line of cars, passing 12 more parking spaces, and circles around the rear and side of the final car in the row. He then turns and continues to briskly walk the opposite way in the next row of cars, now passing the front end of the cars he just walked by in the previous row. He passes by the front of Mayhew's vehicle at approximately 12:07:04.
As the video was playing, the Commonwealth asked Officer Seibel to describe what he saw on the video as Patel approached the rear of Mayhew's car on his walk:
A. He's behind her Toyota RAV4 I believe it was or is.
Q. Can you describe any [movements], if any, that you see?
A. It's difficult to see from this vantage point. The surveillance cameras aren't mounted high on the building itself that covers this parking lot. But you can see he walked away from the car.
THE COURT: Did anybody else report any damage to any other cars?
THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. And now he's circling back. I don't know if you can slow that down more so.
I reviewed this [video] several times, numerous times, and very briefly when I was looking at it, it's hard to see on this monitor,
however, I can see his right hand extend to where the rear - or, I'm sorry, the front bumper, specifically the headlight, right below the headlight on the passenger side.
[PROSECUTOR]: I'm sorry, I don't have that capability of slowing it down.
A: You can see his upper torso turn as he reaches with his right hand. Unfortunately, you really can't see on this monitor, but that's what I recall looking at.
Q. And you would say he pauses at the car?
A. Yea, very briefly. The scratch on the front was just one kind of an oblique, you know, mark. It wasn't very deep into the paint, but it was definitely through the clear coat.
Q. So there is damage to the front of the car?
A. Yes. In reviewing the tape, I can't see what happens to the rear of the vehicle. I just see that he's there. However, when he comes to the front in the video as I reviewed the video, you could see him hesitate ever so briefly and extend his arm and his torso turned and - right to where that damage was found on the bumper.Id. at 21-22.
The officer reiterated that when he interviewed Patel, Patel stated that he had accidently touched the car, and the officer had Patel provide a written statement, the one quoted above. Based on this statement and the video, Officer Siebel charged Patel with criminal mischief, with an incident date of May 14, 2021. See id. at 26.
For his defense, Patel first provided the testimony of his co-worker of seven years from PennDOT, Denise Hunter-Govan. She testified Patel routinely took walks three times in the parking lot during the workday, including one at lunchtime. She also testified that Patel's English was difficult to understand, and that his data entry job did not require a strong command of the English language. She told the court that she interpreted for Patel when Patel needed to communicate with someone at work outside their immediate work group. She described Patel as very agreeable, and Hunter-Govan said that she had never seen Patel get angry or mention someone by the name of Marie Mayhew. See id. at 32-33.
Patel also testified at trial, again, through an interpreter. He stated he had lost his job at PennDOT. See id. at 28. He explained he does not know or understand English well, as he had only immigrated to the United States from India when he was in his mid-forties. See id. at 39, 40.
Patel stated that when he worked at PennDOT, he went on walks in the parking lot three times a day during his breaks. See id. at 40. He would walk down the rows of cars and would walk close to the cars so as to avoid getting hit by the moving cars. See id. at 41. He agreed that many other people go on walks in the parking lot, and it is most crowded with other walkers around lunchtime. See id.
When questioning turned to the video, Patel confirmed he did pass by Mayhew's car, but he had no idea who the car belonged to. The court asked Patel "why did it look like you were crouching behind the car?" Id. at 42. To which Patel answered he did not remember, but perhaps he had something stuck on his foot. See id. Patel also explained that when Officer Seibel interviewed him, the officer told Patel he had scratched Mayhew's car when he walked past it. See id. at 43. According to Patel, he tried to explain to the officer that he had not intentionally scratched anyone's car but if his hand had accidentally touched a car when passing by it, he was sorry. See id.
At the close of testimony, the trial court credited the testimony of Mayhew about the damage to her car and stated there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict Patel of the criminal mischief charge. The trial court noted that Patel had no criminal record and that Mayhew's insurance company had paid for the damage to the car, though Mayhew had a deductible of $50. The court therefore ordered Patel to pay $50 to Mayhew as restitution with no other penalty imposed.
Patel filed a notice of appeal. Both he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Patel raises the following issues for our review:
I. Was the evidence presented by the Commonwealth insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Patel committed criminal mischief, where there is insufficient evidence to prove Appellant actually damaged a vehicle, rather than merely walked past that vehicle, on May 14, 2021?
II. Was the evidence presented by the Commonwealth insufficient to prove Appellant intentionally damaged a vehicle that he walked past on May 14, 2021?
III. Was the evidence presented by the Commonwealth insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant caused $1,473.00 worth of damage to a vehicle on May 14, 2021?
IV. Was the trial court's verdict of guilty of criminal mischief against the weight of the evidence, even assuming the credibility of the victim who testified that scratches to her vehicle appeared prior to May 14, 2021, where there was no video footage of anyone damaging her car in the parking lot prior to May 14, 2021, where the Commonwealth produced only 57 seconds of video footage of parking lot activity from the full day victim's car was parked on May 14, where Appellant is seen merely walking past the vehicle, and where Appellant denied intentionally scratching the vehicle, even after being lead to believe that footage existed that showed him damaging the vehicle?Appellant's Brief, at 4-5.
Patel's first three issues on appeal raise challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for criminal mischief. A claim challenging the sufficiency of evidence presents a question of law. See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). The evidence presented at trial is sufficient when, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence and all reasonable inferences derived from the evidence are sufficient to establish all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645, 651 (Pa. 2008). The fact-finder, which passes upon the weight and credibility of each witness's testimony, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602, 607 (Pa. 2011).
It is true, of course, that the Commonwealth may sustain its burden entirely by circumstantial evidence. See id. at 607. However, a conviction must be based on more than mere suspicion or speculation. See Commonwealth v. Hargrave, 745 A.2d 20, 23 (Pa. Super. 2000).
Here, Patel was charged and convicted of criminal mischief - damage to property - as a misdemeanor of the second degree. This required the Commonwealth to show that Patel intentionally damaged the real or personal property of another - Mayhew's vehicle. See 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3304 (a)(5). In order to grade the criminal mischief as a misdemeanor of the second degree, Patel must have intentionally or recklessly caused "pecuniary loss in excess of $1,000." 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3304 (b). Since the Commonwealth charged Patel with criminal mischief as a misdemeanor, the value of the damages suffered by Mayhew was an essential element of the Commonwealth's burden of proof at trial. See Commonwealth v. Battiato, 619 A.2d 359, 363 (Pa. Super. 1993) (abrogated on other grounds).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the pertinent legal authority, the certified record, and the trial court's thorough opinion. We agree with the trial court, which offered an exhaustive recitation of the evidence, that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support Patel's conviction for criminal mischief. Therefore, we agree with the trial court that this issue lacks merit, adopt the analysis set forth by the trial court in its written opinion and affirm on its basis. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/15/22, at 1-9.
In his final issue, Patel challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his conviction. Our review of a weight claim involves review of the trial court's exercise of discretion in addressing the issue in the first instance. See Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 545-45 (Pa. Super. 2015). "In order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that verdict shocks the conscience of the court." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the trial court relied on its own assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and review of the video recording in determining that the verdict did not shock its conscience. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/15/22, at 8. We can find no abuse of discretion in this reasoning, and therefore conclude this claim has no merit.
As none of Patel's issues on appeal merit relief, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.