Com. v. Preimo, J.J.
Com. v. Preimo, J.J. No. 2123 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Defendant John J.J. Preimo was convicted after a six-day waiver bench trial (April 2011) of multiple counts: forgery, criminal conspiracy, theft by deception, and tampering with records arising from a fraudulent real-estate investment/sales scheme.
- The scheme: Preimo represented he bought/resold properties (often using co-defendant Michelle Williams as alleged title agent), obtained large investor and purchaser funds, but did not acquire clear title or otherwise misappropriated funds; forged deeds and other documents were produced in some transactions.
- Victims included Patricia Bourke (≈$300,000), Seymour Rubin (≈$280,000), purchasers Jonathan Clark and Angel Cruz (E Street property), and buyers of Jasper Street where the property was sold twice.
- Trial court expressly found Preimo to be the mastermind, found his testimony incredible, and attributed forged documents and deceptive conduct to him.
- Sentence: aggregate 4–8 years’ imprisonment plus 10 years reporting probation (June 9, 2011).
- Procedural: No direct appeal; PCRA petition filed and granted nunc pro tunc appeal; Superior Court affirmed the judgment (April 26, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Preimo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Evidence (victim testimony, forged documents, circumstantial proof) shows Preimo committed forgery, theft, conspiracy, tampering | Testimony was unreliable/contradictory; many acts were by Williams or others; insufficient proof linking Preimo to forgeries and scheme | Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in Commonwealth’s favor; factfinder may credit witnesses and draw circumstantial inferences |
| Whether Preimo controlled Williams (attribution of others’ acts to Preimo) | Trial evidence showed Preimo headed the conspiracy and directed scheme; Williams played a subordinate/title-agent role | Williams was an independent contractor/title clerk and crimes were her actions, not attributable to Preimo | Affirmed — trial court reasonably found Preimo controlled scheme and was responsible for conspiratorial conduct |
| Exclusion of testimony re: title problem for 2619 Brown St. (hearsay) | Admission unnecessary; offered statements were hearsay not admissible through defendant’s testimony | Wanted to admit statements by sellers/attorney (William Singer or counsel) to show who signed deed and who forged documents | Affirmed — exclusion was proper hearsay ruling; court also found defendant’s testimony incredible so hearsay would not have changed outcome |
| Denial of nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion | Commonwealth/PCRA disposition: no basis to grant nunc pro tunc relief absent showing of ineffective assistance etc. | Argued denial of request to file post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc was error | Not properly before Superior Court on this appeal; in any event claim lacked merit under Pierce/Pierce–related ineffective assistance standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Nypaver, 69 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency review standard; deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Fabian, 60 A.3d 146 (Pa. Super. 2013) (application of sufficiency and credibility rules)
- Commonwealth v. Heberling, 678 A.2d 794 (Pa. Super. 1996) (sufficiency standard authority)
- Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 668 A.2d 1143 (Pa. Super. 1995) (circumstantial evidence can satisfy burden)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (entire record must be evaluated on sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirement to specify elements challenged on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 776 A.2d 958 (Pa. 2001) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings; trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 70 A.3d 1245 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (standard for establishing ineffective assistance to obtain relief such as nunc pro tunc post‑sentence relief)