Opinion
J-S79035-17 No. 674 EDA 2017
12-19-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JORDAN BAYLE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002162-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Jordan Bayle, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver ("PWID"). We affirm.
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (a)(30), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Monday, February 20, 2017, was President's Day. In light of the holiday, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on Tuesday, February 21, 2017. --------
Appellant raises the following issue for our review.
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH THE INTENT TO DELIVER SINCE THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT APPELLANT ACTUALLY HAD THE INTENT OR INTENDED TO DELIVER THE MARIJUANA AT ISSUE HEREIN?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable John P. Capuzzi, Sr., we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed April 26, 2017, at 1-10) (finding: green leafy substance police officer recovered, from Appellant's person and car, tested positive for marijuana; Appellant's trial testimony confirmed he possessed marijuana that police officer recovered; expert testimony demonstrated Appellant possessed drugs with intent to deliver; at trial, Detective Kevin Rutherford, Jr., testified as expert witness in drug identification and drug sales; totality of circumstances of Appellant's arrest showed he possessed large bag of marijuana with intent to distribute; police recovered other items, including baggies with cut off corners, scale, and additional bag of marijuana found in Appellant's pocket; Detective Rutherford explained sandwich bag is common means of packaging marijuana and other drugs; Detective Rutherford stated users do not normally carry empty packaging materials or scales with them; Detective Rutherford rebutted Appellant's testimony that he occasionally bought marijuana from different dealers; Detective Rutherford said frequent drug users usually buy from one dealer; Detective Rutherford also rebutted Appellant's testimony that he bought large amount of marijuana from dealer; Detective Rutherford explained most drug dealers would be suspicious of buyer of large amount of drugs because buyer might be undercover police officer; court found Detective Rutherford's testimony credible). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion.
Judgement of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/19/2017
Image materials not available for display.