Opinion
J-S10025-18 No. 3605 EDA 2016
05-04-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICOLE LIPPI Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004500-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and NICHOLS, J. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Nicole Lippi, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on October 18, 2016, following her bench trial conviction for criminal conspiracy to possess a controlled substance. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903 and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
The relevant historical facts are as follows:
[Philadelphia] Police Officer Raymond Sima testified that on October 13, [] 2015, at approximately [9:00 p.m.], he and a partner were working as part of a team conducting a narcotics surveillance on 1545 South 30th Street in Philadelphia when they were alerted by radio that a white female, a passenger in a gold Infiniti G35, had just made a [drug] purchase at the surveillance location after which the vehicle proceeded northbound towards Tasker Street. [Officer Sima and his partner] spotted the vehicle, pulled it over and observed the driver, a Michael Nelson who was later identified as [Appellant's] brother, trying to stuff something in[to the left pocket of his hooded sweat shirt. After Nelson was asked] to remove his hand from the pocket, the
officer could see blue glassine inserts that were inside the pocket, which field tested positive for heroin, and arrested him.Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/17, at 1-2, citing N.T., 10/18/16, at 5-9 and 10-12.
Police Officer Von Williams testified that she was one of the team that responded to the call, observed [Appellant] in the passenger seat and, based on information she had received from fellow officers, placed her under arrest. While she was doing so[, Appellant] stated that she purchased the narcotics for her brother. [Officer Williams] did not recover any narcotics from [Appellant's] person.
Based upon the foregoing events, Appellant was arrested and charged with simple possession of a controlled substance and criminal conspiracy. Appellant was found guilty of both charges at the conclusion of trial on April 8, 2016 in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Thereafter, Appellant appealed to the trial court. Following a nonjury trial de novo on October 18, 2016, the court found Appellant guilty of conspiracy and not guilty of simple possession. On the same day, the court ordered Appellant to serve nine months' probation for her conviction.
At the trial de novo, Appellant denied that she told Officer Williams that she purchased narcotics for her brother. Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/17, at 2, citing N.T. Trial, 10/18/16, at 14-20. When reviewing sufficiency claims, appellate courts are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, thereby giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Commonwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). Thus, under the applicable standard of review, we must accept the testimony of Officer Williams and disregard Appellant's self-serving version of events.
Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal on November 17, 2016. After many procedural developments, including the appointment of two replacement counsel and the filing of two substitute concise statements under Pa.R.A.P. 1925, Appellant presented the instant appeal in which she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered to show that she conspired to purchase contraband and pass it along to her brother. See Appellant's Brief at 8.
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the parties, the opinions of the trial court, and the pertinent case law. Based upon our review, we conclude for the reasons expressed by the trial court that Appellant is not entitled to relief. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/1/17, at 6 (conspiracy established here in view of: 1) "the association between [A]ppellant and her brother and the joint use of his vehicle in executing the transactions (acquisition and transfer of possession [of contraband]), 2) [Appellant's] obvious knowledge of the commission of those transactions, 3) [Appellant's] presence at the scene of the crime, and 4) [Appellant's] observed participation in the object of the conspiracy, [i.e.] the acquisition of an illegal drug). Moreover, as we find that the trial court has adequately and accurately addressed the issues raised in this appeal, we adopt the trial court's opinion as our own. Accordingly, the parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's November 1, 2017 opinion to all future filings relating to our disposition in this appeal. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/4/18
Image materials not available for display.