Opinion
J-S26040-17 No. 1614 MDA 2016
05-22-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEAVEIL ABDUL SWEENEY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0000504-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, DUBOW, and FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Leaveil Abdul Sweeney, appeals from the judgment of sentence of nine to sixteen months' imprisonment entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas following his bench trial convictions of driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"), possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension, DUI related. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his possession of a small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia convictions. We affirm.
75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1).
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31).
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32).
75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b). --------
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 1/10/17, at 2, 5-8. In this timely appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for review: "[w]hether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support [Appellant's] possession of a small amount of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia convictions?" Appellant's Brief at 5.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient because the Commonwealth failed to establish he constructively possessed the marijuana or drug paraphernalia found in the vehicle he was driving. Appellant contends that the evidence did not prove that he either knew the drugs or drug paraphernalia were in the vehicle, or that he intended to possess or exercise dominion over the same. He emphasizes that the vehicle in question belonged to his wife, Jean Sweeney, and, as a passenger at the time in question, Mrs. Sweeney was within arm's reach of the contraband. Therefore, Appellant avers the evidence failed to establish that Appellant, and not Mrs. Sweeney alone, was responsible for the drugs and drug paraphernalia in the car. Thus, Appellant claims that this Court should vacate his judgment of sentence. We conclude no relief is due.
Our review is governed by the following principles:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of 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 that of 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. Ratsamy , 934 A.2d 1233, 1236 n.2 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted). Furthermore,
[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction . . . does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it must determine simply whether the evidence believed by the fact-finder was sufficient to support the verdict.Id. at 1235-36 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The doctrine of constructive possession provides:
[i]n order to prove that a defendant had constructive possession of a prohibited item, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant had both the ability to consciously exercise control over it as well as the intent to exercise such control. An intent to maintain a conscious dominion may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, and circumstantial evidence may be used
to establish a defendant's possession of drugs or contraband.Commonwealth v. Harvard , 64 A.3d 690, 699 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the trial court's opinion, we conclude the trial court's opinion properly disposes of Appellant's argument regarding constructive possession. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3-10 (finding the totality of the circumstances supported the conclusion that Appellant was in constructive possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia, where (1) the responding officer testified that he detected a strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana upon stopping the car and that Appellant's demeanor was, in his experience, consistent with an individual who was under the influence of marijuana, (2) the burnt ends of two marijuana "blunts" were recovered from beneath the visor on the passenger's side of the car, an area easily accessible by Appellant, (3) that contraband indicated, circumstantially, that two people were likely smoking, and (4) Appellant had time to attempt to conceal the contraband because he failed to stop for a half mile after the responding officer signaled him). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/22/2017
Image materials not available for display.