Opinion
J-S45009-17 No. 1663 EDA 2016
07-24-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JUAIL THOMAS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008521-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Juail Thomas, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction for intentional possession of a controlled substance and possession 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 of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Procedurally, Appellant proceeded to a bench trial on May 3, 2016. That same day, the court convicted Appellant of PWID and knowing and intentional possession of a controlled substance. Also on May 3, 2016, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of two (2) to four (4) years' incarceration, plus three (3) years' probation, on the PWID charge. On May 20, 2016, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant, on August 2, 2016, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on August 21, 2016.
Appellant's intentional possession of a controlled substance conviction merged with Appellant's PWID conviction for the purposes of sentencing. --------
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND APPELLANT...GUILTY OF DELIVERY/POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL BY THE COMMONWEALTH TO PROVE THIS CRIMINAL OFFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?(Appellant's Brief at 2).
When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 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 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. Hansley , 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Kai N. Scott, 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 September 20, 2016, at 4-6) (finding: Officer Walsh observed blue object in Appellant's hand during what Officer Walsh believed to be aborted drug sale; Officer Walsh also observed Appellant receive money in hand-to-hand exchange while Appellant held blue object; when Appellant saw officers approach, he terminated sale and fled; before he fled, Appellant said to officers, "...you got me" and, "You caught me"; as Officer Walsh pursued Appellant, Officer Walsh saw Appellant throw to ground blue object; Officer Walsh discovered blue object contained fourteen individual packets of heroin; blue object Appellant discarded when he fled was consistent with blue object Appellant held during aborted drug sale; area in which officers encountered Appellant during sale was known for high volume of narcotics activity; Appellant's incomplete exchange and Officer Walsh's seizure of heroin confirmed Appellant's attempt to supply purchaser with narcotics in exchange for money; Appellant's flight demonstrated his consciousness of guilt; Appellant's statements to Officer Walsh when officers encountered attempted drug sale corroborate Officer Walsh's observations; Officer Walsh testified credibly at trial, Appellant testified incredibly; therefore, evidence at trial was sufficient to prove Appellant possessed controlled substance with intent to deliver). The record supports the trial court's rationale. 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: 7/24/2017
Image materials not available for display.