Opinion
J-S19014-17 No. 912 MDA 2016
03-24-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WILFREDO TORRES Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 26, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003182-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Wilfredo Torres, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial conviction of one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver pursuant to 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
DID THE COMMONWEALTH PROVIDE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW TO ESTABLISH [APPELLANT'S] GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE CHARGE OF MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER, 35 P.S. § 780-113(A)(30)?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
WAS [APPELLANT'S] GUILTY VERDICT ON THE CHARGES
OF MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER, 35 P.S. § 780-113(A)(30), AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
The Commonwealth requests that we dismiss Appellant's appeal because he filed his appellate brief late. Pursuant to Rule 2188 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellee may move for dismissal of the matter if an appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by these rules. Notably, the Commonwealth asserts no prejudice resulted from Appellant's late filing. Thus, we decline to dismiss Appellant's appeal on this basis. See Commonwealth v. Sohnleitner , 884 A.2d 307, 313 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2005) (noting "dismissal under Rule 2188 is discretionary"). --------
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Merrill M. Spahn, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 5, 2016, at 2-9) (finding: police used confidential informant to make controlled drug purchase; C.I. entered black Toyota Camry and purchased $60 of crack cocaine from Appellant; Lancaster Community Safety Coalition recorded transaction using video surveillance, which Sergeant Greathouse watched in real time; Sergeant Greathouse obtained still-shot photographs from video footage and identified Appellant as man who sold drugs to C.I.; Officer Flurry, another member of surveillance team, compared Appellant's most recent driver's license picture to still-shots and identified Appellant based on his distinct facial features; Officer Dean's testimony established black Toyota Camry belonged to Appellant's mother-in-law, which Appellant confirmed; Appellant and his mother testified that man in surveillance footage was Appellant's father; jury rejected Appellant's and his mother's testimony in favor of testimony and evidence offered by Commonwealth's witnesses; Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to sustain verdict and verdict was not against weight of evidence). 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: 3/24/2017
Image materials not available for display.