Opinion
J-S49043-17 No. 208 WDA 2017
11-13-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEMETRIUS HOUSER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 6, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0001621-2015 BEFORE: DUBOW, SOLANO, and FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Demetrius Houser, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas following his jury trial convictions for drug delivery resulting in death, intentionally possessing a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, delivery of a controlled substance, and criminal use of a communication facility. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S. § 2506(a).
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a). --------
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/16/17, at 1-5. Following Appellant's conviction of the above referenced charges, the trial court sentenced him to a term of five to twenty years' imprisonment based upon his conviction for drug delivery resulting in death, with all other counts merging for sentencing purposes. Appellant timely appealed, and both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Instantly, Appellant raises the following issue for review:
I. Whether the jury's verdict of guilty at all counts was rendered with sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction?Appellant's Brief at 5.
When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence:
[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth together with all reasonable inferences from that evidence, and determine whether the trier of fact could have found that every element of the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt.Commonwealth v. Walker , 836 A.2d 999, 1000 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted).
Appellant argues that the evidence present at trial failed to establish that the victim died due to ingesting drugs he supplied. To that end, Appellant avers that the Commonwealth failed to thoroughly investigate the victim's home and eliminate the possibility that the victim died due to drugs he supplied. No relief is due.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Christopher A. Feliciani, we conclude the trial court's opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the issue presented. See Trial Ct. Op. at 5-9 (finding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant's convictions where testimony and phone records supported the contention that Appellant sold the drugs in question that resulted in the death of the victim). 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: 11/13/2017
Image materials not available for display.