Opinion
J-S70043-18 No. 2399 EDA 2017
02-26-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL MARTINEZ Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 26, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008516-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Michael Martinez, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions of possession with the intent to distribute and knowing and intentional possession.
Appellant's name is also spelled "Micheal" in the record.
35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), and 780-113(a)(16), respectively. The court imposed no further penalty on the (a)(16) offense.
The trial court opinion fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We amend the opinion to state the court sentenced Appellant on April 26, 2017, and on May 23, 2017, the court expressly deemed Appellant's post-sentence motion timely filed nunc pro tunc.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO SUSTAIN CONVICTIONS FOR POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH THE INTENT TO DELIVER AS WELL AS KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, WHERE THE MOST REASONABLE INFERENCE FROM THE EVIDENCE IS THAT APPELLANT DID NOT POSSESS ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AT ALL?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
DID NOT THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT'S POST-SENTENCE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WHERE THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence implicates the following legal principles:
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 [finder] 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. Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullick , 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa.Super. 2003)).
Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.Commonwealth v. Champney , 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Lucretia Clemons, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 18, 2017, at 4-8) (finding: (1) evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of possession with the intent to distribute and knowing and intentional possession, where Commonwealth established at trial Appellant's constructive possession of narcotics through testimony of three police officers and physical evidence police seized from Appellant and two buyers on date of transactions; (2) at trial, Officer Cerebe credibly testified to Appellant's identification on day of transactions; Officer Cerebe testified as to her observation of Appellant's physical description on day of incident; no record evidence contradicts Officer Cerebe's testimony about Appellant's physical description; although Officer Cerebe lost sight of Appellant after three transactions for five to six minutes, Officer Cerebe testified she positively identified Appellant before Officer Cooper arrested him; verdict was consistent with weight of evidence). The record supports the court's decision, and we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/26/19
Image materials not available for display.