Opinion
J-A25042-18 No. 1054 EDA 2017
01-16-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. OMAR L. PETERSON, Appellant.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, March 15, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003487-2016. BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:
Omar Peterson appeals from the judgment of sentence, after a trial judge convicted him of various drug-distribution offenses and imposed an aggregate sentence of three to six years in prison, followed by five years' probation. This appeal raises one issue, challenging the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence. See Peterson's Brief at 7. Specifically, Peterson is arguing that the evidence is insufficient for a factfinder to infer that he intended to possess heroin for distribution, rather than for only personal use. See id. at 12-16. We affirm.
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we look for whether the Commonwealth has placed into the record proof of each element of the crimes charged. This presents a mixed question of fact and law. Because a crime's elements raise a legal question, our standard of review is de novo, but our scope of review, given the fact finder's role in determining credibility, is curtailed. See Commonwealth v. Hughes , 908 A.2d 924, 927 (Pa. Super. 2006). We may determine only if the trial court or jury's factual findings find support in the record and if the legal conclusions are correct; we may consider the Commonwealth's evidence and all favorable inferences arising from it, and only so much of the defendant's evidence that remains uncontradicted. See id.
After reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, the trial court's opinion, and the controlling law, we conclude that the 1925(a) Opinion has cogently addressed the issue that Peterson raises on appeal. See Trail Court 1925(a) Opinion (properly relying upon the Commonwealth's expert on drug distribution, who concluded that Peterson possessed heroin for distribution due to the quantity of heroin found, the manner and location in which it was stored, the unopened packages, and the racks of heroin; also, rightly holding that a person who is using heroin typically has drug paraphernalia located close by). Thus, further discussion from this Court is unneeded.
Accordingly, we adopt Judge Vincent N. Melchiorre's well-reasoned 1925(a) Opinion as our own. In the event of future proceedings, the litigants shall attach a copy of Judge Melchiorre's Opinion to any filings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/16/19
Image materials not available for display.