Opinion
J-S72014-16 No. 551 MDA 2016
09-27-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MARK POINDEXTER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0002008-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Mark Poindexter, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction for possession with intent to deliver ("PWID") and criminal use of a communication facility.
35 P.S. § 780-116(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises one issue on appeal:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S POST-SENTENCE MOTION WHERE
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SO AS TO SHOCK ONE'S SENSE OF JUSTICE WHERE APPELLANT DID NOT ENGAGE IN ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE OF WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
Our standard of review for a challenge to the weight of the evidence is as follows:
The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the lower court's verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. 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 Deborah E. Curcillo, 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 May 2, 2016, at 4-7) (finding evidence established Appellant sold heroin to CI on two occasions; police searched CI to confirm he possessed no drugs before entering Appellant's vehicle; officers testified that CI did not come into contact with anyone other than Appellant during controlled buys; when police arrested Appellant, he possessed bundle of heroin and cash that police had given to CI to purchase drugs; heroin recovered from Appellant's person matched heroin that CI turned over to police; police also recovered cell phone from Appellant, which rang when police dialed number used by CI to arrange drug transactions; police did not observe hand-to-hand transaction or conduct body cavity search of CI before he entered Appellant's car, but those details were inconsequential in light of all other evidence; verdict was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/27/2016
Image materials not available for display.