Opinion
No. 702 MDA 2020
06-15-2021
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. David Edward SANFORD, Appellant
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
David Edward Sanford appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, following his conviction for possession with intent to deliver a non-controlled substance, simple assault, and possession of drug paraphernalia. This case is before us following our February 12, 2021 order remanding to the trial court for a supplemental Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and directing the prothonotary of this Court to set a new briefing schedule. The trial court filed its supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 9, 2021, and Sanford elected to rely on his original appellate brief. The Commonwealth did not file a supplemental brief. After careful review, we affirm on the Honorable Deborah E. Curcillo's supplemental opinion.
The trial court's first Rule 1925(a) opinion stated that the court was unable to review the matter and unable to provide an opinion in support of the order giving rise to the appeal because the trial transcripts were not ordered. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/9/20, at 3-4 ("In light of the issue raised by [Sanford] for review, and the clear necessity of reviewing the trial transcripts, the lack of trial transcripts prevents this [c]ourt from providing a meaningful opinion in support of the reasons which gave rise to the appeal."). See also Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a), 1925(a), 1931(a)(1). The trial transcripts did not become part of the certified record until after this case was briefed on appeal.
The Commonwealth did not file a new brief, and its original brief does not address the merits of Sanford's claim.
The trial court set forth the fact of this case as follows:
Around five o'clock on the evening of November 4, 2018, Officer Christian Ribec was dispatched to 335 South 14th Street in Harrisburg City. When Officer Ribec arrived on [the] scene, Shawntel Gladden answered the door. Officer Ribec observed that Ms. Gladden had some facial injuries and some swelling. He further observed that the injuries looked fresh. Ms. Gladden told Officer Ribec that the man standing beside her, [Sanford], robbed her. [Sanford] immediately responded that Ms. Gladden robbed him. [Sanford] then slammed the door in Officer Ribec's face. Officer Ribec ran around to the back of the residence because he heard rustling and a fence gate slam. Officer Ribec located [Sanford] and ordered him at taser point to the ground. [Sanford] complied, was detained, and taken back to the front of the residence. Officer Ribec did not observe any injuries to [Sanford].
Officer Kenneth Sites responded to the scene shortly after Officer Ribec detained [Sanford]. Officer Sites encountered Ms. Gladden who seemed upset and had a very visible injury on the left side of her face[,] which was very swollen. Officer Ribec also observed that her eye was completely swollen shut due to the injuries she had. Ms. Gladden informed Officer Sites that she was walking in the area when she encountered [Sanford]. [Sanford] presented to her a substance that was not crack cocaine. She admitted to Officer Sites that she planned on buying crack cocaine from [Sanford] for ten dollars. When Ms. Gladden realized the substance was not crack cocaine, she refused to give [Sanford] the money. [Sanford] then knocked Ms. Gladden to the ground and struck her in the face five to six times. A forensic investigator took photographs of Ms. Gladden's injuries right after the incident.
Officer Sites found a small clear plastic baggie with a white substance in [Sanford's] right front pocket. Another clear plastic baggie containing a white substance was found across the street. The two clear plastic baggies and their substance were sent to the State Police forensics lab for further testing.
Ms. Gladden stated to Officer Sites that she had eight dollars in one-dollar bills and two dollars in quarters. Officers found on [Sanford's] person fourteen dollars in one-dollar bills and then one dollar in quarters. Ms. Gladden gave Officer Sites a written statement regarding the incident. In that statement, Ms. Gladden stated that [Sanford] hit her in the face.
Nicole Blascovich of the Pennsylvania State Police Crime Lab then testified. Ms. Blascovich was given the two clear baggies with white substance by the Harrisburg Police to test. Ms. Blascovich's testing determined that the white substance contained in the two clear baggies was not a controlled substance.
Ms. Gladden testified during the jury trial and related the following. Ms. Gladden was roaming the neighborhood looking for a fix. [Sanford] came up to her and acted like he wanted to sell. Ms. Gladden did not believe the substance in the clear baggie was crack cocaine, so she stated to [Sanford], "this ain't real," and threw the baggie down. [Sanford] then became aggressive. Ms. Gladden stated that [Sanford] punched her face and body then lifted her up to attempt to drag her out of the house. At the time the officers arrived on scene, Ms. Gladden's money was in [Sanford's] hand. Ms. Gladden testified that [Sanford] took the money from her. Ms. Gladden further testified that the officers eventually took control of her money from [Sanford].
Trial Court Opinion, 3/8/21, at 2-4 (citations omitted).
Sanford was tried by a jury and convicted of the above-stated offenses. On March 12, 2020, the court sentenced Sanford to an aggregate term of incarceration of two and one-half to five years. Sanford filed a timely appeal, and both he and the trial court complied with Rule 1925. Sanford raises one issue for our review: "Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain [Sanford's] convictions for possession with intent to deliver a non-controlled substance and simple assault." Appellant's Brief, at 7. Sanford argues the Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence for his convictions where he "did not assault the victim and did not possess paraphernalia or a controlled substance with the intent to deliver it." Id. at 8.
[O]ur standard of review of sufficiency claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. [T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with the defendant's innocence. Any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Little, 879 A.2d 293, 296-97 (Pa. Super. 2005) ("We may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder.").
After a thorough review of the record, Sanford's brief, the applicable law, and Judge Curcillo's well-reasoned opinion, we conclude Sanford's issue merits no relief. Judge Curcillo's opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Sanford's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence. See Trial Court Opinion, supra at 5-10 (viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, the evidence established: that Sanford possessed a non-controlled substance with intent to deliver in violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(35)(ii) ("[N]o person shall knowingly distribute or sell a noncontrolled substance upon the express or implied representation that the substance is a controlled substance."); that Sanford possessed drug paraphernalia (plastic baggie for packaging) in violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32) ; and that Sanford caused bodily injury to Ms. Gladden in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1) ). Franklin, supra.
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the Judge Curcillo's opinion. The parties are instructed to attach that opinion in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Attachment
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?