Opinion
J-S16002-17 No. 1208 WDA 2015
06-20-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ROBERT THOMAS, JR. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 9, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0011012-2012 BEFORE: MOULTON, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Robert Thomas, Jr. appeals from the July 9, 2015 judgment of sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas following his bench trial convictions for delivery of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance ("PWID"), intentional possession of a controlled substance, and false identification to a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) (delivery and PWID) and (a)(16), and 18 Pa.C.S. § 4914(a), respectively. --------
The well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Randal B. Todd set forth the factual and procedural history underlying this appeal, which we adopt and incorporate herein. See Trial Ct. Op., 7/13/16, at 1-6 ("1925(a) Op.").
Thomas raises two issues on appeal:
1. Did the lower court err in failing to grant the motion to suppress evidence seized from Mr. Thomas insofar as the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, and no reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed? Was the subsequent warrantless search and seizure of his person, as well as police interrogation, unlawful under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania [Constitution]? And was not all evidence seized thereafter "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible as a matter of law?Thomas's Br. at 6.
2. Was the evidence presented insufficient as a matter of law to support the convictions for PWID and Possession of a Controlled Substance because the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs found in possession of another man had come from Mr. Thomas?
First, Thomas argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we must determine
whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where, as here, the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law
to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.Commonwealth v. Jones , 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Thomas argues that when he was seized and placed under arrest, the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. According to Thomas, Officer William Mudron's testimony failed to establish he had probable cause because, although he explained his training and experience, he did not explain "how that training and experience specifically applies to [the arrest made here.]" Thomas's Br. at 20. Further, Thomas contends that the totality of the circumstances did not give Officer Mudron probable cause because Officer Mudron only observed, from 75 to 100 feet away, a man approach a parked car with two men inside and an exchange of money for an object. We disagree.
In its opinion, the trial court applied the relevant law and properly determined that the evidence should not be suppressed. See 1925(a) Op. at 6-8. The trial court found that: the facts of this case are similar to those in Commonwealth v. Thompson , 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009); Officer Mudron explained the nexus between his training and experience and Thomas's arrest; and probable cause supported the arrest. The record supports the trial court's findings of fact and credibility determinations. See Commonwealth v. Krisko , 884 A.2d 296, 299 (Pa.Super. 2005) ("[I]t is exclusively the province of the suppression court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weight to be accorded their testimony."). After reviewing the briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm based on the trial court's reasoning. See 1925(a) Op. at 6-8.
Next, Thomas argues that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to support convictions for PWID and possession of a controlled substance. This Court's standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is as follows:
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.Commonwealth v. Rodriguez , 141 A.3d 523, 525 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Tarrach , 42 A.3d 342, 345 (Pa.Super. 2012)).
The evidence established at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth's burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and 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.
Thomas asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove his possession of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt because police recovered the packets of heroin from another person. According to Thomas, Officer Mudron only saw, from 75 to 100 feet away, the exchange of cash for an item and, therefore, Officer Mudron's testimony failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas had possessed the drugs and passed them to the man who approached the vehicle. We disagree.
Section 780-113(a)(16) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device, and Cosmetic Act ("Act") prohibits
[k]nowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled or counterfeit substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription order or order of a practitioner, or except as otherwise authorized by this act.35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). Section 780-113(a)(30) of the Act prohibits the "possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board[.]" Id. § (a)(30). "The Commonwealth establishes the offense of [PWID] when it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a controlled substance with the intent to deliver it." Commonwealth v. Little , 879 A.2d 293, 297 (Pa.Super. 2005). "[A]ll of the facts and circumstances surrounding the possession are relevant and the elements of the crime may be established by circumstantial evidence." Id.
In its opinion, the trial court addressed Thomas's claims and properly determined that the evidence was sufficient to support Thomas's convictions for PWID and possession of a controlled substance. 1925(a) Op. at 8-10. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth showed that Officer Mudron, an experienced officer with training in narcotics, was patrolling a high drug-trafficking area when he saw Thomas exchange white packets with another person for cash, which Thomas then placed in his left pants pocket. Police recovered four white packets, later determined to be heroin, from the buyer's mouth, and found $40 in Thomas's left pants pocket, which Officer Mudron testified was consistent with the average price in that area of $10 per packet of heroin. After reviewing the briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we affirm based on the trial court's reasoning. Id. at 8-10.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/20/2017
Image materials not available for display.