Com. v. Buford, J.
Com. v. Buford, J. No. 3805 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 6, 2017Background
- On Dec. 9, 2014 Officer Brian Rosenbaum stopped a black Chevy Avalanche driven by Joseph Buford for allegedly illegal front-window tint.
- At the driver’s side, Rosenbaum smelled unburnt marijuana and observed unused narcotics packaging and a metal cylinder in the center console.
- Rosenbaum had Buford exit the vehicle and searched it; he found a .38 Special revolver hidden beneath a loose cup holder next to the driver and narcotics paraphernalia in the center console.
- Buford was the vehicle owner, the operator, and the sole occupant at the time of the stop.
- Buford moved to suppress (denied), waived a jury, and the trial court convicted him of firearms and paraphernalia offenses; he was sentenced to 5 years and one day to 17 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Buford argued the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession of the firearm and paraphernalia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to establish Buford’s constructive possession of the firearm and drug paraphernalia | Commonwealth: constructive possession shown by Buford’s ownership/operator status, sole occupancy, contraband in plain view/within easy reach | Buford: insufficient; firearm was accessible to others and totality of circumstances does not show he brought or controlled the gun | Affirmed — constructive possession proven based on vehicle ownership/operation, sole occupancy, and contraband found next to him |
Key Cases Cited
- Tejada v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Haney v. Commonwealth, 131 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2015) (evidence and reasonable inferences viewed in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
- Coleman v. Commonwealth, 130 A.3d 38 (Pa. Super. 2015) (fact-finder may believe all, part, or none of evidence)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses sufficiency principles)
- Kinard v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (constructive possession as conscious dominion; totality of circumstances)
- Bergen v. Commonwealth, 142 A.3d 847 (Pa. Super. 2016) (constructive possession analysis)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of constructive possession as conscious dominion)
- Bricker v. Commonwealth, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (joint constructive possession possible)
- Cruz v. Commonwealth, 21 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discussing power and intent to control contraband)