Com. v. Cintron, F.
Com. v. Cintron, F. No. 1503 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- On March 1, 2014, Francisco Cintron sold heroin stamped “Bad News” to Cindy Brower; later that day Ryan Nocera overdosed and died of fentanyl toxicity.
- Evidence at the scene included blue wax baggies stamped “Bad News,” residue testing positive for fentanyl, a syringe, and paraphernalia; autopsy confirmed fentanyl at a lethal concentration.
- Brower and Cintron were later surveilled and arrested after traveling to Philadelphia to obtain more heroin; Cintron used an alias and consented to searches and post-arrest interviews.
- Cintron admitted purchasing and distributing stamped heroin, knew of at least one overdose from the batch, and took steps to notify his supplier and to obtain more supply; police found hundreds of packaged heroin bags in an impounded vehicle.
- After a bench trial Cintron was convicted of manufacture/delivery/possession with intent (two counts), conspiracy (two counts), criminal use of a communication facility, and drug delivery resulting in death; sentenced to an aggregate 12.5–25 years’ imprisonment plus five years’ probation.
- On appeal Cintron raised multiple challenges (sufficiency, weight, suppression, sentencing), but the trial court and Superior Court found his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was overly verbose, vague, and incoherent, and thus waived all appellate claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Cintron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | Evidence (sales, admissions, seized heroin, lab tests, autopsy) established elements of offenses, including causation of death | Evidence was insufficient and verdict against the weight of the evidence (vague challenge) | Waived due to inadequate Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; no merits review |
| Weight of the evidence | N/A (Commonwealth argues convictions supported by record) | Trial evidence was non-existent/insufficient to sustain convictions | Waived by Cintron’s deficient 1925(b) statement |
| Motion to suppress (search/interview) | Searches and Miranda waiver were valid; consent and valid waiver supported admissibility | Suppression motion should have been granted (specific grounds not clearly articulated) | Waived because Cintron failed to set forth specific, concise grounds in Rule 1925(b) statement |
| Sentencing challenge (excessive/punitive) | Sentence within statutory limits and supported by facts/case law | Sentence was improper, excessive, or emotional | Waived for appellate review due to inadequate Rule 1925(b) statement |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (Rule 1925(b) statement must be concise and coherent)
- Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (overly voluminous 1925(b) submissions can waive issues)
- Jiricko, 947 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (Rule 1925(b) requires clarity so trial court can identify issues)
- Ray, 134 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (failure to identify issues adequately in 1925(b) statement impedes meaningful review)
- Mahonski v. Engel, 145 A.3d 175 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (vague, redundant, and confusing 1925(b) statements result in waiver)