Com. v. Delgado-Melendez, A., Sr., Com. v. Delgado-Melendez, A., Sr. No. 1073 MDA 2016

Appellant Angel Luis Delgado-Melendez was tried and convicted by a jury of multiple drug offenses (two counts each of possession with intent to deliver, two counts of conspiracy to commit PWID, possession, conspiracy to possess, and paraphernalia offenses) arising from drugs and drug paraphernalia found in a dresser in a bedroom he shared with a co-defendant.
On April 23, 2015, Appellant’s teenage daughter discovered packaged drugs and a powder in a dresser drawer after a man named "Rocky" repeatedly entered the house and rifled through Appellant’s bedroom/drawers.
The daughter photographed/videoed the items, reported them to relatives and police; a search warrant was obtained and police found large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine, scales, baggies, a spoon, and cutting agents (lidocaine, inositol) in the dresser.
Officers also recovered mail, a voter registration card, and a bank card bearing Appellant’s name in close proximity to the drugs in the same drawer.
A drug-trade expert testified that the quantity, packaging, cutting agents and paraphernalia were consistent with distribution, and that the location functioned as a stash house.
Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 6 to 20 years. He appealed, challenging sufficiency and weight of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of sentencing; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Delgado-Melendez)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove constructive possession and PWID	Evidence (drugs, paraphernalia, cutting agents, scales, packaging) plus items with Appellant’s name in same drawer and expert testimony permit inference of possession and intent to distribute	Daughter didn’t see Appellant with drugs; items were not openly exposed; no direct evidence Appellant knew of or handled the drugs	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence and totality of circumstances sufficed to prove constructive possession and intent to deliver
Weight of the evidence (request for new trial)	Evidence credible and consistent; jury entitled to weigh witness credibility	Verdict against weight because daughter’s testimony suggested only personal use by Appellant, not trafficking	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; jury credibility determinations stand
Discretionary aspects of sentencing — failure to consider mitigating factors / excessiveness	Sentencing court considered presentence report, lack of prior record, employment and non-violent nature; imposed standard-range consecutive sentences within discretion	Court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors (no record, family/employment) and sentence excessive for non-violent offender	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered relevant factors and law

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standards for weight-of-evidence review)
Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (constructive possession elements)
Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 507 A.2d 1212 (Pa. 1986) (joint access and constructive possession)
Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (circumstantial evidence may establish constructive possession)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 428 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 1981) (totality of circumstances may establish knowledge and intent)
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim plus failure to consider mitigating factors can raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretion in weighing mitigating factors; consecutive v. concurrent discretion)
Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of sentencing discretion)