Com. v. Jenkins, M.
Com. v. Jenkins, M. No. 3451 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- On Sept. 8, 2011, two plainclothes Philadelphia narcotics officers surveilled Kensington Avenue, observed appellant Marcel Jenkins and co-defendant Michael Taylor repeatedly retrieve items from a pay phone and a trash can in a nearby Chinese store and exchange them for cash; officers believed these were drug transactions.
- Backup arrived; police recovered a rubber glove containing heroin from the pay phone and marijuana from the store trash can; a large amount of cash was found on Jenkins. Chemist reports confirmed the substances.
- Jenkins was tried and, on Dec. 5, 2014, a jury convicted him of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and conspiracy to commit PWID. On June 22, 2015, the court sentenced him to 2–4 years’ imprisonment (PWID) and a consecutive five years’ probation (conspiracy).
- Jenkins filed post-sentence motions and pursued multiple appeals; procedural irregularities (failure to enter a docketed order denying the post-sentence motion and misc. docketing issues) led to interlocutory quashals and reinstatement; the Superior Court treated the June 1, 2016 docketed denial as valid and timely to reach the merits.
- On appeal, Jenkins argued insufficiency of evidence for PWID and conspiracy and that the sentence was excessive/abused discretion for not adequately considering mitigating factors and allocution.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID | Officer Clarke misidentified Jenkins; observations were unreliable; lack of physical paraphernalia or direct recovery on Jenkins | Officer testimony and corrobation showed repeated transactions, trained observations, and drugs found where defendants repeatedly retrieved items | Evidence sufficient; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict; credibility is for jury; conviction for PWID affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | No proof Jenkins agreed with Taylor to sell drugs; merely proximity and presence | Joint, repeated conduct at same locations taking items from same places supported conspiracy; corroborated by second officer | Evidence sufficient; conspiracy conviction affirmed |
| Procedural validity of post-sentence order | Jenkins challenged delays but sought reinstatement | Superior Court exercised discretion to treat June 1, 2016 order as valid to allow merits review | Court found the June 1, 2016 order valid and timely for appellate review |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (excessive/mitigation/allocution) | Sentence excessive; court failed to weigh non-violent nature and rehabilitation; allocution was interrupted | Sentence within the standard guideline range; court reviewed PSI and explained reasons at sentencing; allocution not properly preserved as an issue | No substantial question raised; sentence within standard range and not an abuse of discretion; judgment of sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard and deference to jury credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (each material element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Santana, 333 A.2d 876 (Pa. 1975) (evidence contradictory to physical facts or human experience is insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 599 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1991) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review and four-part test for discretionary aspects)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant mitigating information)