Com. v. Jordan, W.
427 MDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 23, 2021Background
- Appellant William A. Jordan was observed selling cocaine: he sold drugs to a middleman who immediately sold them to a confidential informant (CI) while police surveilled and the CI recorded the transaction.
- Minutes after the buy, police stopped Appellant; he was smoking marijuana and had a small quantity of cocaine plus a portion of the pre-recorded buy money.
- Appellant was tried by jury May 1, 2018, convicted of delivery, possession with intent to deliver, conspiracy, and related offenses, and sentenced July 24, 2018 to an aggregate 66 to 144 months’ incarceration.
- The trial court did not rule on Appellant’s post-sentence motion within 120 days; the clerk entered a denial by operation of law on January 31, 2020, and Appellant timely appealed.
- Appellant raised six issues including jurisdiction over an amended conspiracy charge, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, admission of prior-bad-acts evidence, denial of suppression after an alleged illegal stop, and excessiveness of sentence.
- The Superior Court adopted the trial court’s detailed Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, held the challenges meritless or waived/moot, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over amended conspiracy charge | Amendment proper under Rule 564; no jurisdictional defect; preliminary-hearing defect cured by conviction | Adding conspiracy by amended information deprived court of jurisdiction because no prima facie showing at preliminary hearing and overt act not in PA | Waived for failure to raise in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and moot as preliminary-hearing defect is immaterial after conviction; court found overt act occurred in PA and claim meritless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for delivery, possession with intent, conspiracy | CI recording, controlled buy, surveillance, recovery of cocaine and buy money, and evidence of delivery to middleman supported convictions | Evidence tenuous and insufficient to prove Appellant delivered or conspired to deliver beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict supported by direct and corroborating evidence; not against weight | Verdict was tenuous, vague, and shocking to the conscience | Trial court did not abuse discretion; weight claim denied |
| Admission of prior convictions / mistrial | Any prior-record testimony permissible because Appellant opened the door; no prejudice warranting mistrial | Prior criminal record was improperly elicited and prejudicial; sought mistrial | Trial court found no basis for mistrial; issue addressed and the portion regarding it was not adopted on appeal but no relief granted |
| Motion to suppress (stop/search) | Stop lawful given close temporal/spatial connection to controlled buy and corroborated observations; evidence admissible | Stop was illegal and evidence should have been suppressed | Suppression denial upheld as supported by record and law |
| Sentence excessive / consecutive terms | Sentencing within guideline ranges; trial court’s rationale adequate | Sentences ran at high end and consecutively producing an unreasonably harsh aggregate term | Sentences affirmed; court declined to find abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (clerk’s failure to enter operation-of-law denial constitutes a breakdown in court operations)
- Commonwealth v. Tyler, 587 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1991) (defect at preliminary hearing becomes immaterial after conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 662 A.2d 645 (Pa. 1995) (adjudication of guilt renders moot claims that Commonwealth failed to establish prima facie case at preliminary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. McCullough, 461 A.2d 1229 (Pa. 1983) (failure to establish prima facie case at preliminary hearing is immaterial where trial proves elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006) (purpose of Rule 564 is to ensure notice and prevent unfair last-minute additions to charges)
- Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (analysis of Pa.R.A.P. 1925 waiver consequences)