Com. v. Maldonado, P.
Com. v. Maldonado, P. No. 1504 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Phillip Maldonado was convicted by a jury of drug delivery resulting in death, conspiracy, possession with intent to deliver, and receiving stolen property.
- The Commonwealth alleged Maldonado supplied heroin to the victim, who died of mixed substance toxicity including heroin.
- Witness Tiffany Hoover testified that she and the victim purchased heroin from Maldonado and that Maldonado delivered another four bags of heroin to the motel.
- Hoover assisted the victim's injection; the victim became ill and died the next day; property of the victim was later stolen by Hoover.
- Detective Walton and toxicology testimony established Maldonado had multiple statements regarding selling drugs and that the victim died from a heroin-related cause alongside other substances.
- Maldonado was sentenced to an aggregate term of 9 to 19 years in prison; he timely noticed appeal and raised issues in a Rule 1925 concise statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain drug delivery resulting in death | Maldonado did supply the heroin to the victim | Evidence only shows possible involvement; credibility goes to weight | Evidence sufficient; but-for causation shown via expert testimony |
| Whether the heroin caused death in mixed toxicity context | Heroin contributed to death beyond other substances | Insufficient proof that heroin was sole cause of death | But-for causation established; death due to heroin with mixed substances suffices |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Conflict of interest/ineffectiveness claims should be reviewed | Claims ripe for PCRA, not direct appeal; exceptions not met | Premature on direct appeal; can be raised in timely PCRA petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (sufficiency standard; appellate review of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Kakhankham, 132 A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (but-for causation requirement for drug-delivery-caused death)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (Anders/withdrawal procedure adherence on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (court reviews Anders issues for arguable merits)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective assistance claims generally deferred to PCRA; exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (importance of proper review under Anders/Santiago)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims generally not reviewable on direct appeal)