Com. v. Mays, D.
Com. v. Mays, D. No. 745 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- CI Matthew Switzer arranged and completed two controlled buys of heroin from Dwayne Mays (March 13, 2013 and April 2, 2013) using police-provided buy money and then delivered the drugs to Trooper Fishel.
- Troopers conducted surveillance; officers observed Mays enter 230 West Third Street immediately before the CI entered and shortly thereafter the CI exited with heroin.
- The recovered substances were stipulated to be heroin.
- Mays was convicted after a non-jury trial of two counts each of possession with intent to deliver (PWID), possession of a controlled substance, and criminal use of a communication facility; sentenced to an aggregate 2–7 years (minimum reduced for RRRI eligibility).
- Mays moved pretrial to dismiss under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (compulsory joinder); he also challenged sufficiency of the evidence for the PWID, possession, and communication-facility convictions on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Mays's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charges should be dismissed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (compulsory joinder) | §110 not a bar; charges properly brought for specific controlled buys | §110 bars charges because they arise from same criminal episode/network spanning May 2012–July 2013 | Trial court denial affirmed — §110 dismissal not warranted |
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID (March 13, 2013) | CI testimony, officer surveillance, and transfer of heroin to police establish possession with intent to deliver | No direct observation of Mays handling drugs; no fingerprints, recordings, photos linking him to the contraband | Conviction affirmed — circumstantial evidence and CI testimony sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID (April 2, 2013) | Same surveillance and CI-controlled-buy evidence for April 2 establish possession with intent to deliver | Same challenge: lack of direct physical-link evidence tying Mays to the drugs | Conviction affirmed — surveillance plus CI testimony sufficient to infer constructive possession and intent |
| Sufficiency for Criminal Use of a Communication Facility (phone) (both dates) | CI arranged buys by phone; officers observed CI call same number; calls facilitated the controlled buys | No proof the phone belonged to or was used by Mays; no recordings identifying voice or content | Conviction affirmed — phone calls that led to controlled buys supported the offense (Moss precedent applied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Little, 879 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 2005) (elements and proof for PWID; constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (constructive possession via totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Moss, 852 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. 2004) (telephone arrangements supporting criminal use of a communication facility)
- Commonwealth v. Barber, 940 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for statutory claims)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 97 A.3d 363 (Pa. Super. 2014) (de novo review for statutory questions)