Com. v. Parker, M.
Com. v. Parker, M. No. 307 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 9, 2017Background
- Police served a search warrant at Apartment 279, 1604 Sandusky Court; occupants did not answer and officers breached the door.
- Officers observed occupants throwing items from a window; four baggies of cocaine (total 101.632 grams) were recovered outside.
- Surveillance officer observed Parker remove a black object from his waistband, take a defensive "shooting" stance and point the object toward the door where SWAT was attempting entry.
- Inside the apartment police recovered a Glock 9mm in a bedroom drawer, ammunition, a stun gun, digital scales, plastic baggies, $950 on Parker, two cell phones, and court papers in the apartment bearing Parker’s name.
- Text messages between Parker and his brother discussed cocaine prices/quantities; Parker admitted knowing a firearm was in the residence.
- Trial convicted Parker of PWID, possession, and person not to possess a firearm; sentenced to aggregate 5–12 years. Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID and simple possession | Commonwealth: totality of circumstances (quantity, scales, baggies, cash, texts, actions) supports constructive possession and intent to deliver | Parker: insufficient—drugs were thrown by someone among six occupants; no direct possession, no scientific/DNA link; texts too vague/remote | Convictions affirmed; evidence sufficient to prove constructive possession and intent to distribute under totality of circumstances |
| Sufficiency for person not to possess a firearm (18 Pa.C.S. §6105) | Commonwealth: observed stance, removal of black object, firearm recovered in dresser, Parker admitted awareness—supports constructive possession | Parker: no officer saw him actually possess the gun; no direct linkage by forensics | Conviction affirmed; officer testimony and circumstantial evidence sufficient to infer possession |
| Sentencing—abuse of discretion / misapplication of guidelines | Parker: firearm sentence was aggravated and trial court misstated it was within standard range, so sentencing guidelines misapplied; consecutive sentences excessive | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: court considered presentence report, criminal history, danger to community and police; explained reasons for aggravated-range firearm sentence and consecutive terms | No abuse of discretion; court adequately explained reasons for aggravated-range and consecutive sentence; misstatement in opinion was harmless dicta |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sufficiency review and constructive possession principles)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements of PWID: possession plus intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (actual, constructive, or joint constructive possession may sustain narcotics conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (constructive possession as "conscious dominion" established by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (standard for raising a substantial question on discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 32 A.3d 232 (Pa. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (presumption that sentencing judge considered presentence report and relevant factors)