Com. v. Ramirez, D.
Com. v. Ramirez, D. No. 1072 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- Damaris Ramirez was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver (PWID), possession, drug paraphernalia, and related conspiracy charges after police executed a search warrant at her shared bedroom in April 2015.
- Police found bulk quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine, a scale, baggies, a spoon, and cutting agents (lidocaine, inositol) in a dresser and closet containing Ramirez’s clothing and mail; investigators and an expert testified these items indicated distribution.
- A teenage daughter of Ramirez’s co-defendant discovered the drugs, sent photos to an aunt, and notified police, prompting the search and seizure.
- Ramirez argued on appeal that the Commonwealth failed to prove she knew of or participated in trafficking (challenging sufficiency and weight of the evidence) because the items were not openly exposed and another person also had access to the room.
- Ramirez also challenged the discretionary aspects of her sentence (aggregate 6 to 20 years), claiming the court failed to appropriately weigh mitigators and improperly ordered consecutive terms.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding circumstantial evidence supported constructive possession and that the sentencing court acted within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ramirez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove constructive possession and PWID | Circumstantial evidence (drugs in her dresser, women’s clothing, mail to Ramirez, paraphernalia, cutting agents, expert testimony) supports inference Ramirez had control and intent to distribute | Items were not openly exposed; another person had access; daughter said Ramirez did not sell drugs | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to infer constructive possession and intent to deliver |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury verdict reasonable given totality (physical evidence + expert) | Verdict against the weight because testimony contradicted distribution theory and lack of direct proof Ramirez knew of drugs | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial; weight claim rejected |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence: failure to consider mitigators | Sentencing court considered presentence report and mitigation, imposed standard-range terms | Court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors; consecutive terms excessive for a mother with no prior record | No abuse of discretion; court acknowledged mitigators and permissibly imposed consecutive standard-range sentences |
| Whether appeal presents a substantial question for sentencing review | N/A | Argued failure to consider mitigators + excessive consecutive sentence raises substantial question | Court treated claim as substantial under Swope but found it meritless on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standards for sufficiency and weight review)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (constructive possession requires power to control and intent to exercise it)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (circumstantial evidence may establish constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim plus failure to consider mitigators can raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary sentencing review and deference to sentencing court’s consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)