Com. v. Rivera, D., Com. v. Rivera, D. No. 3732 EDA 2015

Rivera was convicted by a jury of PWID and conspiracy to commit PWID in August 2015 and sentenced to three to ten years' imprisonment.
Police conducted a July 8, 2014 drug investigation on N. 5th Street, observing Rivera interacting with Burke and Paris during drug transactions.
Rivera received money from Paris, Burke, and Burgos and placed an object behind a residence after taking it from Paris.
Police recovered multiple crack cocaine packets from Burke, Ramos, Torres, Burgos, and elsewhere, and later seized a Tahoe containing additional cocaine packets and cash.
Rivera's post-sentence motion was denied, and he timely appealed; counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of PWID evidence	Commonwealth argues Rivera constructively possessed drugs with intent to deliver.	Rivera contends mere presence and lack of possession negate the PWID verdict.	Evidence sufficient; constructive possession shown and intent to deliver inferred.
Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence	Commonwealth argues Rivera conspired with Paris to sell cocaine.	Rivera asserts no agreement or shared criminal intent proven.	Evidence sufficient to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (intent to deliver may be inferred from circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (constructive possession via conscious dominion)
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (delivery requires actual, constructive, or attempted transfer)
Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (evidence may prove conspiracy and PWID with circumstantial facts)
Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light favorable to Commonwealth)