Com. v. Rosemond, E.
1847 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- On May 13, 2016, Ernest Allen Rosemond was processed into Schuylkill County Prison; during a required clothing search a small bag of powder fell from his socks/waistband.
- Corrections Officers Fritzinger and Symons observed the bag fall while Rosemond was removing clothing in a small, empty processing room; Rosemond denied knowledge of the package.
- The package was turned over to Pottsville police and laboratory testing identified ~0.19 grams of methamphetamine.
- Rosemond was tried by jury and convicted of possession of contraband by an inmate (18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a.2)) and possession of a controlled substance (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16)); the latter merged for sentencing.
- The court sentenced Rosemond to 2–5 years’ imprisonment plus 2 years’ probation; Rosemond timely appealed.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and then addressed Rosemond’s sufficiency/weight arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether testimony conflicts rendered evidence insufficient | Commonwealth: Officers’ testimony and physical evidence supported conviction | Rosemond: Officer testimony conflicted and was insufficient to prove possession | Held: Conflicts go to weight, not sufficiency; evidence was sufficient to convict |
| Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: Credibility/resolution of conflicts for jury | Rosemond: Inconsistencies required new trial | Held: Weight claim waived for failure to preserve under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements for withdrawal | Commonwealth (court review): Counsel provided Anders brief and notice; court ensured appellant could respond | Rosemond: Argued counsel should not withdraw | Held: Counsel substantially complied with Anders and Santiago; withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s procedure for withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania standards for Anders briefs and counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for Anders withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellant’s right to proceed pro se or with private counsel when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (notice requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishing weight versus sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Halye, 719 A.2d 763 (Pa. Super. 1998) (a mere conflict in testimony does not render evidence insufficient)