Com. v. Shields, A., Com. v. Shields, A. No. 837 WDA 2016

On August 20, 2015, Officer Inman stopped Shields for expired registration, smelled marijuana, discovered Shields had a parole-warrant and no license, and took him into custody.
After two pat-downs, Shields was transported to SCI Albion for detox; correctional officers detected a strong marijuana odor and conducted an intake strip search.
Officers found cocaine (powder), cocaine base (crack), heroin in multiple small packages, and marijuana concealed in a slit in Shields’ underwear.
Trooper Shawn Massey testified as an expert in narcotics trafficking, opining the packaging and multiple drug types were consistent with distribution, not personal use.
Shields was retried after a mistrial, convicted of multiple counts (including possession with intent to deliver) and sentenced to an aggregate 99 to 198 months.
Shields appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of intent to deliver and (2) that his sentence was manifestly excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver	Commonwealth: evidence (packaging, multiple drugs, expert opinion, concealment) supports intent to deliver	Shields: no sales, no scales/packaging paraphernalia, quantities could be for personal use	Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (packaging, multiple drugs, concealment, expert testimony, absence of paraphernalia) sufficed to infer intent to deliver
Discretionary aspects of sentence	Commonwealth: sentence within aggravated guideline range and supported by record, PSR, defendant’s criminal history and parole status	Shields: sentence manifestly excessive; judge should impose minimum consistent with public protection, gravity, rehabilitation	Court: Waived (no post-sentence motion/2119(f)), and on merits affirmed — sentence within guidelines, court considered §9721 factors and did not abuse discretion

Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (concise statement must specify sufficiency grounds to preserve claim)
Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 2007) (less strict waiver appropriate when trial court understood and addressed claim)
Commonwealth v. Doughty, 126 A.3d 951 (Pa. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; circumstantial evidence may suffice)
Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (factors other than quantity—packaging, behavior, paraphernalia, expert testimony—bear on intent to deliver)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (appellate review of sentencing is deferential; courts evaluate whether sentence is guided by sound judgment and consideration of statutory factors)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements of possession and possession with intent to deliver explained)