Com. v. Tiburcio, M.
1553 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- On August 11, 2015, police arrested Michael M. Tiburcio after a controlled, undercover meeting arranged with Karla Romig and officers; Tiburcio was driving a Toyota Camry and was detained at the scene.
- During a pat-down and search of the vehicle, officers recovered 41 small crack packets, a larger chunk of bulk cocaine, one powder cocaine packet, $296 cash, a cell phone, and, after Tiburcio indicated its location post-Miranda warnings, 15 packets of heroin from a change drawer.
- Tiburcio made post-arrest statements expressing willingness to cooperate and admitted involvement in drug activity, describing it as a small amount and that he could do "bigger things."
- A police expert in drug trafficking and packaging testified that the quantity, packaging, presence of a cellphone and cash, and absence of paraphernalia supported intent to deliver and conspiracy to commit PWID.
- A jury convicted Tiburcio of two counts PWID, two counts possession, and two counts criminal conspiracy to commit PWID; the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 6 to 80 years with an RRRI minimum of 4.5 years.
- On appeal, Tiburcio challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) weight of the evidence, and (3) discretionary aspects of sentencing (consecutive and excessive). The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Tiburcio) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID and conspiracy | Evidence (drugs, packaging, cash, phone, expert testimony, admissions) established all elements | Evidence was insufficient: no proof Tiburcio made transactions, lacked drug-related communications, and did not possess drugs for transactions | Affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, sufficient to convict (trial court reasoning adopted) |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict did not shock the conscience; trial court properly credited witnesses and expert | Verdict was against weight; evidence contrary and insufficient to support convictions | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying a new trial on weight grounds |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Sentence within statutory discretion; RRRI eligibility recognized | Sentence illegal/cruel and unusual; consecutive terms and excessive length | Waived on appeal: Tiburcio failed to include the required Rule 2119(f) concise statement, so appellate court declined to review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (sufficiency standard and review)
- Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (sufficiency standard)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (weight of the evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (trial court discretion on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (procedural steps for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 149 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement precludes review)
- Commonwealth v. Minnich, 662 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (procedural waiver for sentencing claims)