Com. v. Tiburcio, T.
Com. v. Tiburcio, T. No. 1816 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 26, 2017Background
- On Feb. 16, 2016, police executed a search warrant at 1321 Hickory St., Reading; officers found large quantities of heroin and cocaine, drug packaging materials, a drug press, scales, cutting agents, and two revolvers. Appellant was found on the floor and detained.
- A Tommy Hilfiger purse and other containers near the kitchen contained packaged drugs and distribution paraphernalia; the basement contained numerous boxes of glassine baggies and a press. Commonwealth experts estimated street value of drugs at roughly $220,000 (heroin) and $27,000 (cocaine).
- Co-defendant Carlos Armenta-Villa testified he lived at the residence, sold drugs there, and that Appellant used the house during the day to sell and cook narcotics; he also testified Appellant offered to bribe him to deny knowledge.
- Appellant’s fingerprints were found on a Colt Python recovered in the kitchen. No drugs or Appellant’s personal effects were found on his person at arrest.
- A jury convicted Appellant of possession and possession-with-intent-to-deliver (heroin and cocaine), related conspiracy counts, and possession of drug paraphernalia; the court imposed consecutive prison terms. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion raising a weight-of-the-evidence claim and appealed after denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdicts were against weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: evidence (drugs, paraphernalia, press, packaging, expert testimony, fingerprints, co-defendant testimony) supported convictions for constructive possession and intent to distribute | Tiburcio: co-defendant was motivated by self-preservation; Appellant was merely present, evicted by a PFA hours earlier, and had no personal effects at the residence | Trial court denied new trial; Superior Court affirmed — no abuse of discretion in denying weight claim |
| Whether co-defendant’s credibility required a new trial | Commonwealth: credibility was for the jury; cross-examination addressed immigration motive | Tiburcio: Armenta-Villa sought to avoid deportation, so his testimony was unreliable | Held that credibility attacks go to weight; jury could reject or accept testimony; not so contrary to evidence as to shock conscience |
| Whether mere presence suffices for constructive possession | Commonwealth: constructive possession can be inferred from totality of circumstances and joint-control doctrine | Tiburcio: mere presence and lack of personal effects/personal possession negate possession | Court found sufficient nexus (fingerprint, testimony, items indicating distribution) to infer constructive possession and intent |
| Preservation of specific weight arguments on appeal | Commonwealth/trial court: weight claims must be raised in post-sentence motion; narrower immigration-motivation claim first raised in Rule 1925(b) may be waived | Tiburcio: raised credibility motive in Rule 1925(b) | Court deemed the immigration-specific argument arguably waived but, in any event, rejected on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Champney v. Commonwealth, 574 Pa. 435, 832 A.2d 403 (2003) (appellate review of weight claims limited to abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Lyons v. Commonwealth, 622 Pa. 91, 79 A.3d 1053 (2013) (weight-of-the-evidence claim concedes sufficiency but seeks new trial when verdict shocks the conscience)
- Gaskins v. Commonwealth, 692 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1997) (credibility determinations are for the fact-finder and inform weight challenges)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (constructive possession defined as conscious control or dominion; intent inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Valette v. Commonwealth, 531 Pa. 384, 613 A.2d 548 (1992) (constructive possession can be shared where an area is under joint control)
- Gillard v. Commonwealth, 850 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2004) (weight-of-the-evidence claims must be preserved for trial court review)
- Burkett v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to present weight claim properly results in waiver)
- West v. Commonwealth, 937 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review of trial court denial of weight-based new trial focuses on abuse of discretion)
- Stays v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court should not grant a new trial unless verdict is so contrary to evidence it shocks one’s sense of justice)