Com. v. Williams, A.
Com. v. Williams, A. No. 19 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Officer Forbes surveilled an abandoned house on North Napa St., observing Williams stationed on the porch and interacting with multiple individuals who briefly entered the house and then left.
- During surveillance, Williams spoke with Latoya Barron; she left, returned later, entered the house, admitted another person while Williams was briefly absent, and Williams resumed his porch position when he returned.
- Police arrested Williams shortly after and searched the house, finding six Ziploc baggies with 3.5 grams of marijuana, multiple prescription pill bottles (none prescribed to Williams or Barron), and $20 on a table; Barron’s purse contained additional marijuana and prescription pills.
- Williams was convicted after a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver, and criminal conspiracy; sentence was 2–4 years for PWID (possession with intent to deliver) and 2 years probation for conspiracy (possession count merged).
- Williams filed a late Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; the trial court had already issued an opinion addressing sufficiency, so the Superior Court reviewed the merits despite counsel’s procedural error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession (constructive) | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (surveillance, access control, items in house) supports constructive possession | Williams: no physical possession; drugs not on his person and no direct evidence he owned them | Held: Evidence sufficient; conspiracy and gatekeeper role establish constructive possession |
| Sufficiency for possession with intent to deliver | Commonwealth: packaging, observed transactions, and role support intent to deliver | Williams: no proof that observed entrants actually purchased drugs; no direct sale proof | Held: Evidence sufficient; intent inferred from circumstances and conduct |
| Sufficiency for criminal conspiracy | Commonwealth: conduct, coordination with Barron, and overt acts (controlling access) support an agreement | Williams: Barron was not present during observed transactions; no proof of an agreement | Held: Evidence sufficient; circumstantial evidence supported an agreement and overt acts in furtherance |
| Preservation of issue on appeal | Commonwealth: trial court addressed the late 1925(b) issues so merits review is appropriate | Williams: counsel failed to timely file Rule 1925(b) statement | Held: Counsel was per se ineffective, but appellate review proceeds because trial court addressed the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) compliance and preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (untimely 1925(b) statement where trial court addressed issues allows merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (factors to infer intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Rios, 684 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 1996) (elements of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 746 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2000) (circumstantial evidence can establish conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992 (Pa. Super. 2006) (acting as lookout/gatekeeper supports conspiracy and constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (proof of conspiracy can obviate separate proof of constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Holt, 711 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1998) (conspiracy conviction renders defendant culpable for substantive drug offenses)