Com. v. Williams, J.
302 A.3d 117
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Police executed a search of an apartment after a cooperating buyer (William Davis) led them there following a controlled buy.
- Officers found Appellant Joseph Williams at a kitchen table with a scale; a blender with white residue was at his feet.
- Police recovered 171 baggies of fentanyl from the table (parties stipulated total weight = 2.7 grams) and, in a search incident to arrest, a bag of marijuana, a bag containing .21 g of crack cocaine, and $526 on Williams.
- A witness testified that the quantity of drugs, cash, and paraphernalia indicated distribution; Davis testified he and his fiancé sold drugs for Williams in exchange for drugs for personal use.
- A jury convicted Williams of PWID (fentanyl) and possession of cocaine, acquitted him of possession of fentanyl and other charges; court sentenced him to 5–10 years plus one year probation; Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of cocaine | Witness testimony and exhibited .21 g cocaine support conviction | Testimony equivocal; officer could not recall where cocaine was found, so evidence is too weak | Evidence sufficient: jury could credit testimony and exhibit; reasonable inferences drawn for Commonwealth |
| Sufficiency of evidence / PWID (fentanyl) given acquittal of possession of fentanyl | Evidence (baggies on table, paraphernalia, distribution indicia) supports PWID conviction | Inconsistent verdict: acquittal on possession of fentanyl undermines PWID conviction; Double Jeopardy/§109 argument | Inconsistent verdicts permissible; Burton controls; acquittal viewed as jury lenity and does not invalidate guilty verdict |
| Sentencing OGS based on stipulated fentanyl weight (Apprendi/Alleyne challenge) | Weight affected guideline range but not statutory maximum or mandatory minimum; court can use judicial factfinding for sentencing | Weight (2.7 g) was stipulated, not found by jury; increases OGS and guideline range—invokes Apprendi/Alleyne | Apprendi/Alleyne not implicated: fact increased guideline range only; sentencing discretion remains; judicial factfinding permissible; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803 (Pa. Super. 2017) (sufficiency review standard and inferences for Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 434 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 1981) (contradictory witness statements go to credibility, not automatic acquittal)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 234 A.3d 824 (Pa. 2020) (inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible and do not require reversal)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (fact increasing statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (judicial factfinding may inform sentencing discretion when Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (facts that increase guideline ranges need not be found by a jury)