302 A.3d 117
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- June 27, 2019: after a controlled buy, William Davis cooperated with police, led them to the apartment he shared with Pamela Obitz, and consented to a search.
- Police entered and found Joseph Williams seated at the kitchen table; a scale was on the table and a blender with white powdery residue at his feet.
- Officers recovered 171 baggies of fentanyl from the table; the parties stipulated the fentanyl weighed 2.7 grams.
- In a search incident to arrest, police found one bag of marijuana, one bag of crack cocaine (stipulated weight .21 g), and $526 on Williams; a Commonwealth witness testified these items and paraphernalia indicated distribution.
- Jury verdict (Oct. 19, 2021): guilty of PWID (fentanyl) and possession of cocaine; not guilty of possession of fentanyl (as a basic possession count), paraphernalia, or a gun-with-altered-serial-number.
- Sentence (Jan. 20, 2022): 5–10 years’ imprisonment plus one year probation; Williams appealed arguing (1) insufficiency of evidence for PWID and cocaine possession, (2) inconsistency/acquittal issue, and (3) sentencing error from using stipulated fentanyl weight to increase the Offense Gravity Score (Apprendi/Alleyne challenge).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID (fentanyl) | Items at table (171 baggies), scale, residue, witness testimony and Davis’s statement support inference Williams exercised dominion/control and intended distribution | Evidence insufficient; inconsistent acquittal on possession undermines conviction | Affirmed: jury reasonably inferred possession/intent from circumstances; inconsistent verdicts permissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence for cocaine possession | Officer testimony that cocaine was found on Williams plus .21 g exhibit supports possession | Officer equivocated on location; evidence "weak and inconclusive" | Affirmed: jurors may credit testimony and exhibit; credibility issues for jury to resolve |
| Sentencing OGS increase based on stipulated fentanyl weight (Apprendi/Alleyne) | Weight affected guideline range only; did not increase statutory maximum or create a mandatory minimum so judicial factfinding was permissible | Alleyne/Apprendi violation because weight (2.7 g) was stipulated, not found by jury, and increased OGS/guideline range | Affirmed: Apprendi/Alleyne inapplicable where judicial factfinding affects guidelines but not statutory max or mandatory minimum; sentencing discretion remained |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 434 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 1981) (inconsistent witness statements go to credibility, not automatic reversal)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 234 A.3d 824 (Pa. 2020) (inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible and not reversible error)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (judicial factfinding informing discretionary sentencing does not trigger Alleyne/Apprendi)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing factors that alter guideline ranges need not be jury-found)