Com. v. Williams, S.
Com. v. Williams, S. No. 1253 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Appellant Shareaf Williams was charged with possession with intent to deliver heroin, possession of heroin, criminal use of a communication facility, and possession of drug paraphernalia after an attempted street sale to buyer Brandon Warner in 2013.
- Warner (a heroin addict) testified he called Williams to buy three bags of heroin; Williams met him, entered Warner’s car, and directed a meeting; police stopped the vehicle and found three small baggies of heroin on Williams after his arrest.
- Trooper Snyder, a drug-dealer-addict-habit expert, testified that small purchases are typical of personal use and opined the three bags were possessed with intent to sell to Warner.
- Williams highlighted lack of phone/text records linking him to Warner but presented no witnesses; the jury convicted on all counts after a December 2015 trial.
- After a PSI, the court sentenced Williams to an aggregate 4 to 18 years (consecutive counts); Williams filed post-sentence motions challenging sufficiency, weight, and discretionary aspects of sentence; the trial court denied them and Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver | Commonwealth: witness testimony and expert testimony show intent to sell to Warner | Williams: small quantity indicates personal use or he might have been buying from Warner | Conviction affirmed — jury could credit Warner and expert to infer intent to deliver |
| Sufficiency for criminal use of a communication facility (18 Pa.C.S. § 7512) | Commonwealth: phone communications facilitated the intent to deliver | Williams: Commonwealth failed to prove a communication occurred (no phone/text records) | Conviction affirmed — Warner’s testimony was sufficient to prove use and facilitation |
| Discretionary sentencing claim — judicial bias | Williams: judge showed bias at sentencing (derogatory "special place in hell" remark) | Commonwealth: judge’s comments were part of broader sentencing analysis | No bias found — remark viewed in context of sentencing rationale; no relief |
| Discretionary sentencing claim — aggravated-range sentence | Williams: court abused discretion by imposing aggravated range without justification | Commonwealth: emphasized public safety, recidivism risk, prior history | Affirmed — court reasonably relied on recidivism risk, community threat, lack of remorse to justify aggravated sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court does not reassess witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Moss, 852 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements and facilitation standard for 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (what constitutes a substantial question for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentencing-bias substantial-question precedent)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (declining to find waiver where Commonwealth did not object to briefing defect)