Com. v. Woodberry, N., Com. v. Woodberry, N. No. 2717 EDA 2015

On Jan. 2–3, 2015, plainclothes Philadelphia police surveilled 6327 Norwood St. after complaints of street-level drug dealing; officers observed Woodberry and a co-defendant conduct multiple hand-to-hand transactions involving cash and small plastic packets.
After relaying buyer descriptions, officers stopped three purchasers and recovered small packets containing crack cocaine and/or heroin.
On Jan. 3, Sgt. Simpson arrested Woodberry on the front porch; officers recovered four pink-tinted Ziploc packets of crack cocaine from under his body and a clear packet of heroin plus unused Ziplocs from inside the house.
Woodberry was charged with PWID, possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and conspiracy; a bench trial was held Aug. 4, 2015. The court convicted Woodberry on the possession-related counts (acquitted on conspiracy) and sentenced him on the PWID count to 9–23 months county prison plus three years’ probation.
Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw on appeal, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; Woodberry did not file post-sentence motions or respond to the Anders notice.
The Superior Court found the weight claim unpreserved (no post-sentence motion), treated an unpreserved sufficiency argument as waived but conducted an independent review and concluded any sufficiency challenge would fail, affirmed the judgment, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Woodberry)	Held
Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence	Trial evidence (surveillance, buyer stops, drugs recovered from under defendant, drugs/packets in house) supports conviction; verdict should stand	Verdict shocks conscience; evidence was one-sided in favor of acquittal (weight challenge)	Waived for appeal (no post-sentence motion). Court also observed trial judge would not have abused discretion in denying a weight-based new trial
Whether evidence was sufficient to support PWID conviction	Circumstantial proof (packaging, form, defendant’s conduct, presence of unused bags) established possession and intent to deliver	Evidence insufficient to prove PWID (challenged in Anders brief but not preserved)	Waived for failure to raise in Rule 1925(b); on independent review, sufficiency claim would fail — evidence was sufficient to support PWID conviction

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders procedure for appointed counsel who seeks to withdraw)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content requirements in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate court must independently review merits after Anders compliance)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (independent review following Anders)
Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (factors showing intent to deliver: packaging, form, behavior)
Commonwealth v. Wright, 846 A.2d 730 (Pa. Super. 2004) (requirements for counsel’s petition to withdraw)
Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (notice to defendant of Anders withdrawal and rights)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 825 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2003) (preservation of weight claim under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (appellate standard for reviewing denial/grant of new trial on weight grounds)