Commonwealth v. Hopkins
67 A.3d 817
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Hopkins was convicted after a jury trial of carrying a firearm without a license, PWID (heroin), and simple possession, plus a summary parking offense; the vehicle contained bricks of heroin and a firearm near Hopkins, with a juvenile passenger (T.H.) also present.
- A known drug user was observed pacing, counting money, and then fleeing when police approached; a juvenile in the car disposed of heroin, and a firearm was found between the seat and center console.
- Two additional bricks of heroin were recovered from the car between the driver's seat and center console; cash and two cell phones were seized from Hopkins.
- There were 150 stamp bags of heroin total in the car; 100 bricks located in the driver’s area and 50 bricks in a brick thrown by T.H.
- Hopkins was tried in absentia after failing to appear for jury selection; the court later resentenced him with credit for time served.
- The court sentenced Hopkins to 40 to 80 months for carrying a firearm without a license and 7 to 15 years for PWID, with both minimums applicable under §9712.1 and §7508, and then affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hopkins’s conviction rests on legally sufficient evidence of joint constructive possession | Hopkins; no evidence he possessed contraband | Commonwealth; sufficient totality of circumstances showed constructive possession | Yes; evidence supports constructive possession under totality of circumstances |
| Whether applying two mandatory minimums to PWID constitutes illegal double punishment | Hopkins; double jeopardy violated by two mandatory minimums | Commonwealth; §9712.1(b) allows aggregation with §7508 and does not violate double jeopardy | No; aggregation permitted and does not violate double jeopardy; sentence affirmed |
| Whether the trial court properly applied mandatory minimums under §9712.1 and §7508 to the PWID conviction | Hopkins; misapplication of statutory limits | Commonwealth; statutory framework permits aggregate minimums | Proper; court did not exceed statutory maximum and properly aggregated minimums |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Newton, 994 A.2d 1127 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sufficiency standard; credibility and inference evaluation)
- Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (sufficiency evaluation guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (constructive possession via totality of circumstances; joint possession possible)
- Commonwealth v. Sanes, 955 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2008) (joint constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Zortman, 23 A.3d 519 (Pa. 2011) (legislative intent behind §9712.1; purpose of deterrence)
- Commonwealth v. Kirchner, 501 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Super. 1985) (double jeopardy analysis; §9712 does not create a separate crime)
- Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (legality-of-sentence standard; plenary review)
- Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 574 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 1990) (discussed in context of multiple mandatories; dicta relative to §9712.1(b))