Commonwealth v. Lewis
45 A.3d 405
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Undercover operation established Lewis as a mid-to-upper level cocaine dealer; CI arranged a nine-ounce purchase and identified Lewis’s vehicle.
- Garcia and Miscannon conducted the undercover purchase; meeting location was Pathmark lot, then 60th and Media Streets, culminating in arrest.
- Cl and Lewis engaged in multiple calls; the Cl’s number was used to trigger the takedown; cash recovered from Lewis totaled $6,310.
- Aleshkevich tested the seized white substance; lab result was 124 grams of cocaine.
- Lewis testified he was transporting someone to Philadelphia and contended he didn’t sell drugs; the trial court found his version not credible.
- Sentence imposed 10 to 20 years; Lewis challenged sufficiency of the evidence and discretionary aspects of sentencing; appeal timely filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict PWID | Lewis argues lack of credibility and missing Cl identity; calls into question discovery of calls | Lewis alleges insufficiency and credibility issues undermine proof | Evidence sufficient to support PWID conviction |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing | Lewis contends sentence exceeds guidelines and ignores mitigating factors | Court followed guidelines and exercised discretion; substantial question shown | Sentence not an abuse of discretion; affirmed out of guideline context |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Troy, 832 A.2d 1089 (Pa.Super.2003) (sufficiency review and credibility issues; circumstantial evidence permitted)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa.Super.2006) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing; guideline framework)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa.Super.2008) (substantial question for discretionary appeal; Rule 2119(f))