Commonwealth v. Roberts
133 A.3d 759
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Police conducted surveillance of a known "drug house" in a high‑drug area; officers observed Jason Roberts enter the residence for ~10–15 minutes and then leave.
- An unmarked patrol car stopped near Roberts and officers asked questions; Roberts fled on foot when officers engaged him and a chase ensued across yards/driveway where he slipped on ice.
- Sergeant Lawler retraced his steps after realizing he lost his radio and found two large baggies (later testing positive for cocaine) and a cell phone with a screensaver photo of Roberts near a driveway where Roberts had run around a parked car.
- Officers arrested Roberts; a search incident to arrest recovered a second cell phone on his person. The seized quantities were ~42.46 g powder cocaine and ~36.15 g crack cocaine.
- A Commonwealth expert testified the amounts and circumstances indicated possession with intent to deliver (PWID) rather than personal use; no scales/ledgers or large cash were found.
- Roberts was convicted of two counts of PWID (powder and crack), two merged counts of possession, and possession of drug paraphernalia; sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 54–108 months plus probation. He appealed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Roberts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession and PWID | Evidence (drugs found near phone with Roberts’ photo, large quantities, expert opinion, two phones) links Roberts to drugs and intent to sell | Drugs not found on person; circumstantial link insufficient to prove conscious dominion or intent to deliver | Court: Evidence sufficient for constructive possession and PWID; convictions affirmed |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury properly credited testimony and expert; inconsistencies minor | Sergeant Lawler’s inconsistent testimony about exact location of drugs and lack of dealer paraphernalia undermines verdict | Court: No basis to overturn; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to shock conscience |
| Suppression: whether encounter became illegal seizure during approach/chase | Officers’ initial approach was a mere encounter; Roberts’ unprovoked flight in a high‑crime area gave reasonable suspicion for seizure during pursuit; abandoned contraband recoverable | Sergeant Lawler’s exit and alleged order to “stop” escalated the encounter to an unsupported investigative detention; evidence should be suppressed | Court: Interaction remained a mere encounter until flight; pursuit created reasonable suspicion; seizure lawful and suppression denial was correct |
| Sentencing: merger and discretionary aspects (consecutive sentences, consideration of mitigation) | Powder and crack are distinct offenses; counts do not merge; court considered PSI and mitigation and provided reasons for consecutive low‑end standard sentences | Counts arose from same incident and should merge; court failed to adequately weigh addiction/childhood and abused discretion imposing consecutive sentences | Court: PWID counts for powder and crack are distinct (no merger); sentencing discretionary and justified on record; consecutive sentences upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sufficiency standard and appellate review of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (constructive possession defined as conscious dominion; totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (factors for inferring intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (police pursuit can constitute a seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard for appellate review of weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 958 A.2d 522 (Pa. Super. 2008) (merger doctrine and "same facts" definition)
- Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentencing discretion and review)