History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Vargas
108 A.3d 858
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014
Read the full case

Background

  • On Nov. 3, 2010 police discovered a hotel room (Room 161) containing extensive heroin‑packaging paraphernalia (grinders, scales, thousands of glassine bags, stamps, wax paper, used condom wrappers, etc.) and observed evidence consistent with recent flushing of small rubber bands. A surveillance video showed Francisco Saldana arrive in a Chevy Impala and enter the room shortly before police arrived.
  • Officers detained four men: Saldana (linked to the Impala), Raymer Carrasco (found with packaged heroin on his person), Jose Vargas (Appellant), and another occupant. No one in the room was the named renter and no luggage or money was found.
  • A search of Saldana’s Impala uncovered a secret compartment containing a .40 firearm and 377.73 grams of raw heroin; some heroin was packaged in condom‑like wrappings similar to used wrappers found in the room. A K‑9 alerted on both the Impala and a Honda for which Vargas had keys.
  • Vargas was convicted at bench trial of possession with intent to deliver (PWID), possession, possession of paraphernalia, and conspiracy. He stipulated to the lab report identifying 377.73 grams of heroin. The trial court imposed the mandatory minimum 5‑year term under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(7)(iii).
  • On appeal the Superior Court (en banc) affirmed Vargas’s convictions (finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of constructive possession and conspiracy) but vacated and remanded for resentencing because § 7508’s mandatory‑minimum procedures were unconstitutional under Alleyne and related Pennsylvania precedent.

Issues

Issue Commonwealth's Argument Vargas's Argument Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence proved Vargas constructively possessed paraphernalia/residue and was part of a conspiracy that encompassed the 377.73 g in Saldana's car Circumstantial proof (presence in small, open hotel room used as a "mobile heroin mill," paraphernalia in plain view, expert testimony about large‑scale packaging, K‑9 alerts, video of Saldana arriving empty‑handed, similar condom wrappers, possible flushing of evidence, Vargas had keys to a nearby Honda) supports inferences of participation, joint constructive possession, and shared intent to process the 377.73 g Only mere presence and shared access to paraphernalia; no direct link to the secret compartment heroin; insufficient to prove agreement with Saldana to process the 377.73 g Convictions affirmed: evidence sufficient to prove constructive possession of room contraband and to support conspiracy and PWID liability for the 377.73 g (factfinder may infer participation from the totality of circumstances)
Legality of mandatory minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(7)(iii) The weight and other facts were proven (including stipulation); sentencing under § 7508 was applied Vargas argued the statute couldn't apply because he lacked possession of the narcotics triggering the mandatory minimum Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing: Superior Court held § 7508’s sentencing structure (judge‑found aggravating facts by preponderance, notice rules, non‑element status) is unconstitutional under Alleyne and Newman/Valentine/Fennell, so mandatory minimum could not be imposed

Key Cases Cited

  • Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard and appellate review principles)
  • Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (definition of constructive possession)
  • Commonwealth v. Ocasio, 619 A.2d 352 (Pa. Super. 1993) (mere presence and shared access insufficient without additional connecting evidence)
  • Commonwealth v. Roux, 350 A.2d 867 (Pa. 1976) (co‑conspirator liability for acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
  • Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
  • Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (invalidated related mandatory‑minimum sentencing structure as nonseverable under Alleyne)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Vargas
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Dec 31, 2014
Citation: 108 A.3d 858
Docket Number: 1415 EDA 2012
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.