Commonwealth v. Watley
81 A.3d 108
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Watley was stopped after speeding; he gave false ID and fled on foot after police found a loaded .22 handgun under the passenger-side floor mat; he was not immediately apprehended.
- A subsequent search of the vehicle’s glove compartment produced a .25 caliber pistol, ammunition, a small amount of marijuana, and 34 Ecstasy pills (total weight 10.6 grams); two Western Union receipts bearing Watley’s name were found in a jacket from the car.
- Passenger Randy Hayward gave a written statement saying he rode with Watley while Watley made “drops and transactions” and that a gun was under the seat; Hayward later pled guilty to related conspiracy charges and recanted at trial.
- A jury convicted Watley of PWID (Ecstasy), conspiracy to commit PWID, possession of Ecstasy, possession of a small amount of marijuana, false identification, and two unlicensed firearms counts; the court imposed a mandatory 5-year minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 plus consecutive terms for firearms and other counts.
- Watley sought reinstatement of direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc; on appeal he challenged the sufficiency of evidence for PWID and conspiracy; the court also considered, sua sponte, an Alleyne-related legality-of-sentence issue concerning the mandatory-minimum statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Watley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID (Ecstasy) | Constructive possession of drugs in Watley’s car, Hayward’s statement about “drops and transactions,” guns and ammunition in close proximity, and Watley’s flight support intent to deliver | Quantity (34 pills) and lack of typical distribution paraphernalia or cash require expert testimony; evidence only proves possession, not intent to deliver | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth, circumstantial proof (Hayward statement, guns, flight, proximity) supports PWID beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit PWID | Same circumstantial evidence supports an agreement and shared intent between Watley and Hayward; Hayward’s statement and joint possession of firearms permit inference of conspiracy | No evidence of an agreement; Hayward recanted and there’s no independent proof the men knew each other or agreed to distribute | Affirmed: jury could infer agreement and shared intent from the surrounding conduct and Hayward’s statement |
| Legality of mandatory-minimum sentence under § 9712.1 (Alleyne issue) | Jury convicted Watley of the firearms offenses and the facts establishing firearm possession were presented to and decided by the jury, so Alleyne does not render the sentence illegal here | (Watley did not raise this issue on appeal) Alleyne requires any fact that increases mandatory minimums be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: although Alleyne implicates mandatory minimums, the jury found Watley guilty of the firearms counts; facts triggering § 9712.1 were effectively decided by the jury, so the mandatory minimum was lawful here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 831 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2003) (insufficiency of evidence for PWID where quantity and surrounding facts supported personal use)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (intent to deliver assessed under the totality of circumstances; amount alone need not prove intent)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements and proof required for conspiracy convictions under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (addressing indictment defects and sentencing enhancements raised after Apprendi; court held lack of indictment allegation was not jurisdictional where evidence of enhancement was uncontroverted)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)