Com. v. Alvarez, A.Com. v. Alvarez, A.
Angel Alvarez (“Alvarez”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) following his convictions of possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”).1 On appeal, Alvarez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. After review, we affirm.
On March 8, 2020, Philadelphia Narcotics Officer Rollie Ramos saw two men, Alvarez and Omar Mendez (“Mendez”) standing together on the 2900 block of North Howard Street in Philadelphia. Ramos observed a man approach Alvarez and Mendez. Mendez retrieved a pill bottle from a nearby
Five minutes later, Officer Ramos observed another man approach Alvarez and Mendez. This time, Alvarez reached under a white Mitsubishi SUV, removed a black container, took out a square blue object, replaced the black container back under the SUV, and handed the blue object to the man in exchange for United States currency. After the man left, Officer Ramos gave the man’s description to other police officers in the area. One of the officers stopped the man and recovered three clear Ziploc packets with blue glassine inserts. The packets contained heroin and fentanyl.
A few minutes later, Officer Ramos observed another man approach Alvarez and Mendez. Alvarez again reached under the white Mitsubishi SUV and removed the black container. Alvarez took out a few objects from the black container, placed the container back under the SUV, and handed the objects to the man in exchange for United States currency. After the man left, officers in the area stopped him and recovered a Ziploc bag with blue glassine inserts and a black marking containing heroin and cocaine.
Shortly thereafter, Officer Ramos observed a woman approach Alvarez and Mendez. Mendez then retrieved the pill bottle from the drainage pipe and gave her pills in exchange for United States currency.
After observing the transactions, Ramos arrested Alvarez and Mendez. The police did not recover any narcotics on Alvarez’s person. However, police recovered the black container under the white Mitsubishi SUV, and found narcotics that matched the drugs recovered from each of the people the police stopped after they met with Alvarez and Mendez. The Commonwealth charged Alvarez with the above-mentioned crimes.
Following multiple continuances and changes of counsel, the case proceeded to a bench trial on May 20, 2025. Ultimately, the trial court found Alvarez guilty of PWID and simple possession. The trial court sentenced Alvarez on August 14, 2025, to eleven and a half to twenty-three months of house arrest, followed by ten years of reporting probation.
Alvarez filed a timely notice of appeal on September 4, 2025. That same day, Alvarez’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. On September 5, 2025, the trial court appointed Alvarez new counsel. Although the court
On September 23, 2025, the court ordered Alvarez to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, but Alvarez did not file another 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion, finding Alvarez’s issues waived for failing to file a concise statement.
On appeal, Alvarez raises two questions for our review.
1) The evidence introduced at trial and all reasonable inferences derived from the evidentiary record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is insufficient to establish all elements of [PWID].
2) The evidence introduced at trial and all reasonable inferences derived from the evidentiary record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is insufficient to establish all elements of possession of controlled substance.
Alvarez’s Brief at 7.
Before addressing Alvarez’s claims, we must first address the trial court’s finding of 1925(b) waiver. Trial Court Opinion, 12/16/2025, at 1-2. The law is clear that where a court orders an appellant to file a 1925(b) statement, the appellant must file a statement that concisely identifies each error the appellant intends to assert in the timeframe ordered by the court.
The docket reflects that the court ordered Alvarez to file a 1925(b) statement on September 23, 2025. The order states that notice was sent to the parties the same day. However, the docket does not state the date of service or notice of the order. Under Rule 114, docket entries must contain the date of service of the order or court notice.
As both of Alverez’s issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, we address his claims together. He contends that the direct and circumstantial evidence fails to link him to the crimes. Alverez’s Brief at 14-15. Specifically, Alvarez points to Officer Ramos’ testimony that people approached Mendez rather than Alvarez; he did not actually know what Alvarez or Mendez gave the people and only saw a “blue object”; and officers did not recover any drugs on Alvarez’s person. Id. at 16-18.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence according to the following standard:
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. It is within the province of the [factfinder] to determine the weight to be accorded to each witness’s testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, as an appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the [factfinder].
In relevant part, section 13(a)(30) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (“Drug Act”), commonly known as PWID, prohibits a person not registered under the Drug Act from engaging in “manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance.”
To convict someone of possession of a controlled substance under the Drug Act, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant “[k]nowingly or
[P]ossession can be found by proving actual possession, constructive possession, or joint constructive possession. Where a defendant is not in actual possession of the prohibited items, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant had constructive possession to support the conviction. Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to deal with the realities of criminal law enforcement. We have defined constructive possession as conscious dominion, meaning that the defendant has the power to control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control. To aid application, we have held that constructive possession may be established by the totality of the circumstances. It is well established that, as with any other element of a crime, constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence. In other words, the Commonwealth must establish facts from which the trier of fact can reasonably infer that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband at issue.
Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36-37 (Pa. Super. 2018) (cleaned up).
At trial, Officer Ramos testified that while he was surveilling the 2900 block of North Howard Street, he observed Alvarez and Mendez standing under a canopy looking in different directions. N.T., 5/20/2025, at 11. He then saw Mendez engage in two suspected drug transactions and Alvarez engage in three drug transactions. Id. at 11-16. Officer Ramos explained that during each transaction involving Alvarez, a person would approach him, Alvarez would then remove a black container from under a white Mitsubishi SUV, take small items from the black container, and exchange the items for money. Id. at 12, 14, 15; see also id. at 21, 24 (noting the items looked like packaging
For his part, Alvarez testified that he was walking through the area on his way home from work and got caught up talking to his old friends. Id. at 65. Alvarez explained that after three to five minutes of conversation, police arrested him and approximately six other people. Id. He stated that he had been clean since 2019. Id. at 62-63.
Viewing the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support Alvarez’s convictions for PWID and possession of a controlled substance. The trial court found the officers’
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/31/2026