Case Information
*-719 Circulated 07/06/2017 02:39 PM *1 J-S45009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JUAIL THOMAS :
: Appellant : No. 1663 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008521-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 24, 2017
Appellant, Juail Thomas, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his
bench trial conviction for intentional possession of a controlled substance
and possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”). [1] We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
Procedurally, Appellant proceeded to a bench trial on May 3, 2016. That
same day, the court convicted Appellant of PWID and knowing and
intentional possession of a controlled substance. Also on May 3, 2016, the
____________________________________________
[1] 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (a)(30), respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
court sentenced Appellant to a term of two (2) to four (4) years’
incarceration, plus three (3) years’ probation, on the PWID charge. [2] On May
20, 2016, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The court ordered
Appellant, on August 2, 2016, to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied
on August 21, 2016.
Appellant raises one issue for our review: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND APPELLANT…GUILTY OF DELIVERY/POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL BY THE COMMONWEALTH TO PROVE THIS CRIMINAL OFFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
(Appellant’s Brief at 2).
When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence: The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain ____________________________________________
[2] Appellant’s intentional possession of a controlled substance conviction
merged with Appellant’s PWID conviction for the purposes of sentencing.
its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Hansley , 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal
denied , 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Kai N. Scott,
we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.
( See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 20, 2016, at 4-6) (finding: Officer
Walsh observed blue object in Appellant’s hand during what Officer Walsh
believed to be aborted drug sale; Officer Walsh also observed Appellant
receive money in hand-to-hand exchange while Appellant held blue object;
when Appellant saw officers approach, he terminated sale and fled; before
he fled, Appellant said to officers, “…you got me” and, “You caught me”; as
Officer Walsh pursued Appellant, Officer Walsh saw Appellant throw to
ground blue object; Officer Walsh discovered blue object contained fourteen
individual packets of heroin; blue object Appellant discarded when he fled
was consistent with blue object Appellant held during aborted drug sale;
area in which officers encountered Appellant during sale was known for high
volume of narcotics activity; Appellant’s incomplete exchange and Officer
Walsh’s seizure of heroin confirmed Appellant’s attempt to supply purchaser
with narcotics in exchange for money; Appellant’s flight demonstrated his
consciousness of guilt; Appellant’s statements to Officer Walsh when officers
encountered attempted drug sale corroborate Officer Walsh’s observations;
Officer Walsh testified credibly at trial, Appellant testified incredibly;
therefore, evidence at trial was sufficient to prove Appellant possessed
controlled substance with intent to deliver). The record supports the trial
court’s rationale. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/24/2017