Com. v. Collins, M. ( 2014 )

J-S70017-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL COLLINS
Appellant No. 601 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 10, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002420-2013
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2014
Appellant, Michael Collins, appeals1 from the February 10, 2014
aggregate judgment of sentence of three to six years’ imprisonment, plus
five years’ probation, imposed after he was found guilty of one count each of
possession with intent to deliver (PWID), intentional possession of a
controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and three counts of
criminal conspiracy.2 After careful review, we affirm.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
We note that Appellant’s co-defendant, Jonathan DeWilliams, also appeals
from his judgment of sentence in this matter. DeWilliams’ appeal is pending
before this Court at 705 EDA 2014.
2
35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), 780-113(a)(16), 780-113(a)(32), and 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 903(c), respectively.
J-S70017-14
The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural
background of this case as follows.
[Appellant] was arrested on February 23,
201[3] while driving a vehicle bearing stolen
registration plates. [Appellant] had three
passengers. All four occupants were removed from
the vehicle[,] and three packets of heroin were
removed from the area between the driver’s seat
and the center console. Several “bundles” of heroin
and seven loose baggies of heroin were also
discovered in the “map pocket” on the back of the
front passenger seat. Suboxone and a cut straw
were removed from [Appellant]’s person. All of the
occupants of the car were arrested and transported
to police headquarters. In a holding cell, Charles
Williams, the front seat passenger, attempted to
flush eleven packets of heroin down the toilet.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/30/14, at 1.
On May 8, 2013, the Commonwealth filed an information, charging
Appellant with the above-mentioned offenses, as well as one count each of
driving an unregistered vehicle, operating a motor vehicle without the
required financial responsibility, and operating a motor vehicle without a
valid inspection.3 On December 17, 2013, Appellant proceeded to a two-day
jury trial, at the conclusion of which the jury found Appellant guilty of one
count each of PWID, intentional possession of a controlled substance,
possession of drug paraphernalia, and three counts of criminal conspiracy.
The motor vehicle code offenses were all withdrawn. On February 10, 2014,
____________________________________________
3
75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1301(a), 1786(f), and 4703(a), respectively.
-2-
J-S70017-14
the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of three to six years’
imprisonment, plus five years’ probation.4 Appellant did not file a post-
sentence motion. On February 12, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se notice of
appeal.5
On appeal, Appellant raises the following four issues for our review.
(I). Is [Appellant]’s conviction for [PWID] against
the weight and sufficiency of the evidence?
(II.) For purposes of sentencing [Appellant], was his
prior record score (“PRS”) incorrectly
calculated?
____________________________________________
4
Specifically, the trial court sentenced Appellant to three to six years’
imprisonment plus three years’ probation for PWID. The trial court further
sentenced Appellant to 30 to 60 days’ imprisonment for possession of drug
paraphernalia, 60 to 120 days’ imprisonment for one count of criminal
conspiracy, and 21 to 42 months’ imprisonment plus two years’ probation for
the second count of criminal conspiracy. All terms of imprisonment were to
run concurrently to each other; however, all probationary terms were to be
consecutive to each other, as well as consecutive to the terms of
imprisonment.
5
We have held that a criminal defendant’s pro se actions have no legal
effect while he or she remains represented by counsel. Commonwealth v.
Hall, 476 A.2d 7, 9-10 (Pa. Super. 1984); see also Commonwealth v.
Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (noting that a defendant’s
pro se filings while represented by counsel are legal nullities), appeal denied,
936 A.2d 40 (Pa. 2007). However, our Supreme Court has held that a pro
se notice of appeal filed by an appellant while represented by counsel shall
be considered merely premature if counsel and the trial court take
appropriate actions to perfect the appeal. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 27
A.3d 994, 1008 (Pa. 2011). Instantly, in our view, counsel’s filing of a Rule
1925(b) statement and an advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf effectively
perfected this appeal. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to address the
merits of the appeal. We note the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion
on April 30, 2014.
-3-
J-S70017-14
(III). Was [Appellant] denied RRRI at the time of
sentencing despite eligibility therefor?
(IV). Was [Appellant] prejudiced by the [trial c]ourt
where it conducted the voir dire with
[Appellant] clothed in a prison jumpsuit (while
all co-defendant’s [sic] were dressed [in] street
clothes) and where the trial [court] knew
defense counsel brought said clothing yet
declined to expend de minimis time in order to
permit [Appellant] to change his clothing[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 12.
Although Appellant’s statement of questions presented asserts his first
issue as one of sufficiency and weight of the evidence, we address them
separately. We address Appellant’s sufficiency claim first, as the remedy for
a sufficiency of the evidence claim is complete discharge rather than a new
trial. See generally Commonwealth v. Simpson, 832 A.2d 496, 500 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (citation omitted). Our standard of review regarding
challenges to the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s case is well settled. “In
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence
presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in
a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support
the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v.
Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). “The
Commonwealth can meet its burden by wholly circumstantial evidence and
any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder
unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no
-4-
J-S70017-14
probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 277(Pa. 2014). As an appellate court, we must review “the entire record … and
all evidence actually received[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “[T]he 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. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 64 (Pa. Super.
2014) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014). “Because
evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo
and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d
119, 126 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Diamond v.
Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 145 (2014).
Appellant challenges his conviction for PWID, the statute for which
provides, in relevant part, as follows.
§ 780-113. Prohibited acts; penalties
(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within
the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:
…
(30) Except as authorized by this act, the
manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to
manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a
person not registered under this act, or a practitioner
not registered or licensed by the appropriate State
board, or knowingly creating, delivering or
-5-
J-S70017-14
possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit
controlled substance.
…
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
In his first issue on appeal, Appellant avers that the Commonwealth
failed to produce sufficient evidence to show, at a minimum, that Appellant
was in constructive possession of the controlled substance in question, and
that he possessed the intent to deliver the same. Appellant’s Brief at 17, 19.
Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic
construct to deal with the realities of criminal law
enforcement. Constructive possession is an
inference arising from a set of facts that possession
of the contraband was more likely than not. We
have defined constructive possession as conscious
dominion. We subsequently defined conscious
dominion as 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.
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 78 A.3d 1090 (Pa. 2013).
In the case sub judice, the Commonwealth presented the following
evidence. Officer Robert McCaughan of the Clifton Heights Police
Department testified that he pulled over Appellant and his co-defendants.
N.T., 12/17/13, at 102-103. Appellant was driving the vehicle, and was
found with a cell phone on his person. Id. at 103, 111. The police found,
within Appellant’s immediate reach, three packets of heroin, labeled
-6-
J-S70017-14
“Obama.” Id. at 106, 107-108. In the car, the police found a total of 182
packets of heroin. Id. at 113. All but four of these packets were labeled
“Obama,” the other four were labeled “New York.” Id. The Commonwealth
also presented Sergeant Michael Boudwin, who was qualified as an expert in
the field of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Id. at 167. Sergeant Boudwin
testified that the street value of the heroin found was approximately
$1,800.00. Id. at 171, 177. Sergeant Boudwin also testified that the
significance of labeling the packets with the “Obama” stamp was because
“[d]ealers stamp their product [as] … [i]t shows purity [and] … [i]t shows
consistency with a certain dealer, a certain type of narcotic.” Id. at 107-
108.
Based on the above, we conclude the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to prove, at a minimum, constructive possession, and
that Appellant had the required intent to deliver. As noted above, Appellant
was found in a confined space with $1,800.00 worth of heroin that was
individually packaged, some of which was within Appellant’s immediate
reach. The jury was permitted to believe the officers’ testimony, and infer
that Appellant was a part of a heroin distribution business, as well as that
Appellant had the power to exercise dominion and control over the heroin
found in the vehicle. See, e.g., Kearney, supra; Commonwealth v.
Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 659 (Pa. Super. 2013) (concluding the Commonwealth
presented sufficient evidence of intent to distribute where “15 vials of crack
-7-
J-S70017-14
cocaine and five vials of heroin found on [Baker’s] person were located in a
black change purse, from which he had just provided the drugs he sold to
the undercover state trooper during the last controlled buy[, and where]
police also found in the [same] black change purse over $2,300.00 in cash,
$620.00 of which was the pre-marked buy money[]”) (internal citation
omitted), appeal denied, 86 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2014); Hopkins, supra. Based
on these considerations, we conclude the Commonwealth produced sufficient
evidence of constructive possession, as well as an intent to deliver. See
Diamond, supra; Baker, supra; Hopkins, supra. As a result, Appellant
is not entitled to relief.
Within his first issue, Appellant indicates he is also raising a claim that
the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. See Appellant’s
Brief at 16 (stating his first argument heading as “[Appellant]’s conviction
for [PWID] is against both the sufficiency and weight of the evidence[]”)
(emphasis added). However, Appellant’s argument, as developed in his
brief, only addresses his sufficiency claim. See id. at 16-20. It is axiomatic
that sufficiency and weight of the evidence are separate and distinct claims
because an argument that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the
evidence concedes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the
convictions. Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013),
cert. denied, Lyons v. Pennsylvania, 134 S. Ct. 1792 (2014).
-8-
J-S70017-14
This Court will not consider issues where Appellant fails to cite to any
legal authority or otherwise develop the issue. Commonwealth v.
McLaurin, 45 A.3d 1131, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 65 A.3d
413 (Pa. 2013). Appellant was required to develop a separate argument in
his brief explaining why the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the
evidence. See id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating, “[t]he argument shall be
divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall
have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively
displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion
and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent[]”). As Appellant does
not attempt to develop his weight claim in any meaningful way, we deem
this argument waived on appeal.6 See McLaurin, supra.In his second issue on appeal, Appellant avers that the trial court
abused its discretion in sentencing him based on an improperly calculated
prior record score. Appellant’s Brief at 20. However, Appellant’s brief also
____________________________________________
6
Even if Appellant had developed his weight argument, we would still deem
the issue waived. It is axiomatic that to preserve a weight claim, a
defendant must either raise it during sentencing on the record, or in a post
sentence motion. See generally Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); accord
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014). As
noted above, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion in this case.
Furthermore, we have reviewed the sentencing transcript, and at no point
did Appellant raise any claim that the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence.
-9-
J-S70017-14
“concedes that he has waived [his] right to challenge the discretionary
aspects of the sentence imposed.” Id.It is firmly established that in order for this Court to entertain a
discretionary aspects of sentence issue on appeal, an appellant must, among
other requirements, preserve said issue below, by either raising the issue in
a post-sentence motion, or during sentencing. Commonwealth v. Colon, -
-- A.3d ---, 2014 WL 5408189, *7 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). In
this case, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. Additionally, we
have reviewed the sentencing transcript, and at no point did Appellant raise
any claim pertaining to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Therefore,
we agree with the trial court that this issue is waived. See id.; Trial Court
Opinion, 4/30/14, at 8.
In his third issue, Appellant avers that the trial court imposed an illegal
sentence when it deemed him ineligible for a Recidivism Risk Reduction
Incentive Act (RRRI) minimum sentence.7 Appellant’s Brief at 20. Among
its requirements, the RRRI statute states an eligible defendant is one who
“[d]oes not demonstrate a history of present or past violent behavior[.]” 61
Pa.C.S.A. § 4503. The trial court deemed Appellant ineligible because of his
prior conviction for robbery as a first-degree felony, which in the trial court’s
____________________________________________
7
We note that a failure to impose an RRRI minimum sentence on an eligible
defendant implicates the legality of the sentence, which renders the issue
non-waivable. Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 669-670 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
- 10 -
J-S70017-14
view “has been included in a class of offenses that have been designated
‘crimes of violence’ because it poses a risk of violence, or injury, to another
person.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/30/14, at 9 (citation omitted).
In his brief, Appellant asks this Court to hold this case in abeyance
pending the outcome of Commonwealth v. Chester, 74 A.3d 116 (Pa.
2013), where our Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for
allowance of appeal to decide “[w]hether a prior conviction of a felony one
burglary, which is not included as a disqualifier in the definition of ‘eligible
offender’ may nevertheless amount to ‘a history of present or past violent
behavior’ such as to exclude a defendant from RRRI [Act] eligibility?” Id. at
117. On September 24, 2014, our Supreme Court issued its opinion in
Chester, concluding that a prior conviction for burglary as a first-degree
felony is “violent behavior” for the purposes of Section 4503.
Commonwealth v. Chester, 101 A.3d 56, 65 (Pa. 2014). We recognize
that Chester had three first-degree burglary convictions, and Appellant only
has one. See id. We further acknowledge that our Supreme Court declined
to consider whether one first-degree burglary conviction was a “history” of
violent behavior for the purpose of determining RRRI eligibility. Appellant’s
only argument is for this Court to await our Supreme Court’s decision in
Chester. Appellant’s Brief at 20. As Chester has been decided, Appellant
is not entitled to relief.
- 11 -
J-S70017-14
In his fourth issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it
permitted Appellant to appear for voir dire in prisoner’s clothing, while
others were dressed in formal suits and ties. Appellant’s Brief at 20. The
Commonwealth counters that Appellant waived this claim by not objecting
on the record during voir dire. Commonwealth’s Brief at 15.
It is axiomatic that “[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived
and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Our
Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of issue
preservation.
Issue preservation is foundational to proper
appellate review. Our rules of appellate procedure
mandate that “[i]ssues not raised in the lower court
are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). By requiring that an issue
be considered waived if raised for the first time on
appeal, our courts ensure that the trial court that
initially hears a dispute has had an opportunity to
consider the issue. This jurisprudential mandate is
also grounded upon the principle that a trial court,
like an administrative agency, must be given the
opportunity to correct its errors as early as possible.
Related thereto, we have explained in detail the
importance of this preservation requirement as it
advances the orderly and efficient use of our judicial
resources. Finally, concepts of fairness and expense
to the parties are implicated as well.
In re F.C. III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1211-1212 (Pa. 2010) (some internal citations
omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Miller, 80 A.3d 806, 811 (Pa. Super.
2013) (citation omitted).
- 12 -
J-S70017-14
In the case sub judice, the Commonwealth avers that Appellant’s issue
on appeal is waived as “neither [Appellant] nor his attorney addressed the
[trial] court regarding [Appellant]’s clothing.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 16.
The trial court concluded that Appellant had waived this issue on this basis
as well. Trial Court Opinion, 4/30/14, at 9-10. We have reviewed the
transcript of voir dire, and we agree with both the Commonwealth and the
trial court that the record is devoid of any reference to Appellant’s clothing
during voir dire. Furthermore, Appellant did not make any objection, nor did
Appellant move for a mistrial. Appellant’s brief cites to an off-the-record
discussion on page 11 of the transcript. Appellant’s Brief at 21. While there
is an indication on page 11 that a discussion was held off the record, there is
no indication of the subject of said discussion. See N.T., 12/17/13, at 11.
In addition, as we have already noted, once back on the record, no objection
to or mention of Appellant’s attire was made. Appellant’s Brief
acknowledges that “there [is] nothing in the record to suggest that
[Appellant] was forced to wear prison clothing[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 21.
Based on these considerations, we conclude Appellant has waived his fourth
issue on appeal, for failure to object during the proceedings in the trial
court.8 See In re F.C. III; Miller, supra.____________________________________________
8
The Commonwealth has filed a motion to strike Appellant’s brief based on
his inclusion of this argument on appeal. However, based on our disposition
of this issue, the Commonwealth’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
- 13 -
J-S70017-14
Based on the foregoing, we conclude all of Appellant’s issues on appeal
are either waived or devoid of merit. Accordingly, the trial court’s February
10, 2014 judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Motion to strike denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/19/2014
- 14 -