Com. v. Mulholland, C. ( 2015 )

J-S58042-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHAD MULHOLLAND
Appellant No. 746 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002537-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 02, 2015
Appellant, Chad Mulholland, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial
convictions for the offenses of possession of drug paraphernalia and
possession of a small amount of marijuana.1
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(32) and (31)(i), respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S58042-15
SUPPORT THE GUILTY VERDICTS SINCE THE
COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT [APPELLANT] WAS IN ACTUAL
OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA OR
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
WHETHER THE GUILTY VERDICTS WERE AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE BASIS OF
[APPELLANT’S] CONVICTION WAS THE TESTIMONY OF A
WOMAN WHO WAS NOT CREDIBLE, GIVEN THAT THE JURY
HAD FOUND [APPELLANT] NOT GUILTY OF OTHER COUNTS
BASED ON THE SAME TESTIMONY.
(Appellant’s Brief at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas G.
Parisi, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 11, 2015, at 2-8) (finding:
(1) Appellant’s girlfriend testified that she argued with Appellant because he
was using drugs and she was pregnant; Appellant’s girlfriend testified that
pipe and marijuana belonged to Appellant; Appellant confirmed he shared
with his girlfriend bedroom where marijuana was found; Appellant’s
girlfriend testified she found pipe in apartment she shared with Appellant;
jury could reasonably infer Appellant had equal access to, and ability and
intent to exercise conscious dominion over, marijuana and paraphernalia
found in residence; under theory of constructive possession, evidence was
sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions; (2) evidence presented at trial
was not contrary to jury verdict; jury was free to weigh testimony of each
-2-
J-S58042-15
witness and determine which evidence it found credible; verdict did not
shock court’s conscience). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial
court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/2/2015
-3-