Com. v. Williams, D., Jr. ( 2020 )

J-S13039-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DEXTER ELLIOT WILLIAMS, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 1419 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 20, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-38-CR-0001925-2017
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED MARCH 27, 2020
Dexter Elliot Williams, Jr. (Williams) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County (trial
court) after a jury convicted him of, among other offenses, firearms not to be
carried without a license. On appeal, he raises sufficiency and weight of the
evidence claims. After review, we affirm.
On June 6, 2017, Pennsylvania State Trooper Eric Dreisbach was on
patrol when he saw a car make several lane changes without signaling.
Trooper Dreisbach pulled the car over and spoke to the driver, Williams. He
explained that the car was his girlfriend’s and that he had been borrowing it
for several weeks. Trooper Dreisbach had Williams exit the car and asked if
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13039-20
he could search it. Williams consented and said there were no drugs or guns
in the car. Inside the unlocked glovebox, Trooper Dreisbach found a loaded
revolver wrapped in a sock. On top of the backseat, he found a box of .38
caliber ammunition that was usable with the revolver. Finally, in the trunk,
Trooper Dreisbach found a bag containing suspected marijuana, small plastic
baggies and a digital scale. Through investigation, Trooper Dreisbach
determined that the revolver was registered to Patrick Douglass (Douglass),
one of Williams’ former co-workers, and that Williams did not have a license
to carry a firearm. No fingerprints were found on the revolver.
Williams eventually proceeded to a jury trial on charges of firearms not
to be carried without a license, possession of marijuana—small amount, and
possession of drug paraphernalia.1 Douglass explained at trial how his
revolver ended up in the glovebox. He testified that one night in the spring
of 2017, he and Williams went to a bar in Williams’ car. Because guns were
not allowed inside the bar, Douglass put the revolver in the glovebox but did
not tell Williams. Douglass went home with someone else that night and never
contacted Williams to get his gun back. Douglass did not remember putting
the revolver in a sock and stated that was not something he would have done.
Douglass also did not remember having a box of ammunition with him the
night that he left the revolver in Williams’ car.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1), 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(31), (a)(32), respectively.
-2-
J-S13039-20
Williams testified in his own defense and admitted that the marijuana
and paraphernalia were his but denied knowing that the revolver was in the
glovebox.
The jury found Williams guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced
him to serve 12 to 30 months’ imprisonment on the firearms offense and
concurrent sentences on the marijuana and paraphernalia offenses. He filed
post-sentence motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, both of which
the trial court denied. Williams then filed this appeal to raise sufficiency and
weight of the evidence claims.
Williams first argues that the Commonwealth presented insufficient
evidence to sustain his firearms conviction.2 He contends that the
____________________________________________
2 Our standard of review for a sufficiency claim is well-settled:
When 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.
The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth
need not preclude every possibility of innocence. It is within the
province of the fact-finder 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. As an appellate court, we may not re-weigh the
evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.
Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1112 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal
citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
-3-
J-S13039-20
Commonwealth did not establish that he knew the revolver was in the
glovebox, highlighting that he had the car for only a few weeks; no fingerprints
were found on the gun; and Douglass admitted that he put the revolver in the
glovebox without Williams knowing.
The offense of firearms not to be carried without a license is defined, in
relevant part, as follows:
(1)...any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person
who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in
his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and
lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the
third degree.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a). Where possession is an element of an offense, the
Commonwealth must demonstrate either actual or constructive possession.
See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Because the revolver was not recovered on Williams’ person, the
Commonwealth needed to establish constructive possession.
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.
Id.Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict
winner, the evidence was sufficient to convict of firearms not to be carried
-4-
J-S13039-20
without a license. First, the revolver was discovered wrapped in a sock.
Douglass, however, testified that he would not have wrapped the revolver in
a sock before placing it in the glovebox. See N.T., 1/31/19, at 37. From this
testimony, the jury could infer that Williams knew about or discovered the
revolver in the glovebox after Douglas left it there, and that he then wrapped
it in the sock. Second, a box of ammunition was discovered in the backseat.
Significantly, Trooper Dreisbach testified that it was “out in the open” and was
the same caliber that could be used in the revolver. Id. at 17. Further, when
asked about the ammunition, Douglass did not remember having any with him
the night he left the gun in the glovebox. Id. at 38. Again, like the sock, the
jury could infer that Williams knew about the revolver, especially since there
was matching ammunition exposed in the backseat and there was no evidence
that the ammunition belonged to Douglass.
Additionally, Williams was the sole occupant of the car and admitted he
had been driving it for several weeks, making it more likely that he would
have known or discovered the revolver in the glovebox, which was unlocked.
Williams also lied that there were no drugs in the car, admitting at trial that
he knew about the marijuana and paraphernalia in the trunk but lied because
the trooper had just discovered the gun. Id. at 49. Based on this dishonesty,
the jury could infer a consciousness of guilt. See Commonwealth v. Cruz,
21 A.3d 1247, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficient evidence to convict on illegal
possession of firearm where defendant drove car with no passengers, gun was
-5-
J-S13039-20
found in passenger-side compartment, and defendant lied about his name and
date of birth). Based on the totality of the circumstances, there was sufficient
evidence to establish that Williams constructively possessed the revolver and,
therefore, be convicted of firearms not to be carried without a license.
Next, Williams raises a weight of the evidence claim, arguing he is
entitled to a new trial based on Douglass’ testimony that he left the revolver
in the glovebox without telling Williams.3 Based on the evidence outlined
above, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’ post-
sentence for new trial. Williams was the sole occupant of a car that he
admitted he had been driving for several weeks; he lied to the police about
there being drugs in the car; the revolver was wrapped in a sock that Douglass
testified he would not have put it in; and matching, unconcealed ammunition
was discovered in the backseat.
____________________________________________
3 Our standard of review for a weight of the evidence claim is as follows:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of
discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has
had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an
appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings
and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial
court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or
denying a new trial is the [trial] court’s conviction that the verdict
was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new
trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
Commonwealth v. Horne, 89 A.3d 277, 285 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
-6-
J-S13039-20
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 03/27/2020
-7-