Com. v. Henderson, L. ( 2020 )

J-S45006-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LAKHAWN HENDERSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1541 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 16, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0009577-2017
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2020
Lakhawn Henderson appeals from the judgment of sentence of four to
eight years of imprisonment imposed following his convictions for possession
with intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”) and conspiracy to
commit PWID. We affirm.
Philadelphia Police used a confidential informant to make two controlled
buys of marijuana from different individuals inside the residence at 2244 N.
12th Street. Using the information thereby acquired, the police obtained a
warrant to search the property. When they executed it the next day, Appellant
was arrested on the front porch. The search resulted in the seizure from one
of the property’s bedrooms of a backpack containing marijuana, crack cocaine
packaged for individual sale, other drug paraphernalia, along with Appellant’s
identification card, birth certificate, and other identifying documents. The
documents listed an address for Appellant other than 2244 N. 12th Street.
J-S45006-20
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with PWID, conspiracy, and three
other counts which were ultimately nolle prossed. At trial, a jury convicted
Appellant of PWID and conspiracy, and the trial judge sentenced him as
indicated above. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, and then a
timely notice of appeal after the trial court denied the motion. Both Appellant
and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents two questions for our review:
1. Was there sufficient evidence to prove constructive
possession of the drugs here to prove the crime of [PWID] beyond
a reasonable doubt?
2. Did the trial court err in finding that the warrant for 2244 N.
12th Street was issued with probable cause despite its lack of
details about the property and its insides?
Appellant’s brief at 3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
The following informs our review of Appellant’s claims of error. As to
Appellant’s sufficiency challenge, we bear in mind:
Because a determination of evidentiary sufficiency presents a
question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope
of review is plenary. 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 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. Moreover, as an appellate court, we may not re-weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
finder.
-2-
J-S45006-20
Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 305-06 (Pa.Super. 2017)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
As to Appellant’s suppression question, we observe:
An appellate court’s standard of review in addressing a
challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to
determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn
from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth
prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the
evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for
the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context
of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court’s factual
findings are supported by the record, the appellate court is bound
by those findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal
conclusions are erroneous. Where the appeal of the determination
of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the
suppression court’s legal conclusions are not binding on an
appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression
court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions
of law of the courts below are subject to plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2017) (cleaned
up).
After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs and
the pertinent law, we discern no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the
trial court as to the issues raised by Appellant, and we affirm the judgment of
sentence on the basis of the cogent and well-reasoned opinion that Honorable
Susan I. Schulman entered on November 18, 2019.
Specifically, Judge Schulman thoroughly and accurately reviewed the
applicable law and the evidence offered at trial, and concluded that there was
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Appellant possessed the
-3-
J-S45006-20
drugs found in his backpack, and that he did so with the intent to deliver them.
See Trial Court Opinion, 11/18/19, at 2-7, 12-16. Further, Judge Schulman
explained that Appellant’s suppression motion lacked merit based upon the
law applicable to the validity of search warrants and the contents of the
affidavit of probable cause detailing the evidence of drug sales being made
out of the residence searched. Id. at 8-12. As to all of the foregoing points,
we adopt Judge Schulman’s reasoning as our own.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/23/2020
-4-
Circulated 11/30/2020 09:08 AM