Com. v. Nunez Cisneros, D. ( 2020 )

J-S60018-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID ARTURO NUNEZ CISNEROS
Appellant No. 623 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered February 28, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No: CP-67-CR-0003719-2018
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2020
Appellant, David Arturo Nunez Cisneros, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on February 28, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of York
County after a jury convicted him of delivering heroin. 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(30). Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the
verdict. Alternatively, he claims the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence. Upon review, we affirm.
A review of the record reveals that police officers from the City of York
conducted a drug “buy/walk” on March 28, 2018 outside a residence located
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court
J-S60018-19
at 832 West Locust Street in York.1 Using a confidential informant (“CI”)2 to
execute the buy, officers were stationed at locations designed to keep the CI
in view at all times. One of the officers observed Appellant and the CI interact
in front of the residence. However, construction equipment prevented the
officer from seeing the hands of the two men during their brief interaction.
Appellant then went back into the residence and the CI returned to the
unmarked vehicle in which he had been transported to the scene. The CI,
who had been searched prior to the buy/walk, turned over heroin to the
officer.
At trial, the Commonwealth offered two witnesses. They were Detective
Glatfelter, who searched the CI and drove him to the scene, and Sergeant
Irvin, who observed the CI’s interaction with Appellant. The CI did not testify
and the trial court delivered a “missing witness” jury instruction at the request
of the defense. Appellant did not testify and the defense did not present any
witnesses in its case.
Following deliberations, the jury found Appellant guilty of delivering
heroin. On February 28, 2019, the trial court imposed a sentence of one and
____________________________________________
1 A “buy/walk” is an investigation method in which either a confidential
informant or a police officer uses recorded money to purchase narcotics while
under surveillance. Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), Trial, 1/24/19, at 97-98.
2 At trial, the CI was not identified by name. However, testimony established
that the CI was a male. N.T., Trial, 1/24/19, at 101-02. Therefore, when
referring to the CI in this Memorandum, we shall use “he” and “him.”
-2-
J-S60018-19
a half to three years’ incarceration. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion
challenging the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion on
March 29, 2019. This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant asks us to consider two issues in this appeal, both of which he
frames as statements rather than questions, as follows:
1. The evidence was insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to
convict Appellant of Delivery of Drugs. Even taking the
evidence in [the] light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
the search of the [CI] prior to and after a “buy-walk” situation
failed to demonstrate the CI did not already have or did not
obtain drugs from another source. Moreover, the observations
of the “buy-walk” between the [CI] and Appellant failed to
demonstrate that [an] actual drug transaction occurred
between the two.
2. The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s request for a new
trial. The weight of evidence did not prove Appellant delivered
heroin to a [CI] during a “buy-walk” because (1) the testimony
of the search of the [CI] before and after the “buy-walk” did
not demonstrate the informant did already not have or did not
obtain drugs from another source, and (2) the testimony of the
“buy-walk” between the informant and Appellant failed to
demonstrate that an actual drug transaction occurred between
the two.
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence. Our
standard of review for a sufficiency challenge is as follows:
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court
must determine whether the evidence, and all reasonable
inferences deducible from that, viewed in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish
all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It
[is] incumbent upon the Superior Court to consider all of the
-3-
J-S60018-19
evidence introduced at the time of trial, and apparently believed
by the fact finder, including the expert’s testimony. In applying
this standard, [the reviewing court must] bear in mind that: the
Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence; the entire trial record should be
evaluated and all evidence received considered, whether or not
the trial court’s ruling thereon were correct; and the trier of fact,
while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of
the proof, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233, 1237 (Pa. 2007) (internal
citations and quotations omitted; second alteration in original). “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).
Appellant focuses his sufficiency challenge on specific aspects of the
officers’ actions and testimony. With respect to Detective Glatfelter, for
example, he complains that the detective offered testimony explaining his
general procedure in conducting the search of a CI, rather than what he did
specifically in his search of the CI in this case, and questions the detective’s
failure to check the CI’s underwear. However, as the detective explained, he
conducts approximately 500 controlled buys in a year—some with CIs and
some without—and he employs a certain routine depending on how the CI
presents, e.g., whether he is wearing a hat, in which case he checks the hat
band, and whether his clothes are bulky, in which case he pats down the
clothing. N.T., Trial, 1/24/19, at 104. And, while he has seen drugs hidden
in underwear, he does not generally search areas that cannot be easily
-4-
J-S60018-19
accessed. As the detective noted, the CI is under surveillance and the officers
can see what the CI is doing. Id. at 103. “We’re not going to search
somebody, do a cavity search where they may have to walk down the street
and dig into their rectum to pull out drugs to later try to pass off as what they
bought.” Id.
With respect to Sergeant Irvin, Appellant complains that the detective
did not witness an actual hand-to-hand transaction, i.e., the delivery of the
controlled substance, because his view of the CI’s and Appellant’s hands was
blocked by construction equipment. However, from his vantage point
approximately twenty feet away, the sergeant did observe the CI and
Appellant engage in a brief interaction lasting five to ten seconds at a distance
of one foot to a foot and a half. Id. at 146-47. He was able to see that their
arms were moving and that they were looking down at their hands. Id. at
147. Importantly, testimony established that this interaction was the only
interaction in which the CI was engaged from the time he left Detective
Glatfelter’s car until he returned to it. Id. at 147.
It is well established that “the Commonwealth may sustain its burden of
proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of
wholly circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312,
319 n. 2 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d
759, 767 (Pa. Super. 2016)). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable
to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we conclude there was sufficient
-5-
J-S60018-19
evidence for the jury to conclude that Appellant delivered heroin without
authority to do so in violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). Appellant’s
sufficiency challenge fails.
In his second issue, Appellant asserts that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence, a claim he preserved for review by raising it in a post-
sentence motion.3 As our Supreme Court has instructed:
An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a
weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review
applied by the trial court:
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 lower 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. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Widmer,
744 A.2d at 753 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original)).
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court commented:
When examining the evidence presented at trial, there was
sufficient evidence for a jury to find [Appellant] guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. The CI was under constant surveillance during
____________________________________________
3 We note that “[a] motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is
contrary to the weight of the evidence, concedes that there is sufficient
evidence to sustain the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745,
751 (Pa. 2000).
-6-
J-S60018-19
the buy-walk and did not interact with any person other than
[Appellant]. Detective Glatfelter searched the CI immediately
before the buy and no drugs were found on the CI. The CI was
also searched upon returning to the vehicle and, other than the
heroin turned over to Glatfelter as a result of the buy, no drugs
were found as a result of that search of the CI.
Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 6/27/19, at 8.
Further, following argument on Appellant’s post-sentence motion, the
trial court announced:
Essentially what this comes down to in this trial is a credibility
determination. The – because the defense did some effective
cross examination there, the jury could have chosen to find that
the officers’ memory was faulty and that they were going to
choose not to find that there was an adequate search, but they
didn’t.
The evidence in the case was not so strong that that was the only
conclusion, however. It doesn’t rise to the level that, as the
defense argues, that there was a serious miscarriage of justice or
that there was only one conclusion that there could have been –
that there was an inadequate search.
[E]ven in her own argument right now, [] the defense counsel
invoked the key word, credibility. It’s a credibility determination.
That’s up to the jury. The judge does not replace their view of
credibility for that of the jury.
Under the rule cited by the defense, if it does rise to the level that
these is a serious miscarriage of justice, in other words, if there is
a verdict against the weight of the evidence, the court can
intervene. The court doesn’t find that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence.
N.T., Post-Sentence Motion, 3/29/19, at 8-9 (some capitalization omitted).
Having given due consideration to the findings and reasons advanced
by the trial court, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial
-7-
J-S60018-19
of Appellant’s motion for a new trial based on weight of the evidence.
Therefore, Appellant’s second issue fails.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/21/2020
-8-