Com. v. Underwood, K. ( 2020 )

J-S36031-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
KEVIN UNDERWOOD :
:
Appellant : No. 1891 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 9, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-CR-0000779-2019
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED AUGUST 17, 2020
Kevin Underwood (Underwood) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) after
his jury conviction of Contraband and Possession of a Controlled Substance by
a Person Not Registered.1 Specifically, he challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
I.
We take the following factual background and procedural history from
the trial court’s February 21, 2020 opinion and our independent review of the
record. On January 7, 2019, the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a) and 35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(16), respectively.
J-S36031-20
against Underwood charging him with the above crimes for an incident that
occurred on April 5, 2018, at the State Correctional Institution Fayette (SCI
Fayette) where he is an inmate. Underwood filed a Request for Discovery on
May 15, 2019, in which he sought the names and addresses of any witnesses,
along with copies of their statements, any statements made by Underwood,
police reports and any physical evidence including “fingerprint comparison
tests, all photographs [and] drawings.” (Request for Discovery, 5/15/19, at
1). The Commonwealth submitted the identified materials in its possession
on November 5, 2019, and the Public Defender’s Office verified receipt of it.
The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial on November 6, 2019. The
Commonwealth presented the testimony of Lieutenant Albert Wood, Officer
Garland and Captain Frank Salvay.2
Lieutenant Wood testified that on the day in question, he was serving in
his capacity as the acting Security Officer at SCI Fayette on the 13:00 to 21:00
shift. (See N.T. Trial, 11/06/19, at 8-9). The trial court explained:
The Security Department is responsible for safety in the
daily activities in the prison. (See id. at 9). Lieutenant Wood
testified that Contraband found in the confines of a prison may
include money, weapons, or drugs. (See id.). Lieutenant Wood
stated that the Security Department is the information gathering
organization within the prison, much like an internal police force.
(See id. at 9-10). [On April 5, 2018, t]he Security Department
received information from an anonymous informant stating that
____________________________________________
2 Trooper Melinda Churney testified on behalf of the Commonwealth regarding
the K2. However, because this is not relevant to the issue before the Court,
we will not discuss her testimony here.
-2-
J-S36031-20
[Underwood] was in possession of K2, a synthetic cannabinoid.
(See id. at 12). It is common for Security to receive these kinds
of anonymous tips. (See id. at 11-12). Upon receipt of this
information, Lieutenant Wood and his staff began to investigate
by moving into a hub area outside of the cell where [Underwood]
was quartered. The security team waited in this area until
[Underwood] exited his cell on his way to the yard for activities.
Once [Underwood] arrived in the hub, the security team
restrained [him] and escorted him to the strip and search area.
(See id. at 12). The security team assisting Lieutenant Wood
consisted of Officer Garland, Officer Patterson, and Lieutenant
Lowden. (See id. at 15).
[Underwood] was placed into the strip search area, where
he was searched. (See id. at 16-17). [He] removed each article
of clothing individually and hand[ed] them through a small
aperture [to the officers waiting to receive them outside the room.
Underwood was the only person in the room with access to this
slot.] (See id. at 17). When [Underwood] handed his underwear,
a sock fell. [No one but the lieutenant and Officer Garland touched
the sock. (See id. at 19).] When [Officer Garland] picked up the
sock and handed it to Lieutenant Wood, the lieutenant] could feel
something inside of it. (See id. at 17-18). This product was found
to be contraband, later identified as K2. (See id. at 18).
(Trial Court Opinion, 2/21/20, at 2-3) (record citation formatting and some
record citations provided).
On cross-examination, Lieutenant Wood asserted that there is a camera
in the hub area and that cameras record the walkway to the strip search area.
(See id. at 27-29). He stated that at the time of trial, there was a security
camera in the strip search area, but that he was unsure about whether there
was one there at the time Underwood was there. (See id. at 27, 29). He did
not request that any videotapes be preserved because it would have been
Security Captain Frank Salvay’s responsibility to do so if necessary. (See id.
at 30).
-3-
J-S36031-20
Officer Garland’s testimony about the incident with Underwood was
consistent with that of Lieutenant Wood in all salient respects, i.e., that they
received a tip that Underwood possessed contraband, they originally
encountered him in the hub area and that they escorted him to the secure
strip search area. (See id. at 44-47). Underwood entered the secured room
alone and then handed his clothes to the officers through an aperture in the
locked door. (See id. at 49). The room has a glass window through which
the officers could see Underwood the entire time. (See id.). As Underwood
handed out his clothing, what appeared to be a rolled-up sock dropped out
and onto the floor, and as Officer Garland bent down to pick it up, Officer
Wood also did so and secured the sock. (See id. at 50-51). Although Officer
Garland’s hand brushed the sock as the lieutenant picked it up, he did not see
the contraband. (See id. at 53). He stated that at the time of trial, there
were two cameras in the strip search room, but that on April 5, 2018, there
was only one and it was pointed toward another area than the one where the
incident occurred. (See id. at 54). He also testified that although there were
cameras between the hub and the secured strip search area, the cameras
point in different directions, so whether they recorded the officers escorting
Underwood depends on where they were pointing at the time. (See id. at
54).
Captain Salvay gathered intelligence regarding any issues that occurred
at SCI Fayette, communicated it to law enforcement, and provided the
-4-
J-S36031-20
Pennsylvania State Police with any incident-related evidence. (See id. at 59-
60). He testified that at the time of the April 5, 2018 incident, there was no
camera in the area where the officers performed the search, and that any
testimony that a camera existed at that time was incorrect. (See id. at 60-
61, 63). He explained that the system has since been upgraded and that by
the time of trial, two had been placed in the strip and search area, one in the
room where Underwood removed his clothes and handed them out to the
officers and one in the adjoining cell area from which officers conduct
searches. (See id. at 61, 63-64). Captain Salvay said there is no policy about
recording inmates when they are strip-searched. (See id. at 64).
He also testified that the Pennsylvania State Police did not request that
he preserve camera footage from the walkway between the hub and the
security area on the date of the incident, and that any such footage no longer
existed because the tapes automatically re-write every 15 to 20 days. (See
id. at 62). The Security Captain explained that he would only have saved
video of that day from the walkway if there had been any incident there, but
since there was not, any tape would have been irrelevant and would have just
been allowed to rewrite itself as part of the usual procedure. (See id. at 62-
63, 65-67). He also confirmed that Underwood never made any complaints
about anything occurring with the officers during the April 5, 2018 incident in
either the walkway, the strip search area or anywhere else. (See id. at 69).
-5-
J-S36031-20
On April 7, 2018, at the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted Underwood
of the foregoing charges. The court sentenced him to a term of incarceration
of not less than 18 nor more than 48 months on December 9, 2019.
Underwood did not file a post-sentence motion, but he timely appealed on
December 26, 2019. He and the court complied with Rule 1925. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
II.
On appeal, Underwood raises one question for our review in which he
maintains that the evidence3 was not legally or factually sufficient to support
____________________________________________
3 Our standard of review of this matter is well-settled:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in
the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient
evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we
may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the
fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt
may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may
be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
considered. Finally, the finder 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.
-6-
J-S36031-20
his conviction. Specifically, he argues that SCI failed to preserve video
evidence, allowing for its spoliation, and that, although multiple officers were
involved in the search, only one officer testified that the contraband was found
on him. (See Underwood’s Brief, at 6).
A.
We address Underwood’s spoliation issue first.4 Spoliation is “the non-
preservation or significant alteration of evidence[5] for pending or future
litigation[,]” that authorizes “trial courts to exercise their discretion to impose
a range of sanctions against the spoliator.” Marshall v. Brown’s IA, LLC,
____________________________________________
Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 557 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal
denied, 217 A.3d 2020 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted).
4 Underwood fails to provide any pertinent legal citation or discussion thereof
in support of his spoliation claim or to identify where he raised the spoliation
issue in the trial court in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), (2119(a), (e)). In fact, the certified
record provided to this Court does not contain any argument by defense
counsel that spoliation warranting sanctions occurred. See Commonwealth
v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122, 126 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“It is black letter law
in this jurisdiction that an appellate court cannot consider anything which is
not part of the record in the case. That is because for purposes of appellate
review, what is not of record does not exist.”) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). Therefore, the claim is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)
(“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal.”). However, although the trial court did not have the
opportunity to address this issue, we will briefly address its merits.
5 “Evidence is relevant if it tends to establish a material fact, makes a fact at
issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or
presumption regarding a material fact.” Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 959
A.2d 916, 923 (Pa. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1258 (2009) (citation
omitted).
-7-
J-S36031-20
213 A.3d 263, 267-68 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 226 A.3d 568 (Pa.
2020) (citations omitted). If spoliation has occurred, three factors must be
considered in assessing the proper penalty: “(1) the degree of fault of the
party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice
suffered by the opposing party; and (3) whether there is a lesser sanction that
will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 268.
Instantly, it is not clear that a video of the incident existed in the first
place or that, if a video camera was nearby, that it was facing the area in
which the search occurred, thus containing evidence relevant to this litigation.
Underwood asserts that Lieutenant Wood testified that there are cameras “all
over the prison,” including in the hub, the walk to the strip search area and
the strip search area itself, that the officers regularly watch them and that
handling requests for them are part of his normal procedure. (See
Underwood’s Brief, at 8-9). However, our review reflects that even if there
were cameras located throughout the prison, none of them was in the strip
search area and that, contrary to Underwood’s characterization of the facts,
Lieutenant Wood expressly stated that the decision to preserve a relevant
video to supply to the Pennsylvania State Police was Captain Salvay’s
responsibility, not his.
In fact, Captain Salvay, the Security Captain, testified that there was no
camera in the strip search area at the time of the incident, there was no policy
for recording strip searches, and that Underwood did not complain that
-8-
J-S36031-20
anything inappropriate occurred in the walkway or anywhere else. The
Security Captain also stated that the testimony that there was a camera in
the strip search area that was not pointed in the incident’s direction was
incorrect because the prison had updated its security system to include such
a camera only sometime after this incident happened. Hence, he stated,
because any cameras that they had at that time would have been in the
walkway or hub, they would not have contained relevant tapes of the strip
search that needed to be preserved for litigation of this matter.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the automatic overwriting of prison
video tapes was not spoliation where it did not destroy relevant evidence for
the foreseeable litigation against Underwood. Therefore, even if Underwood
had preserved his spoliation issue by raising it in the trial court, it would not
have merited relief.6
____________________________________________
6 In fact, Underwood does not identify exactly what relevant evidence the
cameras would have contained other than that which would have bolstered
the officers’ testimony. It appears that he is conducting a fishing expedition.
He never claimed at any time that the officers did anything inappropriate
during his strip search or that they planted the illegal drugs on him.
-9-
J-S36031-20
B.
The crux of Underwood’s argument appears to be that because there
was conflicting testimony about what occurred during the incident, and only
one officer witnessed the contraband, the lack of a videotape to show
definitely what occurred results in a “mere[] . . . suspicion of guilt” that is
insufficient to support his conviction. (Underwood’s Brief, at 10) (citation
omitted); (see id. at 9-10). We disagree.
Section 5123 of the Crimes Code, Contraband, provides, in pertinent
part that “[a] prisoner or inmate commits a felony of the second degree if he
unlawfully has in his possession or under his control any controlled substance
in violation of [35 P.S. § 780–113(a)(16)].” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a.2). The
intent of subsection 5123(a.2) is to prevent “inmates [from] obtaining any
controlled substance in any amount whatsoever; in other words, the
contraband statute seeks absolute abstinence by inmates[.]”
Commonwealth v. Cornelius, 180 A.3d 1256, 1260 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Possession of a controlled
substance can be established by showing either actual or constructive
possession. Actual possession is established by showing that the defendant
had the controlled substance on his person, while constructive possession can
be proved through a showing that the defendant exercised dominion over the
substance. See Commonwealth v. Ocasio, 619 A.2d 352, 354 (Pa. Super.
1993). The intent required to show a conscious dominion and control over
- 10 -
J-S36031-20
the controlled substances may be inferred from the totality of the
circumstances. See id.
Underwood maintains that there were conflicting details about who
picked up the sock that contained the contraband and who observed the
contraband, with only one officer testifying that he observed the illegal
substance. (See Underwood’s Brief, at 9-10). He argues that these
inconsistencies, combined with the failure to preserve the videotape, results
in a “mere[] . . . suspicion of guilt” and that, therefore, the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction. (Id. at 10) (citation omitted). We
disagree.
First, there is nothing in the Contraband statute that requires the
Commonwealth to provide video evidence or mandates that a certain number
of witnesses must testify to witnessing the violation. In fact, Underwood’s
argument goes more to the weight to be afforded to the Commonwealth’s
evidence than its sufficiency. See Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d
1031, 1038 (Pa. 2014) (contradictions and inconsistencies in testimony go to
weight, not sufficiency). Moreover, our review of the notes of testimony
referenced by Underwood reveals that the officers’ testimony was consistent
about the salient details of the incident.
The Commonwealth presented officer testimony that after receiving an
anonymous tip that Underwood possessed K2, a synthetic cannabinoid
controlled substance, the SCI Fayette officers performed a search of him.
- 11 -
J-S36031-20
During that search, a packet of K2 wrapped in a sock fell from Underwood’s
underwear as he was handing it to them. The jury was free to believe all,
some or none of this evidence in passing upon the credibility of witnesses and
the weight of the evidence produced, and this Court will not re-weigh the
evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.
Hence, based on the foregoing and after our own independent review of
the record, we conclude that the trial court properly found that the evidence
was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Underwood’s issue lacks merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/17/2020
- 12 -