Com. v. Wiley, J. ( 2017 )

J. S25044/17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JARED WILEY, : No. 3667 EDA 2015
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, November 4, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0003396-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2017
Jared Wiley appeals the judgment of sentence in which the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sentenced him to no further penalty
for convictions of firearms not to be carried without a license and carrying
firearms in public in Philadelphia.1 After careful review, we reverse.
The record reflects that on January 30, 2015 at approximately
2:00 a.m., Officer Thomas Bergey (“Officer Bergey”) and his partner of the
City of Philadelphia Police Department were on patrol in the 2100 block of
North 29th Street in the City of Philadelphia. Officer Bergey pulled over a
gold 1998 Mercedes-Benz for a motor vehicle violation because it had only
one operational brake light. Appellant was the driver of the vehicle. There
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 6108, respectively.
J. S25044/17
was a passenger, Andrew Robinson (“Robinson”), in the front passenger seat
of the vehicle. (Id. at 37-38.) Officer Bergey requested that he produce his
license and registration. Appellant did not produce a driver’s license.
Appellant did produce a wallet. Officer Bergey took the wallet and asked
appellant for his birthdate. The birthdate did not match the date of birth
that was on the permit to carry firearms that was in the wallet. The name
on the permit to carry was Marasailles Burton (“Burton”). The vehicle was
registered to Burton. Officer Bergey returned to the driver’s side of the
vehicle and asked for proper information. Appellant then identified himself
by name. After Officer Bergey saw the identification of Burton as a
corrections officer, he asked if there was a firearm in the car. (Notes of
testimony, 11/3/15 at 30-34.) Appellant replied affirmatively and said that
the firearm “was on the driver’s side in between the door frame and the
driver’s seat itself -- down towards the floor.” (Id. at 34.) Officer Bergey
opened the door, saw the firearm, and removed it. (Id. at 35.) Appellant
told Officer Bergey that he had a permit to carry that was issued in Florida.
When the police checked for a permit issued to appellant in Florida, the
search revealed no such permit. (Id. at 36.) Approximately ten to fifteen
minutes after the vehicle was stopped, Burton appeared at the scene. When
Officer Bergey questioned him, Burton replied that appellant did not have his
permission to take the firearm or the vehicle. (Id. at 37.)
-2-
J. S25044/17
Appellant was arrested and charged with two counts of theft by
unlawful taking--moveable property, receiving stolen property, unauthorized
use of a motor vehicle, and providing false identification to a law
enforcement officer in addition to the two crimes for which he was
convicted.2
On November 3, 2015, the trial court conducted a bench trial. Burton
testified that he had known appellant for nine years and considered him a
friend. (Id. at 8.) Burton testified that on January 30, 2015, he and
appellant had been “driving around, going to different friends’ house [sic].
Then when we went to start to close the night out, we went to pick up
[Robinson].” (Id. at 10.) Burton testified that he had never allowed
appellant to drive one of his cars when Burton was not in the car. (Id. at
11.) On the night of January 30, 2015, Burton drove appellant and Robinson
to appellant’s residence. Burton testified that he was carrying a firearm.
After talking for a while at appellant’s residence, the three fell asleep.
Before falling asleep, Burton removed his firearm from his “rig” or utility belt
and put the firearm by his head along with his car keys. (Id. at 14.) Burton
testified that he did not give appellant permission to take either his firearm
or his car. (Id. at 14-15.) After appellant was pulled over, he telephoned
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(a), 3925(a), 3928(a), and 4914(a), respectively.
-3-
J. S25044/17
Burton who ran to the site of the vehicle. (Id. at 16.) Burton identified his
firearm for the police. (Id. at 18.)3
Appellant called Robinson as a witness. He testified that appellant is
his brother. (Id. at 48.) Robinson testified that appellant and Burton “were
tight. Every time you see [appellant], you see [Burton]. You see them
together if they’re not working.” (Id. at 50.) Robinson testified that he had
seen appellant drive Burton’s cars by himself in the past. (Id. at 51.) On
the night of January 30, 2015, Robinson did not see Burton’s gun. He did
not know that the gun was in the car, and he did not see it on Burton’s
person. (Id. at 58.)
Appellant testified that he knew that there was a gun in Burton’s car
because Burton usually kept a gun there. (Id. at 74.) Appellant believed
that appellant had a valid Florida license to carry a firearm. (Id. at 77.)
Appellant did not touch the gun on January 30, 2015. (Id. at 86.)
The trial court stated, “I barely believe anything [Burton] said.” (Id.
at 90.) The trial court found appellant guilty on the firearms charges and
not guilty on the other charges. The trial court sentenced appellant to no
further penalty.
Appellant appealed to this court and filed a statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court
issued an opinion in response.
3
Officer Bergey testified regarding the traffic stop and arrest.
-4-
J. S25044/17
Appellant raises the following issue for this court’s review: “Was not
the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to sustain appellant’s convictions
for violating the Uniform Firearms Act when there was no evidence that
appellant had actual or constructive possession of the firearm, and appellant
reasonably believed that he had a valid permit to carry a firearm?”
(Appellant’s brief at 4.)
With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence, we observe:
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
we view all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict
winner, to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to enable the factfinder to find every
element of the crime established beyond a
reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Thomas,
867 A.2d 594 (Pa.Super. 2005). “This standard is
equally applicable to cases where the evidence is
circumstantial rather than direct so long as the
combination of the evidence links the accused to the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 597. And
while a conviction must be based on more than mere
suspicion or conjecture, the Commonwealth need not
establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. Id.quoting Commonwealth v. Coon, 695 A.2d 794,
797 (Pa.Super. 1997). This Court is not free to
substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder; if
the record contains support for the convictions they
may not be disturbed. Id. citing Commonwealth v.
Marks, 704 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Pa.Super. 1997) and
Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 510 Pa. 305, 308, 507
A.2d 1212, 1213 (1986). Lastly, the factfinder is
free to believe some, all, or none of the evidence.
Id.Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800, 803-804 (Pa.Super. 2006).
-5-
J. S25044/17
With respect to constructive possession, this court has held:
When contraband is not found on the
defendant’s person, the Commonwealth must
establish “constructive possession,” that is, the
power to control the contraband and the intent to
exercise that control. Commonwealth v. Valette,
531 Pa. 384, 613 A.2d 548 (1992). The fact that
another person may also have control and access
does not eliminate the defendant’s constructive
possession . . . . As with any other element of a
crime, constructive possession may be proven by
circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v.
Macolino, 503 Pa. 201, 469 A.2d 132 (1983). The
requisite knowledge and intent may be inferred from
the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth
v. Thompson, 286 Pa.Super. 31, 428 A.2d 223(1981).
Commonwealth v. Haskins, 677 A.2d 328, 330 (Pa.Super. 1996), appeal
denied, 692 A.2d 563 (Pa. 1997).
Section 6106 of the Crimes Code provides:
§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a
license
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), 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.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible
to possess a valid license under
this chapter but carries a firearm in
-6-
J. S25044/17
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 and has not
committed any other criminal
violation commits a misdemeanor
of the first degree.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106.
Section 6108 of the Crimes Code provides
§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or
public property in Philadelphia
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at
any time upon the public streets or upon any public
property in a city of the first class unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a
firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing
under section 6106(b) of this title
(relating to firearms not to be carried
without a license).
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.
Therefore, in order to establish that appellant violated these firearm
statutes, the Commonwealth had to present evidence sufficient to show that
appellant carried a concealed weapon on his person or in the car without
possessing a valid license to do so. Appellant concedes that he was aware
that the firearm was in the vehicle when he took Burton’s car to get
something to drink. However, he argues that he had no intent to exercise
-7-
J. S25044/17
any control over the firearm, and the Commonwealth failed to present any
evidence that he did.
The trial court reasoned:
Here, we accepted [appellant’s] testimony that
he had permission to use the car, that he knew
Burton kept the gun in the car and that he knew the
gun was in the car when he drove the vehicle. Those
facts established the circumstances of [appellant’s]
constructive possession of the gun. While we
understood that [appellant’s] direct intent was to
possess the car, the fact that he knew the gun was
in the car established his constructive possession of
the gun and thus violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106 and
[] 6108.
The facts of this case are somewhat unique, in
that [appellant] borrowed a friend’s car, in which
that friend kept his lawfully owned and carried gun,
and that the gun was unloaded, and separated from
the magazine within the passenger compartment.
We also accepted that the presence of the gun was
incidental to [appellant’s] goal -- use of his friend’s
car with permission. Although we took all of those
factors into account in imposing the sentence of no
further penalty, we could not ignore the fact that
[appellant] knowingly took constructive possession
of the gun, in violation of the law.
Trial court opinion, 5/18/16 at 5.
Appellant argues that the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial,
failed to establish that he had “conscious dominion” over the firearm as
there was no evidence to establish an intent to exercise control over the
firearm. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 430 (Pa.Super.
2012).
-8-
J. S25044/17
In Commonwealth v. Boatwright, 453 A.2d 1058 (Pa.Super. 1982),
this court addressed constructive possession in the context of firearms in a
vehicle. In Boatwright, police officers responded to a radio call that three
“suspicious” men were in an automobile parked in front of a residence in the
Hazelwood section of the City of Pittsburgh. When Officer Charles Roller
(“Officer Roller”) arrived at the location of the car, he observed
Albert Boatwright (“Boatwright”) sitting in the front passenger seat of the
car. Officer Roller observed Boatwright “moving towards his left rear.”
Officer Roller just observed the movement of Boatwright’s body. When
Officer Roller opened the car door, he shined a light into the vehicle and saw
a gun on the left rear floor. In addition to Boatwright, the vehicle was
occupied by the driver and another passenger. The firearm was registered
to an individual who was not in the vehicle. Boatwright was convicted in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County of carrying a firearm without a
license. Id. at 1058-1059.
Boatwright appealed to this court which reversed:
Because the firearm was not found on
appellant’s person, he could properly be convicted
only if the Commonwealth proved joint constructive
possession with the other occupants of the vehicle.
To do this, the Commonwealth must present
evidence to show that appellant had both the power
to control the firearm and the intent to exercise that
control. Mere presence at the scene where the gun
was found is not sufficient. The only evidence other
than mere presence was Officer Roller’s testimony
that [Boatwright] made a movement toward the left
rear of the vehicle. This evidence cannot provide
-9-
J. S25044/17
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [Boatwright]
possessed the firearm in question. Therefore, the
conviction cannot be sustained.
Id. at 1059 (citations omitted).
In evaluating whether the evidence presented was sufficient to
establish possession of the firearm, the evidence must be evaluated in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Here, there is no question that
appellant was driving the vehicle that contained a firearm that belonged to
Burton. It is also undisputed that appellant was aware that the firearm was
in the vehicle. However, a review of the evidence presented by the
Commonwealth reveals no evidence that indicates that appellant intended to
exercise control over the firearm. He and Robinson were traveling in the
vehicle to get something to drink. As this court held in Boatwright, mere
presence is not enough to establish constructive possession.
The Commonwealth argues that Burton’s testimony that appellant took
the firearm when they fell asleep at the apartment is sufficient evidence to
establish that appellant had an intent to exercise control over the firearm.
The Commonwealth further argues that it is irrelevant that the trial court,
while conducting a bench trial, explicitly did not credit Burton’s testimony.
The trier of fact, in this case the trial court, is free to believe, all, part,
or none of the evidence presented when making credibility determinations.
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39, 45 (Pa.Super. 2016). In
deciding a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court may not reweigh the
- 10 -
J. S25044/17
evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 153 A.3d 372, 375 (Pa.Super. 2016). Here,
the Commonwealth is asking this court to ignore the credibility
determination made by the trial court at time of trial, not in post-trial
motions, and reweigh the evidence in the form of Burton’s testimony. This
court may not do so.4
Judgment of sentence reversed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/15/2017
4
Because we have resolved that appellant did not possess the firearm, we
need not address whether appellant possessed or thought he possessed a
Florida license to carry a concealed weapon.
- 11 -