Com. v. Williams, A.

J-S04038-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
AARON WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 892 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0012350-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2022
Aaron Williams appeals from the April 26, 2019 aggregate judgment of
sentence of 3½ to 7 years’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years’ probation,
imposed after he was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver a
controlled substance (“PWID”) and seven counts of possessing instruments of
crime (“PIC”).1 After careful review, we affirm the judgement of sentence.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:
On November 20, 2015, at about 7:00 a.m.,
Pennsylvania State Parole Officer Timothy Stevenson
and several other law enforcement personnel went to
a residence locate at 1336 North Allison Street to
serve an arrest warrant and a DNA search warrant on
Trevon Bostic[k], [A]ppellant’s brother. While there,
the agent and other members of his team did not
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a), respectively.
J-S04038-22
encounter Bostick but did interact with [A]ppellant,
who was inside the residence at the time.
Philadelphia Police Detective Carl Watkins was a
member of the team that went to 1336 North Allison
Street. He and the other law enforcement officers
entered the residence and saw [A]ppellant, who had
come from the residence’s second floor. After the
team secured the first floor, Detective Watkins, along
with Detective Tom Price went to the residence’s
second floor where [A]ppellant said he had come from
when police saw him.
Once on the second floor Detective Watkins went to
the rear bedroom and began checking for persons
therein which included turning over a mattress to see
if anyone was hiding under the bed. When he
overturned the mattress he observed a pistol and an
extended magazine that was in plain view. He
informed Detective Price about seeing the gun and
when Detective Price came around to the side of the
bed where the gun was situated, both detectives
observed a casserole plate that had a white substance
on it that tested positive for the presence of cocaine.
Both detectives bagged up the crack cocaine and left
it and the gun in the locations where they observed
them. They then informed the parole supervising
agent about what they had seen and he contacted the
Philadelphia Police Department’s Narcotics Unit.
Philadelphia Police Officer Joseph McCook of the
Narcotics Field Unit, upon being informed about what
the two above mentioned detectives observed,
obtained a search warrant for the residence. He and
other officers executed the warrant about 11:30 a.m.,
on November 20, 2015. The search resulted in the
seizure of the gun, which was loaded, the extended
clip, which had twenty-six bullets in it, and the alleged
crack cocaine observed by the detectives in the
second floor back bedroom.
Police also recovered from that room and a middle
bedroom[:] 1.) another loaded magazine clip; 2.) a
loaded Colt AR 15 that had twenty-four bullets in an
-2-
J-S04038-22
attached magazine; 3.) a Ruger handgun loaded with
six bullets; 4.) a Mossberg .12 gauge shotgun; 168
bags filled with what testing revealed to be just over
seven grams of heroin from a shelf on top of a bureau;
6.) two identifications cards containing the name
[Aaron] Williams; two scales; 7.) mail addressed to
[A]ppellant; and 8.) items used in a drug operation
such as spoons, razors, a knife, a dust mask, a
grinder, a cooking pot, Pyrex glassware, and three
plates, some of which contained drug residue on
them. Small unused and new Ziploc bags, an ink
stamp, and gloves were seized from a middle
bedroom. Finally, police recovered three handguns
and ammunition from the first floor of the residence.
The amount of the drugs recovered had a street value
of $208,879 dollars and an expert testified that the
drugs were possessed for distribution and sale based
on the totality of circumstances.
Trial court opinion, 10/22/20 at 2-3 (citations to notes of testimony and
footnotes omitted).
On April 14, 2016, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion to
suppress all the physical evidence seized by police in connection with the
execution of the search warrant at the North Allison Street residence.
Following a hearing, the suppression court denied Appellant’s motion on
November 3, 2016. Appellant waived his right to a jury and proceeded to
bench trial on November 20, 2018. Following a one-day bench trial, the trial
court found Appellant guilty of PWID and seven counts of PIC. As noted,
Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 3½ to 7 years’
imprisonment, followed by 3 years’ probation, on April 26, 2019.
Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
Following the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc,
-3-
J-S04038-22
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 9, 2020. On July 13, 2020,
the trial court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant
filed his timely Rule 1925(b) statement on August 4, 2020, and the trial court
filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 22, 2020.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
[1.] Whether the [trial] court erred in finding the
Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
where it was established that multiple
individuals had access to the domicile and there
is no evidence that the Appellant ever handled
any of the narcotics or weapons[?]
Appellant’s brief at 6.2
Our standard of review in evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence is as follows:
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, is sufficient to prove every element of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an
appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
finder. Any question of doubt is for the fact-finder
unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that
as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn
from the combined circumstances.
____________________________________________
2Appellant has indicated that he is withdrawing the claim raised in his Rule
1925(b) statement that the suppression court erred in denying his suppression
motion. See Appellant’s brief at 5.
-4-
J-S04038-22
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations
omitted), appeal denied, 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 2010).
Preliminarily, we note that to the extent Appellant argues that there was
insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for PIC, we find this claim is
waived. Rule 1925(b) provides, inter alia, that “[i]ssues not included in the
Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this
paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)(4)(vii). It is well settled
that,
[i]n order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement must state with specificity the element or
elements upon which the appellant alleges that the
evidence was insufficient.
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, our review establishes that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement
fails to identify the specific elements of PIC that the Commonwealth failed to
prove. See Rule 1925(b) statement, 8/4/20, at unnumbered page 1. On the
contrary, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement makes no mention of the crime
of PIC whatsoever, nor does it reference any of the weapons found at the
residence. Id. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence with respect to PIC.
We now turn to Appellant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to
sustain his conviction for PWID. To sustain a conviction for the crime of PWID,
-5-
J-S04038-22
the Commonwealth must prove that Appellant knowingly created, delivered,
or possessed a controlled or counterfeit substance with the intent to
manufacture, distribute, or deliver it. 35 P.S. § 780–113(a)(30).
Here, the crux of Appellant’s claim is that the Commonwealth failed to
prove that he was the individual in possession or control of the narcotics found
in the residence and that “[t]he evidence at trial establishes that [he] was
merely present in [the] house when a warrant was executed.” (Appellant’s
brief at 8-9.) We disagree.
In situations where it cannot be proven that a suspect had the narcotics
on his person, the Commonwealth is required to prove constructive
possession. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa.Super.
2013), appeal denied, 78 A.3d 1090 (Pa. 2013).
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.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 430 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 1243 (Pa.
2013). As with any other element of a crime, the Commonwealth may sustain
its burden of proving constructive possession by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence. Hopkins, 67 A.3d at 820.
-6-
J-S04038-22
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth
as the verdict winner, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to
establish that Appellant constructively possessed the narcotics in question.
The record establishes that on the morning of November 20, 2015, police
executed a search warrant at the North Allison Street residence and found the
following items in the middle and rear bedrooms on the second floor: a
casserole dish containing approximately 2,071.99 grams of cocaine; a bag
containing 168 stamped packets of heroin with a total weight of 7.09 grams;
and two digital scales. Notes of testimony, 11/20/18 at 15-16, 24-28, 54.
Police Officer Kevin Keys, an expert in narcotic sales assigned to the Narcotics
Field Unit, testified that the amount of the narcotics recovered had a street
value of $208,879.00, and that in his opinion they were possessed with the
intent to distribute, based upon the totality of circumstances. Id. at 53-55.
The record further establishes that police recovered numerous items
from these two bedrooms that are commonly utilized in drug distribution,
including spoons; razors; a knife and grinder; glassware and plates, some of
which contained drug residue; small Ziploc bags; as ink stamp; and gloves.
Id. at. 26-32, 55. During a search of the rear second-floor bedroom, police
-7-
J-S04038-22
also recovered four pieces of mail addressed to Appellant and two of his
identification cards. Id. at 27-28, 30.3
The Commonwealth presented evidence at trial to establish that
Appellant was alone in the residence at the time the police arrived and was
observed by Detective Karl Watkins and other members of the law
enforcement team coming from the second floor there the bulk of the drugs
and drug-related paraphernalia was found. Id. at 14-15, 19-20. The
testimony of Appellant’s mother, Gail Randolph-Williams, further confirmed
that Appellant resided in the house, and Appellant himself acknowledged to
police that he had come from the upstairs bedroom “at the top of the step[s]”
when they arrived. Id. at 14, 18-19, 71.
Appellant contends, without any support in the record, that the narcotics
found by police belonged to the other individuals who resided at the home –
namely, his brother. Appellant’s brief at 9. We find that this claim is equally
without merit. Courts in this Commonwealth have long recognized that two
persons may constructively possess narcotics at the same time.
Commonwealth v. Katona, 191 A.3d 8, 12 (Pa.Super. 2018), affirmed,
240 A.3d 463 (Pa. 2020); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d
1078, 1094 (Pa. 2011) (“constructive possession may be found in one or more
____________________________________________
3 The record reflects that the police also recovered multiple firearms and
ammunition from the residence that are not relevant to Appellant’s claim on
appeal. See notes of testimony, 11/20/18 at 24-25, 32-33.
-8-
J-S04038-22
actors where the item [at] issue is in an area of joint control and equal access.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence for the trial court, sitting as factfinder, to conclude that
Appellant possessed “the power to control the [narcotics] and the intent to
exercise that control.” Brown, 48 A.3d at 430. Accordingly, Appellant’s
sufficiency claim must fail.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/11/2022
-9-