Com. v. Moorefield, B.

J-S53002-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
BRANDON MOOREFIELD, :
:
Appellant : No. 731 WDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 23, 2012,
Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,
Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0004682-2010
BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON and PLATT*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
Brandon Moorefield (“Moorefield”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on January 23, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County following the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights nunc
pro tunc on April 17, 2013. Moorefield’s appeal stems from his convictions
for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance,1 delivery of a
controlled substance,2 and possession of a controlled substance.3 We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history of this
case as follows:
[On] February 17, 2010, Lieutenant Lando obtained
a phone number of a possible drug dealer from an
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
2
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
3
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S53002-14
informant. Using software available to him in his
office, he was able to do a ‘reverse look-up’ of the
phone number and determine that the number was
registered to ‘Bran Moorefield.’ […] Lieutenant Lando
was familiar with [Moorefield]. When the reverse
look-up revealed that the phone number was
registered to ‘Bran Moorefield,’ he suspected that
[Moorefield] was the owner of the phone number
provided by the informant.
Lieutenant Lando called the number provided by the
informant, and a male voice answered. He asked the
person answering the phone, ‘Are you good?’, which
is lingo for whether the person answering the call
was holding drugs and able to sell them. The man
who answered told Lieutenant Lando that he was
good and asked how much money [Lieutenant]
Lando had. Lieutenant Lando told him that he had
$60 and asked what kind of ‘bags’ he had, referring
to stamp bags of heroin. The man told Lieutenant
Lando that he had King James (a brand of heroin
that was being sold at the time), and Lieutenant
Lando and the man answering the phone set up a
meeting in Hazelwood. In preparation for the
meeting, Lieutenant Lando obtained from their files
the photograph and rap sheet of Brandon Moorefield
for identification purposes.
* * *
[…] When Lieutenant Lando arrived at the meeting
location, he again called the phone number
previously identified as belonging to Bran Moorefield
to notify the person answering the phone that he
was at the specified location.
At approximately 7:57 p.m., a black male wearing a
brown coat and jeans approached the undercover
car, and Lieutenant Lando immediately recognized
the man as [Moorefield]. He was able to compare the
man who approached his car to the rap sheet photo
that he was holding in the car as the man
approached. Lieutenant Lando received confirmation
-2-
J-S53002-14
from the surveillance team that the team members
also saw [Moorefield] and confirmed that it was
[him].
[Moorefield] walked past the undercover car, looked
up the street and looked both ways, and then came
back to the car. Lieutenant Lando handed him $60,
and [Moorefield] handed him six (6) stamp bags of
heroin that were labeled ‘King James.’ [Moorefield]
then quickly walked away behind some houses,
which prevented the takedown team from arresting
[him] at that time. According to Lieutenant Lando’s
testimony, it would have been unsafe to attempt to
arrest [Moorefield] at that moment, as it could have
resulted in a police chase through a dark wooded
area. An arrest warrant was issued, and [Moorefield]
was arrested on March 3, 2010.
Detective Glenn Hairston [(“Detective Hairston”)] of
the City of Pittsburgh Police Department, who was
conducting surveillance for the undercover operation
on February 17, 2010, also identified [Moorefield] as
the drug dealer in the undercover buy. Detective
Hairston was mobile, in a vehicle, while conducting
surveillance. During the course of the surveillance,
he had, at times, driven past Lieutenant Lando’s
vehicle and past [Moorefield] as he walked down the
street. He had also parked on the other side of the
street, watching the transaction through binoculars.
Detective Hairston also had a photograph of the
Defendant with him, and, although he could not
clearly see the transaction, he was able to clearly
and definitively identify [Moorefield] as the person
who walked up to Lieutenant Lando’s undercover
vehicle.
Following the presentation of the Commonwealth’s
case, [Moorefield] moved for a [j]udgment of
[a]cquittal, which this court denied. [Moorefield] was
found guilty of all counts and proceeded to
sentencing, where he received a sentence of 11½
[to] 23 months [of] incarceration in the Allegheny
-3-
J-S53002-14
County Jail, followed by a period of five (5) years
[of] probation.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/14, at 2-6 (citations to the record omitted).
Following sentencing, Moorefield did not file any post-trial motions or a
direct appeal. On January 24, 2013, Moorefield filed a pro se petition
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
9546. The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Moorefield and
granted him leave to file an amended PCRA petition. Rather than filing an
amended PCRA petition, Moorefield filed a petition to reinstate his direct
appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On April 17, 2013, the PCRA court reinstated
Moorefield’s direct appeal rights.
On April 30, 2013, Moorefield filed a notice of appeal. On May 24,
2013, the trial court ordered Moorefield to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(b). On June 6, 2013, Moorefield timely filed his Rule
1925(b) statement. On appeal, Moorefield raises the following issue for
review:
The Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of
proof where evidence of record failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that [Moorefield] and not
some other unknown black male sold narcotics to an
undercover police officer.
-4-
J-S53002-14
Moorefield’s Brief at 8.4
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our
standard of review is as follows:
As a general matter, our standard of review of
sufficiency claims requires that we evaluate the
record in the light most favorable to the verdict
winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to
support the verdict when it establishes each material
element of the crime charged and the commission
thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish
guilt to a mathematical certainty. Any doubt about
the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by 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.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by
means of wholly circumstantial evidence.
Accordingly, [t]he fact that the evidence establishing
a defendant’s participation in a crime is
circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where
the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences
4
Moorefield raised an evidentiary issue and a discretionary aspect of
sentencing issue in his 1925(b) statement, but failed to include these issues
in the statement of questions section of his appellate brief. See Moorefield’s
Brief at 8. “No question will be considered unless it is stated in the
statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P.
2116(a). As a result, Moorefield has waived these claims. Waiver is further
supported by the fact that Moorefield included no argument on these issues
in his appellate brief. See Moorefield’s Brief at 12-16. Where an
“[a]ppellant has cited no legal authorities nor developed any meaningful
analysis, we find [the] issue waived for lack of development.”
Commonwealth v. McLaurin, 45 A.3d 1131, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2012),
appeal denied, 65 A.3d 413 (Pa. 2013) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a));
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009)).
-5-
J-S53002-14
drawn therefrom overcomes the presumption of
innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute our
judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so long as
the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the
respective elements of a defendant’s crimes beyond
a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s convictions will
be upheld.
Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
In his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Moorefield only
contests the police’s identification of him during the drug transaction.
Moorefield’s Brief at 12-16. Moorefield argues that the Commonwealth did
not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he, and not some other African-
American male, was the individual that sold narcotics to the undercover
detective. Id. Moorefield asserts that police could not have identified
Moorefield beyond a reasonable doubt because Lieutenant Lando’s
interaction with the suspect was brief, because the transaction occurred on a
darkened street, because Lieutenant Lando had never met Moorefield before,
because the detectives needed a photograph to identify Moorefield, and
because Lieutenant Lando did not know who he was speaking to on the
phone. Id. at 15-16. Accordingly, Moorefield contends that the trial court’s
verdict was based on speculation and conjecture. Id.
We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the evidence
supporting the police’s identification of Moorefield was sufficient to sustain
-6-
J-S53002-14
each of his convictions. Lieutenant Lando testified that he received from an
informant the phone number of somebody by the name of “B” who was
supposedly selling heroin. N.T., 1/23/12, at 9, 24. After discovering that
this phone number was registered to a “Bran Moorefield,” Lieutenant Lando
called the phone number, spoke to an unknown individual, and arranged to
buy six bags of heroin for $60. Id. at 10-11. Being already familiar with
Moorefield and suspecting that he was the drug dealer in this case,
Lieutenant Lando took with him to the undercover operation a photograph of
Moorefield that the police had on file. Id. at 10. After Lieutenant Lando
arrived at the specified meeting location for the drug deal, he observed an
individual approach his vehicle that he recognized as Moorefield from the
photograph. Id. at 15. Moorefield walked past Lieutenant Lando’s vehicle
and then returned to the passenger side of his vehicle. Id. at 15, 33-34. At
that point, Moorefield stuck his head in the passenger side window of the
vehicle and completed the drug transaction. Id. at 14. Lieutenant Lando
also testified that he parked under a street lamp so that he would have good
visibility and that he had a clear view of Moorefield’s face during the
transaction. Id. at 15, 42-43. Likewise, Detective Hairston, who was
providing surveillance on the night in question, testified that he identified
Moorefield, using the same photograph as Lieutenant Lando, as Moorefield
approached Lieutenant Lando’s vehicle. Id. at 46.
-7-
J-S53002-14
Thus, the certified record supports the police’s identification of
Moorefield during the pre-arranged drug transaction. As the fact-finder, the
trial court was free to accept or reject the credibility of both witnesses, and
to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. See Franklin, 69 A.3d at 722-
23. Here, the trial court found the testimony of Lieutenant Lando and
Detective Hairston credible. Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/14, at 8-9. We
decline to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Based on the
foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the
evidence supporting the police’s identification of Moorefield was sufficient to
sustain each of his convictions.
Judgment of sentenced affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/2014
-8-