Com. v. Williams, W.

J-A08027-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellant :
:
v. :
: No. 71 EDA 2017
WILLIE A. WILLIAMS, :
:
Appellee :
Appeal from the Order November 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-0009535-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J. LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER,* J.
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
I find that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at
Williams’s bench trial to sustain his convictions for possession with intent to
deliver and conspiracy. Because the trial court erroneously re-evaluated that
evidence when it granted Williams’s motion for arrest of judgment, I would
reverse the trial court’s order. Furthermore, I find that the Majority failed to
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the
verdict winner. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
In affirming the trial court’s order, the Majority concludes that the
evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession because the
Commonwealth did not prove “either defendant’s participation in the drug-
related activity, or evidence connecting defendant to the specific room or area
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08027-18
where the contraband was kept.” Majority at 7, citing Commonwealth v.
Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005). However, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, I find that the Commonwealth
proved both participation in the controlled buy, and a connection to the
specific area where the crack cocaine was kept. Thus, I agree with the
Commonwealth that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish
that Williams “helped his co-conspirator Daniel Simons sell crack cocaine to a
confidential informant[,]” Commonwealth’s Brief at 8, and would reverse the
trial court’s order.
The evidence presented at trial established that a confidential informant
conducted three controlled buys of crack cocaine at the home of Daniel
Simons, and following the third controlled buy, officers executed a search
warrant on the home, finding Williams inside.
Specifically, the second controlled buy occurred on September 1, 2015.
The confidential informant spoke with Simons outside the home, and handed
Simons pre-recorded buy money. Simons made a phone call, and shortly
thereafter, a Buick parked in front of the house. Simons and the confidential
informant walked over to the Buick. At the same time, Williams exited the
home and entered the Buick. After a few moments, Williams exited the
vehicle. Then, Williams, Simons, and the confidential informant walked into
the home together. Within minutes the confidential informant left the home
alone, and turned over a chunk of crack cocaine to the surveillance team. See
-2-
J-A08027-18
Trial Court Opinion, 2/27/2017, at 2; N.T., 4/29/2016, at 17-18. This
evidence was sufficient to establish that Williams participated in the second
controlled buy.
The next day, on September 2, 2015, the confidential informant
conducted a third controlled buy. On this occasion, the confidential informant
knocked on the door of Simons’s home, and Simons invited him inside. After
a few moments, the confidential informant left the home and turned over two
purple packets of crack cocaine. Within minutes, the surveillance team
executed a search warrant on the home. N.T., 4/29/2016, at 20-21.
Immediately prior to entering the home, Officer Weaver observed a
white substance falling from the Styrofoam around the air conditioning unit in
the window of the second floor rear bedroom, and observed a hole suddenly
appear in the Styrofoam. Recognizing that someone was trying to hide
something in the Styrofoam casing, Officer Weaver proceeded straight to that
second floor rear bedroom, where Williams was found. Officer Weaver
recovered a stash of 16 purple packets of crack cocaine from the Styrofoam
casing. The confidential informant had turned over similar purple packets of
crack cocaine following the first and third controlled buys. During the search,
officers also recovered pre-recorded buy money and Williams’s identification
cards underneath the mattress in the second floor rear bedroom. N.T.,
4/29/2016, at 16, 20-22, 24, 30-31, 37, 42-43. I find that this circumstantial
evidence was sufficient to prove that Williams was exerting control over the
-3-
J-A08027-18
purple packets of cocaine at the time of the search warrant, and that Williams
participated in the third controlled buy which occurred moments before he hid
the same purple packets of cocaine.
Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s order.
-4-