J-S64024-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

ALLEN JEROME WILLIAMS, 

 Appellant No. 487 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 10, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001648-2013 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 15, 2014 

 Appellant, Allen Jerome Williams, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence of 30 to 84 months’ imprisonment. Appellant challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence introduced at his trial, and the trial court’s failure 

to grant a mistrial following the admission of a photograph into evidence. 

After careful review, we affirm. 

 Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on March 3, 2014. The facts 

adduced at trial were as follows: 

On May 11th of 2011, Detective Donald Cross along with a 

confidential informant ... (Informant), travelled to 41 Cycle 

Street in Uniontown. Upon arrival, Detective Cross obtained the 

registration from a Honda Civic parked outside. Upon entering 

the residence, Detective Cross and the Informant were greeted 

by a man Detective Cross identified as [Appellant]. Detective 

Cross and the Informant indicated to [Appellant] a desire to 

purchase heroin and [Appellant] instructed the two to go to the 

Rite Aid parking lot. 
J-S64024-14 

- 2 - 

While waiting in the Rite Aid parking lot, the Informant 

received a call. At the conclusion of the call, the Informant 

drove the car to the parking lot of the Atlantic Broadband 

building on Bailey Avenue. Detective Cross noticed the same 

Honda Civic parked in the lot and instructed the Informant to 

park to the right of the Honda. Detective Cross handed $350 to 

the Informant, who then exited the vehicle and walked into the 

lot. Detective Cross testified that [Appellant] exited the building 

and met with the Informant 10 feet from the vehicle in which the 

detective was sitting. Detective Cross testified that, while 

outside the building, he observed the Informant hand the 

money to [Appellant], and [Appellant] hand the Informant a 

plastic bag containing 50 rolled items. 

At trial, parties stipulated that the package did contain 

heroin, a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Detective Cross 

stated that he had an unobstructed view of the transaction 

and the package had remained in his sight from the time of 

the transaction to the time he received the package from the 

Informant. The Informant and his vehicle were searched 

before and after the operation for drugs, money, or other 

contraband; both searches determined that there were no 

such items present. 

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 6/27/14, at 2 – 3 (citations to the record 

omitted). At the conclusion of Appellant’s trial, the jury found him guilty of 

delivery of heroin. On March 10, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to 30 to 84 

months’ imprisonment. He filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a timely 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 

1925(b). 

 Appellant now presents the following questions for our review: 

1. Did the Commonwealth fail to provide sufficient evidence 

on the charges of delivery, intent to deliver and possession 
J-S64024-14 

- 3 - 

of a controlled substance,[1] that the officer would not have 

been able to observe Appellant deliver the drugs inside of 

the building? 

2. Did the trial court err when it permitted the introduction of 

evidence, i.e., a JNET photograph, that had never been 

provided to defense counsel during discovery? 

Appellant’s brief at 7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

 Appellant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

that he delivered the heroin in question. Our standard of review of such 

claims is well-settled: 

A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question 

of law. 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 . . . . When reviewing the sufficiency claim the 

court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all 

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000) (citations 

omitted). 

 Appellant was convicted of delivery of heroin, defined at 35 Pa. C. S. § 

780-113(a)(30): 

(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the 

Commonwealth are hereby prohibited. 

... 

____________________________________________ 

1

 For the sake of clarity, we note that Appellant was charged with, and 

convicted of, one count; that count was delivery of heroin. Appellant’s 

apparent references here to convictions for possession and possession with 

intent to deliver appear to be in error. 
J-S64024-14 

- 4 - 

(30) Except as authorized by this act, the 

manufacture, delivery, or possession with 

intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled 

substance by a person not registered under 

this act, or a practitioner not registered or 

licensed by the appropriate State board, or 

knowingly creating, delivering or possessing 

with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled 

substance. 

 Here, Detective Cross testified that he watched a confidential 

informant give $350 to Appellant. Detective Cross then watched as 

Appellant handed the confidential informant a plastic bag containing rolled 

items. At trial, Appellant stipulated that the bag contained heroin. As such, 

the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellant delivered heroin.2

____________________________________________ 

2

 Appellant’s briefed argument regarding this issue ends abruptly after the 

first page; as such, his precise challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is 

unclear. 

We note, however, that Appellant claims: “any contact between 

[Appellant] and the confidential informant occurred that day inside the 

building.” Appellant’s brief at 9. Moreover, Appellant asserts that “the 

officer would not have been able to observe the Appellant deliver the drugs 

inside of the building.” Appellant’s brief at 7. As noted supra, Detective 

Cross’s uncontroverted testimony at trial was that he watched the 

transaction occur, and it occurred outside the building. There is nothing in 

the record to suggest that the transaction occurred outside of the detective’s 

observation. 

Appellant did not include citations to authority in his brief’s “Scope and 

Standard of Review.” We will reiterate that our scope of review of 

sufficiency claims on direct appeal is limited to the record before us, and all 

reasonable inferences therefrom, taken in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. Widmer, 744 A.2d at 751. 

To the extent that Appellant challenges the credibility of the 

detective’s testimony, this would constitute a challenge to the weight of the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S64024-14 

- 5 - 

Next, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in permitting the 

Commonwealth to introduce a photograph of Appellant into evidence, 

because that photograph had not been turned over to Appellant in discovery. 

Appellant relies on Pa. R. Crim. P. 573(B), which states in applicable 

part: 

(1) In all court cases, on request by the defendant ... the 

Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant's attorney 

all of the following requested items or information, 

provided they are material to the instant case. The

Commonwealth shall, when applicable, permit the 

defendant's attorney to inspect and copy or photograph 

such items. 

... 

(f) [A]ny tangible objects, including ... photographs[.] 

 As noted by counsel for the Commonwealth at trial, 

[o]n page 3 of the police report, at paragraph number 11, there 

is an indication that the detective previously viewed [Appellant’s] 

identity from the JNET photo history. So this issue of JNET was 

not hidden in any way, it was contained in the police report and 

the police report was part of the discovery. 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

evidence. See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-714 (Pa. 

Super. 2003) (“A sufficiency of the evidence review ... does not include an 

assessment of the credibility of the testimony offered by the Commonwealth. 

Such a claim is more properly characterized as a weight of the evidence 

challenge.”) (internal citations omitted). Appellant has not preserved a 

challenge to the weight of the evidence; as such, we will not address it on 

appeal. See Pa. R. Crim. P. 607(a) (“A claim that the verdict was against 

the weight of the evidence shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for 

a new trial”).
J-S64024-14 

- 6 - 

N.T., 3/3/14, at 35. Moreover, counsel for the Commonwealth argued that 

the defense would have been able to inspect and copy that picture, had they 

arranged to do so. Id. at 35 – 36. Appellant’s counsel did not claim that he 

ever tried to make such arrangements; rather, his sole argument was that 

the photograph was not provided in the discovery packet the Commonwealth 

had provided him. Id. at 36. 

 Our review of the record shows that the Commonwealth disclosed the 

existence of the JNET photograph to Appellant. Moreover, Appellant 

concedes he did not attempt to inspect the photograph. Appellant argues: 

The failure to provide the JNET photograph to counsel for the 

defense [sic] stated that the admission of the undisclosed photo 

would negatively impact his trial strategy. Timely disclosure of 

the photo would have changed the strategy of counsel. Counsel 

stated that "I would, therefore, ask him about it and it goes 

basically to his word as opposed to having some physical 

evidence that he viewed a document, an official document, with 

Mr. Williams[’] name on it, and it changed the whole strategy of 

the case since it was not provided to me. Because then I can 

argue, if that is a correct identification, why didn't he bring, why 

wasn't the JNET photo provided to me...." (N.T. pg. 36). 

Appellant’s brief at 12 – 13. It appears that the fact that the photograph 

was not included in the discovery packet led the defense to incorrectly 

assume the photograph did not exist. Rather than investigate the 

whereabouts of photograph, Appellant’s counsel decided to impeach 

Detective Cross on the basis of this incorrect assumption. This strategy was 

thwarted when the Commonwealth introduced the photograph into evidence 

at trial. 
J-S64024-14 

- 7 - 

Accordingly, Appellant did not establish that Pa. R. Crim. P. 573 was 

violated, and we conclude the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s 

motion for a mistrial on this basis. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 10/15/2014