J. S21035/19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

WILLIAM MOUNT, : No. 761 EDA 2017

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 29, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0004411-2014

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2019

William Mount appeals from the September 29, 2016 judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

following his conviction in a waiver trial of manufacture, delivery, or 

possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance;

possession of a controlled substance; possession of drug paraphernalia; and 

possession of a small amount of marijuana.

1

 The trial court imposed a 

sentence of 111⁄2 to 23 months’ incarceration with immediate parole and 

4 years’ reporting probation on the possession with the intent to deliver 

conviction and no further penalty on the remaining convictions. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the following factual history:

 

1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (16), (32), and (31), respectively.
J. S21035/19

- 2 -

On February 11, 2014, a report was filed by the victim 

of a robbery stating that William Mount Jr.[

2] had 

taken from the victim a Samsung Galaxy cellular 

phone and SEPTA TransPass at 58th Street and 

Woodland Avenue in the city and county of 

Philadelphia. The victim identified William Mount, Jr.

as the perpetrator having known Mount, Jr. from 

school and from an alleged previous robbery. On 

February 15, 2014, at approximately 6:05 p.m., 

detectives from the Southwest Detectives Division of 

the Philadelphia Police Department executed a search 

warrant on 5944 Cobbs Creek Parkway in connection 

to the February 11[,] 2014 robbery. Upon entrance, 

officers determined that only one female friend of the 

suspect’s father, [appellant], was present in the 

home.

Detectives began to search the home and entered the 

basement area of 5944 Cobbs Creek Parkway. In the 

middle of the basement, officers encountered a 

windowless room with one single locked door that 

appeared to be recently constructed. The room was 

constructed with sheetrock and had both a heating 

and ventilation system. The design of this particular 

room is consistent with others that are used for the 

exclusive purpose of growing marijuana. The 

detectives gained entry into the room and discovered 

a large quantity of marijuana which then prompted a 

call for officers from the Narcotics Field Unit.

Responding officers from the Narcotics Field Unit 

arrived to 5944 Cobbs Creek Parkway and began to 

inventory the contents of the windowless room in the 

basement. Within this room, officers from the 

Narcotics Field Unit catalogued: six freezer bags filled 

with approximately one pound each of marijuana; one 

trash bag filled with loose marijuana; one postal letter 

addressed to William Mount; one large clear bag that 

contained multiple smaller unused bags that are 

consistently used for the packaging of narcotics; one 

 

2 We note that appellant is William Mount, Sr. The alleged robbery suspect,

who was the subject of the search warrant, was William Mount, Jr., appellant’s 

son.
J. S21035/19

- 3 -

scale with a power plug; one box, with a shipping label 

addressed to 428 West Wayne Avenue, containing 

drug paraphernalia, marijuana and a white digital 

scale; one handheld scale; and high powered lights 

consistent with marijuana growing operations. The 

Narcotics Field Unit, in total, recovered 8.8 pounds of 

marijuana with an approximate street value of 

between $39,000 and $78,000 dependent upon the 

quantities in which the marijuana is sold.

As officers from the Narcotics Field Unit prepared to 

leave 5944 Cobbs Creek Parkway, [appellant] arrived 

at the location. [Appellant] identified himself to 

Officer Burgess of the Narcotics Field Unit and agreed 

to answer questions posed by the officer. [Appellant]

denied any knowledge of the windowless room in the 

basement despite having stated he lived there for 

approximately one to [two] years. Officer Burgess 

stated to [appellant] that the room had been recently 

constructed and [appellant] continued to deny any 

knowledge of the room altogether. Officer Burgess 

then placed [appellant] under arrest because he found 

the story of [appellant] not credible.

Trial court opinion, 8/16/17 at 1-3 (citations to notes of testimony omitted).

The record reflects that following appellant’s sentencing, appellant filed 

a timely post-sentence motion on October 8, 2016. This motion was denied 

by operation of law on February 8, 2017. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). On 

February 18, 2017, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court 

ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied. The trial court 

subsequently filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
J. S21035/19

- 4 -

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

3

Whether the trial court erred in finding that the 

Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that [a]ppellant 

constructively possessed the marijuana and 

marijuana paraphernalia found in the locked room in 

the basement of a home in which multiple people lived 

or were present at the time of the search[?]

Appellant’s brief at 4.

Appellant claims that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient 

evidence to establish constructive possession of the controlled substance –

marijuana – and of drug paraphernalia beyond a reasonable doubt to support 

appellant’s convictions. (Id. at 10.) Specifically, appellant argues:

Notably, the room in the basement was locked and the 

police never found the key. Had something connected 

[appellant] to that basement room such as the key or 

mail which was definitively addressed to him, the 

evidence may have been sufficient. But here, the 

Commonwealth showed only that he shared a house 

which was found to have marijuana and other grow 

equipment in the basement. The Commonwealth did 

not even establish that [appellant] had access to the 

marijuana because the room was locked and he did 

not have the key.

Id. at 13 (citation omitted).

 

3 We note that after filing the Rule 1925(b) statement, appellant’s counsel, 

Mark A. Hinrichs, Esq., accepted new employment and on October 27, 2017,

filed a petition to withdraw with this court. In a per curiam order dated 

December 5, 2017, this court granted counsel’s request to withdraw and 

directed the trial court to determine appellant’s eligibility for court-appointed 

counsel and appoint new counsel, if required. On August 16, 2018, Zak 

Goldstein, Esq., was appointed new counsel and subsequently filed a brief on 

behalf of appellant.
J. S21035/19

- 5 -

Our standard and scope of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim 

is well settled.

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence 

admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the 

verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable 

the fact-finder to find every element of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above 

test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute 

our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note 

that the facts and circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of 

innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt 

may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the 

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter 

of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the 

combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may 

sustain its burden of proof or proving every element 

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of 

wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying 

the above test, the entire record must be evaluated 

and all the evidence actually received must be 

considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing 

upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the 

evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none 

of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 829, 835-836 (Pa.Super. 2004) 

(citation omitted).

“‘[I]n narcotics possession cases, the Commonwealth may meet its 

burden by showing actual, constructive, or joint constructive possession of the 

contraband.’” Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759, 767 (Pa.Super. 

2016), appeal denied, 145 A.3d 725 (Pa. 2016); quoting Commonwealth 

v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 868 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal denied,

121 A.3d 496 (Pa. 2015). When the contraband is not found on the appellant, 
J. S21035/19

- 6 -

the Commonwealth must establish that appellant had constructive possession 

of the seized items to support the conviction. See Commonwealth v. 

Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 430 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 1243 

(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.” To aid 

application, we have held that constructive possession 

may be established by the totality of the 

circumstances.

Roberts, 133 A.3d at 767-768, quoting Brown, 48 A.2d at 430.

Here, appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to show that the 

letter and the box label were “definitely addressed to” appellant. (Appellant’s 

brief at 13.) It is, however, the totality of the circumstances that the 

trier-of-fact must consider to determine if constructive possession existed. 

See Roberts, 133 A.3d at 768.

The trial court found that “[t]he presence of [appellant’s] mail in the 

room make[s] it likely that [appellant] had access to [the room] and had the 

power to exercise control over its contents.” (Trial court opinion, 8/16/17 

at 6.) The trial transcript reflects that the narcotics detective testified that 

appellant’s name was on both the letter and the label on the box containing 

the marijuana and drug paraphernalia and the items were found in the locked 
J. S21035/19

- 7 -

room in the basement of appellant’s house, as reflected on the police property 

receipts. (Notes of testimony, 7/18/16 at 19-20, 27; see also

Commonwealth Exhibits C-2 and C-3.) Appellant testified that he was aware 

of the room in his basement and that the room existed prior to the other 

residents moving into the house. (Notes of testimony, 7/18/16 at 38-39, 

42-43.) Appellant claimed, however, that he did not know the contents of the 

room but offered no explanation as to how or why his mail was found in the 

room. (Id. at 38-46.) Additionally, appellant was responsible for the electric 

bill, and the cost of the power to operate the large high-powered lamps used 

in the “grow house” would have been reflected in those bills. (Id. at 41-42.)

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, it was more likely than not 

that appellant constructively possessed the marijuana and drug paraphernalia

found in the locked room in his basement. See Commonwealth v. Walker, 

874 A.2d 667 (Pa.Super. 2005) (holding that the presence of mail with 

defendant’s name on it in a room that also contained drugs and drug 

paraphernalia established constructive possession). Therefore, in viewing all 

of the evidence and the inferences drawn from that evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, there was sufficient

evidence for the trial court, as trier-of-fact, to find that appellant possessed 

marijuana with the intent to deliver and that he possessed drug paraphernalia.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J. S21035/19

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/19/19