J-A20002-16

2016 PA Super 292

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEVEN SUNEALITIS

Appellant No. 1409 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 13, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-17-CR-0000713-2013

BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE AND MUSMANNO, JJ.

OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2016

This appeal comes to us following resentencing conducted pursuant to 

our May 8, 2015 decision vacating and remanding for that purpose. In our 

prior decision, we sua sponte vacated judgment of sentence, finding that 

Appellant’s mandatory minimum sentence, imposed pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §

7508, was illegal. Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 122 A.3d 444, 2015 WL 

7095181 (Pa.Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum). On remand, the 

trial court calculated Appellant’s offense gravity score as eleven, finding that 

Appellant manufactured more than 100 grams of methamphetamine 

pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 and resentenced him to six to twelve years 

incarceration. Since the trial court and both parties continue to interpret an 

infirm statute, we affirm on an alternative ground. 
J-A20002-16

- 2 -

Preliminarily, we note that, on remand, we directed the trial court to 

resentence Appellant without application of the mandatory minimum. The 

trial court, however, calculated the offense gravity score by applying 

language in that statute. The trial court and the parties have overlooked the 

fact that the Sentencing Guidelines delineates the method by which a court 

must calculate the offense gravity score when determining the amount of 

drugs involved.

(e) Violations of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and 

Cosmetic Act (35 P.S. §§ 780-101--780-144). If any mixture or 

compound contains any detectable amount of a controlled 

substance, the entire amount of the mixture or compound shall 

be deemed to be composed of the controlled substance. 

204 Pa.Code. § 303.3(e).

The facts are straightforward. On May 13, 2013, Pennsylvania Board 

of Probation and Parole Agent James Shuttleworth visited Appellant’s 

residence to perform a urine test. N.T. Jury Trial Vol. I, 12/27/14, at 43-45. 

Appellant told him not to bother as he had recently ingested 

methamphetamine. A small amount of methamphetamine (0.05 grams) was 

recovered from the residence. Agent Shuttleworth’s search yielded

numerous items associated with small-scale methamphetamine 

manufacture. Appellant admitted to the agent that he manufactured 

methamphetamine in the residence. Id. at 53.

Members of the Pennsylvania State Police Clandestine Lab Response 

Team executed a search warrant at Appellant’s residence. Id. at 72, 92. 
J-A20002-16

- 3 -

Among other items, the search team recovered a Gatorade bottle containing 

liquid waste byproduct generated by the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

This byproduct included trace amounts of that drug in the amount of fivehundredths of a gram. Appellant was subsequently charged with 

manufacture of methamphetamine according to 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 

He was additionally charged with the crimes of illegal dumping of 

methamphetamine waste, possession of a controlled substance, and 

possession of drug paraphernalia. 

On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued Alleyne v. 

United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), which held that any fact, other than 

a prior conviction, that increases a mandatory minimum sentence is an 

element of the crime that must be submitted to the jury. On December 17, 

2013, in an attempt to comply with Alleyne, the Commonwealth filed a 

motion to amend the manufacturing count in the information to allege an 

additional fact in anticipation of its intent to seek a mandatory minimum 

sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508. The proposed language read: “the 

aggregate weight of the compound or mixture containing the substance 

involved is at least 100 grams.” That language tracked the mandatory 

sentencing statute, which states in pertinent part: 

(4) A person who is convicted of violating section 13(a)(14), 

(30) or (37) of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and 

Cosmetic Act where the controlled substance is 

methamphetamine or phencyclidine or is a salt, isomer or salt of 

an isomer of methamphetamine or phencyclidine or is a mixture 
J-A20002-16

- 4 -

containing methamphetamine or phencyclidine, containing a salt 

of methamphetamine or phencyclidine, containing an isomer of 

methamphetamine or phencyclidine, containing a salt of an 

isomer of methamphetamine or phencyclidine shall, upon 

conviction, be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of 

imprisonment and a fine as set forth in this subsection:

. . . 

(iii) when the aggregate weight of the 

compound or mixture containing the substance 

involved is at least 100 grams; five years in 

prison and a fine of $50,000 or such larger amount 

as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and 

the proceeds from the illegal activity; however, if at 

the time of sentencing the defendant has been 

convicted of another drug trafficking offense: eight 

years in prison and $50,000 or such larger amount 

as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and 

the proceeds from the illegal activity.

18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(4)(iii). The trial court granted the motion to amend on 

January 13, 2014. 

The jury trial commenced January 27, 2014. The contents of the 

Gatorade bottle became a significant issue. The waste byproduct contents in 

the bottle weighed approximately 288 grams. The Commonwealth argued 

that this fact alone permitted a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

aggregate weight of the compound or mixture containing the substance 

exceeded 100 grams, due to the trace amount of detectable 

methamphetamine. The Commonwealth’s expert conceded that byproduct 

always results from manufacturing methamphetamine, and that trace 

amounts would always be present in the byproduct. Furthermore, only 

sophisticated lab equipment could filter out the trace amounts. The expert 
J-A20002-16

- 5 -

testified that all of the materials discovered in Appellant’s residence, 

including the items that generated the waste product, would yield 5.76 

grams of methamphetamine. 

The verdict form asked the jury to determine the weight of 

methamphetamine involved in the event it found Appellant guilty of 

manufacturing. The jury was given four options, corresponding to the 

provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(4)(i)-(iii): Less than five grams, between 

five and ten grams, ten grams to one hundred grams, and over one hundred 

grams. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty at all counts, and selected the 

fourth option.

On March 13, 2014, the trial court imposed an aggregate judgment of 

sentence of eight to sixteen years incarceration, including the thenapplicable mandatory minimum sentence. Since the mandatory sentencing 

statute expressly stated that “Sentencing guidelines promulgated by the 

Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing shall not supersede the mandatory 

sentences provided herein,” 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(c), the trial court did not 

calculate an offense gravity score for manufacturing methamphetamine. 

Appellant lodged an appeal with this Court, raising a suppression issue 

as well as a claim that the trial court erred in accepting the guilty verdict 

despite insufficient evidence concerning the weight of the controlled 

substances. We found no merit to the suppression motion, but sua sponte

addressed application of the mandatory sentence. We determined that the 
J-A20002-16

- 6 -

fact-finding procedure employed resulted in an illegal sentence, relying upon 

Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), and 

Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa.Super. 2014). While the 

jury found the facts triggering the mandatory minimum sentence beyond a 

reasonable doubt, i.e., that the mixture containing the substance was over 

100 grams, we held that the trial court had no authority to submit that issue 

to the jury since the unconstitutional provisions of the statute—those 

permitting the facts to be found by the trial judge by a preponderance of the 

evidence—were not severable. “[T]he statutes are therefore 

unconstitutional as a whole.” Valentine, supra at 812 (emphasis 

added).1

In the present case, we thus remanded “with instructions to 

resentence Appellant without consideration of the mandatory minimum 

sentence at Section 7508(a)(4)(iii), consistent with this memorandum.” Due 

to that resolution, we did “not consider Appellant’s two remaining issues, 

challenging the application of Section 7508(a)(4)(iii) based on the weight of 

the methamphetamine being over 100 grams.”

____________________________________________

1 Our Supreme Court subsequently adopted the rationale of these decisions. 

See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) and 

Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016).
J-A20002-16

- 7 -

On July 13, 2015, the trial court resentenced Appellant to six to twelve 

years incarceration at the count of manufacturing methamphetamine.2 The 

court calculated the offense gravity score for that charge as eleven. The 

Offense Listing section of the Sentencing Guidelines, codified at 204 

Pa.Code. § 303.15, assigns that offense gravity score to a conviction for 35 

P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) when the amount of methamphetamine was between 

100 and 1000 grams. A prior record score of five combined with an offense 

gravity score of eleven yields a recommended standard range sentence of 

seventy-two to ninety months of incarceration. Thus, Appellant received a 

sentence at the bottom of the standard range. 

Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, averring that the trial 

court erroneously included the contents of the Gatorade bottle in its 

calculations of the 100 grams and therefore incorrectly calculated the 

offense gravity score. At a hearing on the post-sentence motion, the trial 

court expressed its belief that the issue of the weight was the same as the 

issue briefed during the first appeal; i.e, an interpretation of the language 

contained in 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(4)(iii).

____________________________________________

2

 Appellant received a concurrent period of two to four years of 

incarceration at illegal dumping of methamphetamine waste, and one year of 

probation at the possession of drug paraphernalia. Simple possession 

merged with the manufacturing methamphetamine. The sentences for these 

crimes are not challenged. 
J-A20002-16

- 8 -

[Appellant]: Your Honor, this is a post sentence motion for 

reconsideration of sentence. I know it was discussed at 

[Appellant]’s re-sentencing, an objection was made. This is kind 

of just a continuation of the same thing we’ve been dealing with.

The motion primarily speaks for itself. We’re just preserving the 

record and intend to take it up again on appeal.

THE COURT: Well, it’s the same issue that we were hoping 

was going to be decided by the [S]uperior [C]ourt the last 

time, but it wasn’t. The record’s the same. I think I’ve 

already written an opinion.

N.T. Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, 8/11/15, at 2 (emphasis 

added). On August 13, 2015, the court denied the motion, stating it was 

denied “for the same reason [it] was previously denied.” Order, 8/13/15, at 

1. Thus, while the trial court appropriately sentenced Appellant without 

application of the mandatory minimum, it nevertheless determined that 

Appellant possessed over 100 grams of methamphetamine based on the 

language contained within the mandatory minimum statute. 

On September 3, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The 

trial court did not submit a new written opinion, instead issuing an order on 

November 4, 2015, adopting the opinion filed in the first appeal, which 

interpreted 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(4)(iii). Appellant’s brief raises the 

following issues for our consideration. 

I. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred when, during the Appellant's 

criminal jury trial, it denied the Defense's oral Motion for a 

directed verdict, given that the Commonwealth did not present 

evidence to the jury that would allow for a verdict that the 

aggregate weight of a compound or mixture exceeded 100 

grams, on March 11, 2014.
J-A20002-16

- 9 -

II. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred, on January 28, 2014, by 

accepting the guilty verdict of the jury despite a lack of 

sufficiency of evidence presented by the Commonwealth 

concerning the aggregate weight of a compound or mixture 

exceeding 100 grams, and subsequently sentenced the 

Defendant based upon the guilty verdict on March 11, 2014 and 

on July 13, 2015.

III. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred on July 2, 2014, and again on 

August 11, 2015, when it denied the Defendant's Post-Sentence 

Motions for Reconsideration.

Appellant’s brief at 7.

We address the two claims attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, 

which were not addressed during the first appeal, together. Our standard of 

review is well-settled. 

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine 

whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable 

inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was 

sufficient to enable the fact finder to conclude that the 

Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense 

beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its 

burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Further, the 

trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 489–90 (Pa. 2015) (citations 

omitted). “Whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a 

question of law; our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is 

plenary.” Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 722 (Pa.Super. 

2015).

At the close of the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Appellant moved 

for a directed verdict. 
J-A20002-16

- 10 -

THE COURT: So if I’ve got this straight, you are asking me to 

eliminate the jury being able to make a decision that the 

aggregate weight of the compound or mixture containing the 

methamphetamine is [a] hundred grams or more? 

[APPELLANT]: That’s correct.

THE COURT: That’s the sole thing that you’re asking?

[APPELLANT]: That’s correct.

N.T., 1/27/14, at 207-08. 

A motion for directed verdict is the same as a motion for judgment of 

acquittal. “A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is granted 

only in cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to carry its burden 

regarding that charge.” Commonwealth v. Emanuel, 86 A.3d 892, 894 

(Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). 

No relief is due. Appellant’s argument transforms the mandatory 

minimum sentence weight thresholds into an element of the crime. 

However, nothing in the statute requires the Commonwealth to prove any 

amount of weight. The crime at issue states:

(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.

35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). All parties agreed that the theory in this case 

implicated only the manufacture alternative. N.T. Jury Trial Transcript Vol. 
J-A20002-16

- 11 -

II, 1/28/14, at 33. The Commonwealth was thus only required to prove that 

Appellant “manufacture[d] . . . a controlled substance.” Appellant’s request 

was limited to preventing the jury from determining the issue of weight, 

which was relevant only for purposes of sentencing. Weight is simply not an 

element of the crime itself. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying 

the motion, as the Commonwealth carried its burden and presented 

sufficient evidence that Appellant manufactured methamphetamine. 

Appellant’s third issue assails the trial court’s denial of his postsentence motion, in which he challenged the offense gravity score applied to 

the manufacturing methamphetamine charge. This claim implicates the 

discretionary aspects of the sentence. As required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), 

Appellant’s brief includes a separate statement of reasons in support of 

reviewing the discretionary aspects of the sentence. Such a statement is 

necessary because “there is no absolute right to appeal when challenging 

the discretionary aspect of a sentence.” Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 

A.2d 884, 886 (Pa.Super. 2008). An appellant must first satisfy a four-part 

test to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. We examine 

(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see

Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly 

preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify 

sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief 

[complies with] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a 

substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not 

appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
J-A20002-16

- 12 -

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted). The first three requirements have been met.

We also find that Appellant has satisfied the fourth requirement, as an 

allegation that the trial court inappropriately calculated the offense gravity 

score raises a substantial question. 

An improper calculation of the offense gravity score affects the 

outcome of the sentencing recommendations, resulting in an 

improper recommendation, thereby compromising the 

fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process. We 

thus hold that any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines 

constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence. 

A claim that the sentencing court misapplied the Guidelines 

presents a substantial question. 

Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 210–11 (Pa.Super. 1998). 

Thus, we may address the merits of his claim. 

We begin by noting our standard of review. The calculation of the 

offense gravity score is a matter of statutory interpretation, which raises a 

question of law. In Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa.Super. 

2015), we reviewed the trial court’s determination that Johnson was a 

repeat felon under 204 Pa.Code. § 303.4. Id. at 828. Johnson offered an 

alternative interpretation of the statutory language. We found this 

presented a question of law and applied the Statutory Construction Act, 1 

Pa.C.S. §§ 1921-1939. Id. at 829. Thus, we shall apply a de novo review.
J-A20002-16

- 13 -

We begin by setting forth the trial court’s guideline calculations. We 

explained in Commonwealth v. Spenny, 128 A.3d 234 (Pa.Super. 2015) 

that 

When sentencing a criminal defendant convicted of a felony 

and/or misdemeanor, the trial court must consider, inter alia, 

the sentencing guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania 

Commission on Sentencing (“Sentencing Commission”). 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b); 204 Pa.Code 303.1(a). To determine the 

guideline sentence for each conviction, the trial court must 

establish the offense gravity score and . . . . the defendant's 

prior record score. 204 Pa.Code § 303.2(a). 

Id. at 242. 

Appellant does not dispute that his prior record score was properly 

calculated as five. At issue is the trial court’s calculation of the offense 

gravity score for manufacturing methamphetamine as eleven. As discussed 

supra, the trial court determined that Appellant possessed over 100 grams 

of methamphetamine by relying on its interpretation of 18 Pa.C.S. §

7508(a)(4)(iii)’s language, “when the aggregate weight of the compound or 

mixture containing the substance involved is at least 100 grams.” 

Appellant avers that the appropriate gravity score is six, which is the 

applicable score where the amount of methamphetamine is two-and-onehalf grams or less. For an offense gravity score of six, the recommended 

standard range sentence would fall to twenty-one to twenty-seven months. 

204 Pa.Code. § 303.16(a). Appellant asserts that the trial court, in 

calculating the weight as over 100 grams, erroneously included the weight of 
J-A20002-16

- 14 -

the Gatorade bottle’s contents. He reaches the two-and-one-half grams 

result by looking only towards the actual, ingestible methamphetamine 

discovered. 

In reaching this conclusion, Appellant offers a competing interpretation 

of 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508. Appellant cites to a number of cases applying § 7508 

to, inter alia, situations where drugs were mixed with cutting agents that 

served to dilute the end product. He highlights that these decisions illustrate 

that the policy rationale animating the mixture language in § 7508 is 

directed only at individuals who dilute the end product and thereby sell more 

drugs. He maintains that it is illogical to subject Appellant “to the same 

mandatory standard as a drug dealer who took to the streets with over one 

hundred grams of the drug.” Appellant’s brief at 22. 

In support of this interpretation, Appellant points to decisions from 

other jurisdictions that focus on the ultimate marketability of drugs when 

interpreting similar statutory language. Appellant acknowledges that these 

decisions are not uniform.

We find that the parties have directed their argument to the wrong 

statutory language. The mandatory sentencing statute codified at § 7508 

should have played no role whatsoever in determining the weight of the 

methamphetamine. “Because Alleyne invalidates material requirements of 

this statute, and because those provisions are non-severable . . . the 

statute simply cannot be enforced by the judiciary in any respect.” 
J-A20002-16

- 15 -

Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651, 662 (Pa. 2016). Accordingly, the 

trial court erred by relying on § 7508 and the attendant language “the 

aggregate weight of the compound or mixture containing the substance 

involved.” 

Having concluded an analysis of the operative phrase in § 7508 is now 

irrelevant to the calculation of the offense gravity score, the question 

becomes what language applies. The Sentencing Guidelines provides a clear 

answer to this question. 

(e) Violations of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and 

Cosmetic Act (35 P.S. §§ 780-101--780-144). If any mixture 

or compound contains any detectable amount of a 

controlled substance, the entire amount of the mixture or 

compound shall be deemed to be composed of the controlled 

substance. 

204 Pa.Code. § 303.3(e) (emphasis added). Notably, this language 

explicitly directs the sentencing court to determine whether the mixture 

contained any detectable amount of a controlled substance. The language 

interpreted by the parties, in contrast, applies where “the aggregate weight 

of the compound or mixture containing the substance is at least 100 grams.” 

18 Pa.C.S. § 7508. Thus, any question as to whether the term mixture 

standing alone should be interpreted, as urged by Appellant, to include some 

notion of marketability is resolved by § 303.3(e)’s inclusion of “any 

detectable amount.” 
J-A20002-16

- 16 -

To the extent the trial court relied on its interpretation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 

7508 and deferred to the jury’s factual findings under that language, that 

reliance was misplaced. Since this question presents a question of law, 

however, we continue our analysis to determine if the offense gravity score 

was correctly calculated notwithstanding that error. Johnson, supra. This 

is an issue of first impression. We are guided by these precepts: 

In all matters involving statutory interpretation, we apply the 

Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501 et seq., which 

directs us to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General 

Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). To accomplish that goal, we 

interpret statutory language not in isolation, but with reference 

to the context in which it appears. See Consulting Eng'rs 

Council of Penna. v. State Architects Licensure Bd., 522 Pa. 

204, 560 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1989). A statute's plain language 

generally provides the best indication of legislative intent. See, 

e.g., McGrory v. Dep't of Transp., 591 Pa. 56, 915 A.2d 1155, 

1158 (2007); Commonwealth v. Gilmour Mfg. Co., 573 Pa. 

143, 822 A.2d 676, 679 (2003); Penna. Fin. Responsibility 

Assigned Claims Plan v. English, 541 Pa. 424, 664 A.2d 84, 

87 (1995) (“Where the words of a statute are clear and free 

from ambiguity the legislative intent is to be gleaned from those 

very words.”). Only where the words of a statute are 

ambiguous will we resort to other considerations to 

discern legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)[.]

Commonwealth v. Kingston, 143 A.3d 917, 922 (Pa. 2016) (emphasis 

added, some citations omitted). 

The phrase “any detectable amount of a controlled substance” is clear 

and free from any ambiguity. Appellant is correct that this language applies 

equally to an individual possessing with the intent to deliver over 100 grams 

of methamphetamine and Appellant, who reached the 100 gram threshold 
J-A20002-16

- 17 -

largely through non-consumable waste byproduct. Yet we find that the 

context of the statute is consistent with that result. From its inception, the 

now-infirm mandatory sentence statute stated that “Sentencing Guidelines 

promulgated by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing shall not 

supersede the mandatory sentences provided herein.” See Act No. 1988-

31, House Bill Number 668. Thus, the “any detectable amount of a 

controlled substance” language of 204 Pa.Code. § 303.3(e) applies only 

when a higher mandatory sentence does not otherwise apply. In this 

respect, the trial court retained its discretion to deviate from the 

recommended sentencing ranges, as the guidelines, unlike the mandatory 

sentence provisions, are advisory. Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 

7–8 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citing Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 

(Pa.Super. 2001)). Therefore, we find no ambiguity and do not resort to 

other considerations to discern legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b) 

(“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the 

letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its 

spirit.”).3 

____________________________________________

3

 While we decline to look beyond the statutory language, we note our 

disagreement with Appellant’s position that this outcome is absurd and 

irrational. This argument overlooks the fact that the guidelines herein 

applied to his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, not mere 

possession. As the Commonwealth’s expert testified, the cooking process 

presents a danger of fire, explosion, and other health hazards. N.T. 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A20002-16

- 18 -

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in calculating Appellant’s offense 

gravity score as eleven. We can affirm the trial court’s decision if there is 

any basis to support it. Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708, 727 

(Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc). Indeed, the aforementioned provision did not 

merely permit the trial court to consider the contents in the Gatorade bottle 

as constituting methamphetamine, it required the trial court to do so. “If 

any mixture . . . contains any detectable amount of a controlled substance, 

the entire amount of the mixture . . . shall be deemed to be composed of 

the controlled substance.” 204 Pa.Code. § 303.3(e) (emphasis added). 

Herein, there is no dispute that the contents of the Gatorade bottle 

contained trace amounts of methamphetamine. Appellant’s sentencing claim 

is limited to the calculation of the offense gravity score. Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

1/27/14, at 164. While it is true that Appellant could have disposed of the 

waste product, that point is irrelevant insofar as its presence demonstrates 

beyond question that Appellant was engaged in the dangerous process of 

manufacturing methamphetamine. 

Indeed, the General Assembly applies the same offense gravity scores to 

any violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), whether the case involves 

possession with intent to deliver, actual delivery, or manufacture. The same 

disparate treatment charge could be leveled at the fact that the guidelines 

apply equally to those persons who actually deliver drugs and those who 

merely intended to deliver them. We are unpersuaded that our 

interpretation leads to absurd outcomes.
J-A20002-16

- 19 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/19/2016