J-S13030-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DOMINIC JARRELL McLAURIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1139 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 4, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-41-CR-0000640-2016

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2020

Appellant Dominic McLaurin appeals from the Judgment of Sentence 

imposed by the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas after it found him

guilty of possessory drug offenses following a bench trial. Appellant purports 

to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. After careful review, we affirm.

We summarize the relevant underlying facts, gleaned from the trial 

court’s Opinion and verified by our review of the record, as follows. On 

February 3, 2016, Pennsylvania State Troopers Edward Dammer and Tyson 

Havens were on patrol when they pulled into the lot of a Uni-Mart located in 

an area of Williamsport known for illicit narcotics sales. A black sedan was 

parked alongside a gas pump, and when the Troopers pulled next to the 

vehicle, Appellant exited the driver’s seat and began to walk towards the store. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13030-20

- 2 -

The Troopers recognized Appellant from prior encounters and knew that he 

did not have a driver’s license. As Appellant walked away, he went behind the 

vehicles and his shoulder dipped down, as if to drop something behind the

police vehicle. Intending to investigate Appellant’s driving without a license, 

Trooper Havens asked Appellant to stop walking, but Appellant ignored him 

and continued to walk away. Trooper Havens caught up with Appellant and 

escorted him back to his vehicle. Appellant consented to a search of his person 

and his vehicle. The Troopers found a large bundle containing several hundred 

dollars in cash and a cell phone in Appellant’s pocket. Another cell phone was 

in his vehicle. 

While Trooper Dammer was putting Appellant’s information into the 

police car’s computer, Trooper Havens walked behind the vehicles and found 

a cigarette packet on the ground beneath the police vehicle. He looked inside

the packet, and discovered 16 small bags of heroin, bundled in two lots and 

held together with a rubber band, and two small bags containing crack 

cocaine. When Trooper Havens showed the drugs to Appellant, Appellant ran 

away, abandoning his car. The officers gave chase but were unable to locate 

Appellant. No evidence of personal use of drugs was found in Appellant’s car. 

The Commonwealth issued an arrest warrant.

Approximately one month later, on March 1, 2016, Appellant appeared 

for a hearing on another matter, and the Troopers arrested him. The 

Commonwealth charged him with two counts of Possession with Intent to 
J-S13030-20

- 3 -

Deliver (PWID), two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance, one count 

of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Driving without a License.1

On February 8, 2019,2 Appellant proceeded to a bench trial at which the 

Commonwealth presented testimony from Trooper Hammer, Detective 

Havens of the Pennsylvania State Police, and Cynthia Mann, a licensed 

practical nurse who had worked at the Lycoming County Correctional Facility

in March 2016 when Appellant was brought to the jail after his arrest for the 

February 3, 2016 incident. Trooper Hammer testified to the events leading 

up to and including Appellant’s fleeing the scene as recorded on the troopers’ 

Mobile Video Recording system (“dashcam”). The video was admitted as an 

exhibit and as it played for the court, Trooper Hammer pointed out, inter alia,

that as the police vehicle approached the parking lot, there was nothing on 

the ground except puddles. N.T., 2/8/19, at 16. He also pointed out 

Appellant’s dropping his shoulder as he walked behind the police vehicle. 

Nurse Mann testified that on March 2016, she conducted a standard 

intake review with Appellant at the jail during which Appellant denied using 

street drugs, i.e., heroin and cocaine. She also testified that she had noted 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), 780-113(a)(16), 780-113(a)(32), and 75 

Pa.C.S. §1501(a), respectively. 

2 The delay between Appellant’s arrest and his trial occurred as a result of the 

trial court’s December 2017 granting, in part, Appellant’s Motion in Limine to 

preclude certain evidence. The Commonwealth appealed and this Court 

affirmed the Order on September 14, 2018. See Commonwealth v. 

McLaurin, No. 1538 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 3, 2018).
J-S13030-20

- 4 -

on the intake form that Appellant was not exhibiting symptoms of withdrawal 

and his vital signs all appeared normal. N.T., 2/8/19, at 51-52.

By stipulation of the parties, the court accepted Trooper Havens as an 

expert in the field of drug interdiction. Trooper Havens testified not only 

regarding the events leading to Appellant’s arrest, but also in his capacity as 

an expert, stating that it was his opinion that Appellant possessed the drugs 

with intent to deliver and not for personal use based on (1) the lack of user 

paraphernalia found in Appellant’s car or in his pockets; (2) the large amount 

of money found on Appellant; (3) Appellant’s multiple cell phones; (4) the 

amount of drugs; (5) the manner in which the drugs were packaged; and (6) 

the location of the incident which is well known as a high narcotics trafficking 

area. See N.T., at 72-73, 76.

The trial court found Appellant guilty of the above offenses. The court 

indicated it would rely on a May 2018 presentence investigation report and 

directed the filing of an additional report regarding Appellant’s conduct in 

prison.

On April 4, 2019, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of 21⁄2 to 5 

years’ incarceration for each of the PWID convictions, to be served 

concurrently. The convictions for Possession of a Controlled Substance 

merged for purposes of sentencing, and the court imposed no further penalty 

for the remaining convictions. 
J-S13030-20

- 5 -

Appellant filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion challenging the sufficiency

of the evidence, which the court denied on June 18, 2019. Appellant then 

filed a timely Notice of Appeal.3 

Appellant presents the following issue for our review:

Whether the trial court erred in convicting [Appellant] despite the 

Commonwealth not providing sufficient evidence of the crime of 

possession with intent to deliver heroin and cocaine?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

“A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.” 

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). “We review 

claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by considering 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.” Commonwealth v. 

Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). “Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on 

circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility 

of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or 

none of the evidence.” Id. “In conducting this review, the appellate court 

may not weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.” 

Id. 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P 1925(b) Statement; in response, the trial court 

relied on its June 18, 2019 Opinion and Order denying Appellant’s PostSentence Motion in response.
J-S13030-20

- 6 -

Pursuant to 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), a person is prohibited from 

possessing a controlled substance except as an authorized person or with a 

valid medical prescription. Pursuant to 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), a person 

may not possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance unless

authorized by law or regulation to do so. 

Each crime requires proof that the accused possessed the contraband. 

In addition, to establish PWID, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the individual both possessed a controlled substance 

and had the intent to deliver it. Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 831 A.2d 607, 

611 (Pa. Super. 2003). “In determining whether there is sufficient evidence 

to support a PWID conviction, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

possession are relevant, and the Commonwealth may establish the essential 

elements of the crime wholly by circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth 

v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

It is well-settled that when an individual is found guilty of possessing 

contraband which was not found on his person, the Commonwealth is required 

to prove that he had constructive possession of the contraband. See id. at 

1014. Constructive possession is a legal fiction; it is an inference from a set 

of facts that the defendant more likely than not had control of contraband that 

was not found on his person. Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 507 A.2d 1212, 

1213 (Pa. 1986). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court defines constructive 

possession as “conscious dominion” which is “the power to control the 

[contraband] and the intent to exercise that control.” Commonwealth v. 
J-S13030-20

- 7 -

Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078, 1093 (Pa. 2011) (citation and quotation omitted). 

Constructive possession is inferred from the totality of the circumstances, and 

circumstantial evidence may be used to establish constructive possession. Id.

at 1094.

Here, the trial court, who sat as the factfinder, found that the 

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence from which to find that 

Appellant possessed the drugs. The court stated:

The Uni-Mart video also showed the area of the Uni-Mart prior to 

[Appellant] pulling in. One could see that prior to [Appellant] 

pulling in, there were no cigarette packs lying in the 

parking lot. One could also verify that no pedestrians had 

walked in the area either before [Appellant] pulled in, while 

[Appellant] was walking around his vehicle, when [Appellant] was 

returned to the vehicle or after [Appellant] was confronted with 

the cigarette pack and then fled.

Although Appellant’s mere presence at the scene, standing alone, 

is insufficient to prove guilty, the factfinder does not have to 

ignore the Appellant’s presence. Commonwealth v. Vargas, 

108 A.3d 858, 869 (Pa. Super. 2014). “Indeed, presence at a 

scene where drugs are found is a material and probative factor 

which the factfinder may consider.” Id. (citation omitted) 

[internal brackets omitted]. All of the evidence, taken 

together clearly links [Appellant] to the specific, if not 

exact, area where the illegal items were found and was 

sufficient circumstantial evidence of his possession of 

them.

Moreover, the court concluded that Appellant’s flight was 

consciousness of guilt. Prior to Appellant arriving at the UniMart, there was no cigarette pack. Appellant was seen exiting his 

car, walking around it and engaging in conduct which was 

consistent with him dropping something. His refusal to 

adhere to the police directives to stop showed that he was 

avoiding them in order to hide something. Once he returned to 

the vehicle, he was confronted with the items which were found 
J-S13030-20

- 8 -

directly where he was walking and where it appeared he was 

dropping something. He then fled. No other individuals were 

even remotely near where the cigarette pack was found.

Trial Ct. Op., dated June 14, 2019, at 4-5.

In his two-page argument, Appellant avers that the “evidence presented 

at trial failed to establish [ ] that he possessed the controlled substances at 

issue[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 11. He contends that the video was not clear 

enough for the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the cigarette packet was 

not already on the ground when the officers drove into the lot. Id. at 11-12. 

He also contends that the video was not clear enough to show a “shoulder dip” 

when he walked around the vehicles and “certainly did not show anything fall 

from [ ] Appellant’s hand.” Id. 

While Appellant acknowledges that the trial court found he 

constructively possessed the contraband, he fails to develop any argument 

supported by citation to the record or to case law as to why the evidence was 

insufficient to support the trial court’s finding. Rather, Appellant relies solely 

on a contention that the video was not clear enough to support his convictions. 

See id. Appellant’s argument challenges the weight the court gave to the 

video. 

A weight of the evidence claim must be raised before the trial court 

pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) or it will be waived. See Commonwealth v.

Kinney, 157 A.3d 968, 972 (Pa. Super. 2017) (holding that because 

defendant failed to raise a challenge to the weight of the evidence before the 
J-S13030-20

- 9 -

trial court in either an oral or written motion for a new trial, he waived this 

claim for review on appeal).

Our review of the record reveals that Appellant did not raise any issue 

pertaining to the video in his Post-Sentence Motion. Accordingly, this 

argument is waived. 

Moreover, with respect to the PWID conviction, Appellant concedes that 

“the cited evidence does support the [PWID] charge, [but he] nonetheless 

argues that it was still insufficient to find him guilty . . . [because] he was able 

to provide a plausible explanation [to the Trooper] for why he had the money 

without hesitation.” Appellant’s Br. at 12 (emphasis added). Again Appellant 

challenges the weight the trial court gave to the evidence, without having 

raised the challenge below.4 Accordingly, this argument is also waived.

5

____________________________________________

4 Further, Appellant fails to cite to the record where this evidence was 

presented to the court and provides no case law at all to develop or support 

his argument as required by our rules of appellate procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2111-2119 (setting forth required content of appellate briefs and addressing 

specific requirements for each subsection of the brief). This provides an 

additional reason to conclude Appellant’s issue is waived. See

Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005) (noting 

that “appellate briefs ... must materially conform to the requirements of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Court may quash or dismiss 

an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.”(internal citations omitted));

Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (same)

 

5 Moreover, even if Appellant had properly developed a sufficiency challenge, 

our review of the record and consideration of the inferences drawn by the 

court from the evidence presented supports the trial court’s conclusion that 

the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 

Appellant constructively possessed the drugs found under the police vehicle. 
J-S13030-20

- 10 -

We, thus, affirm the Judgment of Sentence.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 06/03/2020