J-S07025-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RONALD J. WYATT

Appellant No. 1313 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 24, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0001177-2015

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 08, 2017

Ronald J. Wyatt appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, following his conviction for 

multiple drug offenses.1 After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court aptly summarized the facts underlying Wyatt’s arrest as 

follows:

At the trial, Detective Michael DiPalo of the Lebanon Count Drug 

Task Force testified that he received information that [Wyatt] 

would be traveling to Philadelphia via the Pennsylvania Turnpike 

to pick up drugs on May 8, 2015. As a result, Detective DiPalo 

and other officers conducted surveillance of [Wyatt]’s home and 

anticipated route of travel. The officers eventually observed 

____________________________________________

1 Wyatt was charged and convicted of three counts of possession with intent 

to deliver, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) (cocaine and marijuana), 35 P.S. § 

780-113(a)(16) (methamphetamine), and three counts of possession of a 

controlled substance, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32) (cocaine, marijuana, and 

methamphetamine).
J-S07025-17

- 2 -

[Wyatt] driving a gold-colored van, which was registered to one 

of Defendant’s family members, traveling on the Turnpike. After 

the van exited the Turnpike, officers from the South Londonderry 

Township Police Department followed it as it headed north on 

Route 72. When the van was stopped and searched, two cell 

phones were found inside. A K-9 unit was summoned and also 

conducted a search of the vehicle. The K -9 officer indicated to 

the engine compartment of the car. When the hood was opened, 

officers found a bag containing two pounds of marijuana,

approximately an ounce of methamphetamine and an ounce of 

cocaine. When asked whether he had any other controlled 

substances at his residence [Wyatt] admitted that he had some 

additional cocaine and a cutting agent there. [Wyatt] 

accompanied the detectives to his home and led them to the 

cocaine and the cutting agent which were hidden in some paint 

cans in the basement.

Another member of the Drug Task Force, Detective Ryan Mong, 

also testified at the trial. Detective Mong was qualified as an 

expert to testify as to whether drugs were possessed for 

personal use or delivery. Detective Mong was assisting Detective 

DiPalo with surveillance and made the initial contact with 

[Wyatt] after the van was stopped. Detective Mong had [Wyatt] 

exit the van so that he could speak with him. After Detective 

Mong explained the information they had received, Defendant 

consented to a search of the van. Defendant told Detective 

Mong that there was a small amount of marijuana in the back of 

the van. When the officers opened the hood, [Wyatt] yelled 

“bingo, bingo, bingo.” When Mong asked what he meant, 

[Wyatt] said “you'll find out.” [Wyatt] told them to open the bag 

and then said that he would cooperate so that they could get to 

the “big guy.” When he was asked whether he had other drugs 

at his home, [Wyatt] offered to take the detectives there to get 

them.

Detective Mong opined that [Wyatt] had possessed the 

marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine with the intent to 

deliver. In reaching this opinion, he noted that the large 

amounts (807 grams - nearly two pounds – of marijuana, 51 

grams of cocaine, and 28 grams of methamphetamine). These 

items were packed in bulk as they had been picked up from 

[Wyatt]'s supplier. Detective Mong explained that dealers 

usually purchase drugs in bulk because it is cheaper. In 

addition, no items which could be used for ingestion of the drugs 
J-S07025-17

- 3 -

were found and [Wyatt] had $1,400.00 in currency on his 

person.

On cross-examination; Detective Mong acknowledged that 

disposable items could be used for the ingestion of controlled 

substances. He also explained that the detectives did a “walkthrough” of [Wyatt]'s home and did not search drawers or 

cabinets. When asked about the consumption of drugs by an 

addict, Detective Mong indicated that a “terrible” addict could 

possibly use up to a hundred dollars’ worth of controlled 

substance per day. However, he further noted that the amount 

of drugs in this case would last a user up to six months, 

depending on the frequency of use, and that a typical “user” 

would not be expected to have this quantity of drugs. The fact 

that he already had cocaine in his home and went out to 

purchase more also made it unlikely that the drugs were for 

[Wyatt]'s personal use. Detective Mong also acknowledged that 

a cutting agent could be used to dilute the potency of a 

controlled substance, but that doing so would reduce the “high.”

[Wyatt] testified that he was sixty years of age and had been 

doing drugs since he was twelve years old. He indicated that he 

had suffered with drug addiction for many years and that he was 

using drugs at the time of this incident. He explained that he 

had purchased the drugs in Philadelphia because they were 

cheaper there. He admitted that he sold marijuana, but that the 

cocaine and methamphetamine were for his personal use. He 

used the proceeds from the marijuana sales in order to pay for 

his cocaine and methamphetamine habit. [Wyatt] claimed that 

the marijuana found in the back of the van was for his disabled 

son's medical needs. He further explained that he had used the 

cutting agent at his home to dilute the cocaine in order to avoid 

overdosing, but that he had ruined the cocaine by cutting it too 

much. He had those items hidden in the paint cans to keep it 

from children in his home. He claimed that the $1,400.00 was 

from sources other than drug sales. On cross-examination, 

[Wyatt] admitted that he had several clean urine tests around 

the time of this incident and Detective DiPalo testified that 

[Wyatt] had said nothing about being an addict to the 

detectives.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/26/16, at 2-5.
J-S07025-17

- 4 -

Wyatt was tried before a jury and convicted of all charges. On 

February 24, 2016, he was sentenced to 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment. On 

February 29, 2016, Wyatt filed post-sentence motions that were denied. 

Wyatt filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. 

On appeal, Wyatt presents the following issues for our review:

(1) Whether the Wyatt's motion for acquittal should be 

granted due to the Commonwealth's failure to present 

sufficient evidence at trial to prove the possession with the 

intent to deliver cocaine and possession with the intent to 

deliver methamphetamine?

(2) Whether the jury’s verdicts were against the weight of the 

evidence as it pertains to the possession with the intent to 

deliver cocaine charge and possession with the intent to 

deliver methamphetamine?

Wyatt first contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a 

reasonable doubt, that he possessed cocaine and methamphetamine with 

the intent to deliver.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must 

determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences 

therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each and every element of 

the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Commonwealth v. Randall, 758 A.2d 669, 674 (Pa. Super. 2000). In 

order to convict an accused of possession with intent to deliver under 35 

P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), “the Commonwealth must prove that he ‘both 
J-S07025-17

- 5 -

possessed the controlled substance and had an intent to deliver that 

substance.’” Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 

2011) (citation omitted). 

Moreover, “[w]hen determining whether a defendant had the requisite 

intent to deliver, relevant factors for consideration are ‘the manner in which 

the controlled substance was packaged, the behavior of the defendant, the 

presence of drug paraphernalia, and large sums of cash[.]’” Id. (citation 

omitted). “[E]xpert testimony is . . . admissible ‘concerning whether the 

facts surrounding the possession of controlled substances are consistent with 

an intent to deliver rather than an intent to possess it for personal use.’” 

Id. (citation omitted). “[P]ossession with intent to deliver can be inferred 

from the quantity of the drugs possessed and other surrounding 

circumstances, such as lack of paraphernalia for consumption.” 

Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233, 1237-38 (Pa. 2007).

Wyatt claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he 

possessed the drugs with the intent to deliver. Specifically, he discredits the 

Commonwealth’s expert, Detective Mong, who opined that, based upon the 

weight of the controlled substances, they were intended to be delivered. 

Wyatt argues that his own testimony (he is an addict who buys drugs in bulk 
J-S07025-17

- 6 -

because it is cheaper, adds a cutting agent2to the drugs due to a past 

overdose experience, and was buying the drugs because he ruined a batch 

by using too much cutting agent) is more reliable than the expert’s 

speculation. Finally, Wyatt asserts that officers did not find drug use 

paraphernalia in his home because they did not search drawers, closets, or 

other areas where an addict might hide paraphernalia.

Instantly, the trial court found that based on the sheer amount of 

drugs packed in bulk (almost two pounds of marijuana; 51 grams of cocaine; 

and 28 grams of methamphetamine), the absence of any drug-use 

paraphernalia in Wyatt’s home or van, $1,400.00 found on Wyatt’s person, 

and the presence of a cutting agent, the intent to deliver was proven beyond 

a reasonable doubt. We agree and find that there was sufficient evidence to 

sustain Wyatt’s conviction of possession with intent to deliver. See 

Commonwealth v. Ariondo, 580 A.2d 341 (Pa. Super. 1990) (although 

defendant testified that he was heavy drug user and intended cocaine for 

personal use, court made its own credibility determination and discounted 

defendant’s self-serving testimony where other evidence supported court’s 

finding that defendant possessed cocaine with intent to deliver).

____________________________________________

2 A cutting agent is a non-controlled substance which is mixed with a 

controlled substance in order to increase its volume and the potential profit 

from it.
J-S07025-17

- 7 -

In his final claim on appeal, Wyatt asserts that the jury improperly 

weighed the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert in determining that 

Wyatt possessed the drugs with the intent to deliver.

The finder of fact is the exclusive judge of the weight of the 

evidence as the fact finder is free to believe all, part, or none of 

the evidence presented and determines the credibility of the 

witnesses. As an appellate court, we cannot substitute our 

judgment for that of the finder of fact. Therefore, we will reverse 

a jury’s verdict and grant a new trial only where the verdict is so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice[.]

Furthermore,

where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, 

an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying 

question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether 

the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on 

the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Rabold, 920 A.2d 857, 860-61 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(citations omitted).

Wyatt claims that, given his forthcoming testimony regarding the fact 

that he is an addict and had the financial resources to buy drugs in bulk, the 

court should have regarded him as more credible than the Commonwealth’s 

expert, whose opinion was based on conjecture. Again, we emphasize that 

the jury, as the trier of fact, was tasked with passing upon the credibility of 

the witnesses and determining the weight to be afforded the evidence. 

Moreover, the jury was free to believe all, part or none of Wyatt’s testimony. 

Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court palpably abused its 

discretion in ruling on Wyatt’s weight claim. Rabold, supra.
J-S07025-17

- 8 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/8/2017