J-S53002-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee :

:

 v. :

:

BRANDON MOOREFIELD, :

:

 Appellant : No. 731 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 23, 2012, 

Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, 

Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0004682-2010 

BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON and PLATT*, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014 

Brandon Moorefield (“Moorefield”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered on January 23, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Allegheny County following the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights nunc 

pro tunc on April 17, 2013. Moorefield’s appeal stems from his convictions 

for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance,1

 delivery of a 

controlled substance,2

 and possession of a controlled substance.3 We affirm. 

The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history of this 

case as follows: 

[On] February 17, 2010, Lieutenant Lando obtained 

a phone number of a possible drug dealer from an 

 

1

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 

2

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 

3

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
J-S53002-14 

- 2 - 

informant. Using software available to him in his 

office, he was able to do a ‘reverse look-up’ of the 

phone number and determine that the number was 

registered to ‘Bran Moorefield.’ [...] Lieutenant Lando 

was familiar with [Moorefield]. When the reverse 

look-up revealed that the phone number was 

registered to ‘Bran Moorefield,’ he suspected that 

[Moorefield] was the owner of the phone number 

provided by the informant. 

Lieutenant Lando called the number provided by the 

informant, and a male voice answered. He asked the 

person answering the phone, ‘Are you good?’, which 

is lingo for whether the person answering the call 

was holding drugs and able to sell them. The man 

who answered told Lieutenant Lando that he was 

good and asked how much money [Lieutenant] 

Lando had. Lieutenant Lando told him that he had 

$60 and asked what kind of ‘bags’ he had, referring 

to stamp bags of heroin. The man told Lieutenant 

Lando that he had King James (a brand of heroin 

that was being sold at the time), and Lieutenant 

Lando and the man answering the phone set up a 

meeting in Hazelwood. In preparation for the 

meeting, Lieutenant Lando obtained from their files 

the photograph and rap sheet of Brandon Moorefield 

for identification purposes. 

* * * 

[...] When Lieutenant Lando arrived at the meeting 

location, he again called the phone number 

previously identified as belonging to Bran Moorefield

to notify the person answering the phone that he 

was at the specified location. 

At approximately 7:57 p.m., a black male wearing a 

brown coat and jeans approached the undercover 

car, and Lieutenant Lando immediately recognized 

the man as [Moorefield]. He was able to compare the 

man who approached his car to the rap sheet photo 

that he was holding in the car as the man 

approached. Lieutenant Lando received confirmation 
J-S53002-14 

- 3 - 

from the surveillance team that the team members 

also saw [Moorefield] and confirmed that it was 

[him]. 

[Moorefield] walked past the undercover car, looked 

up the street and looked both ways, and then came 

back to the car. Lieutenant Lando handed him $60, 

and [Moorefield] handed him six (6) stamp bags of 

heroin that were labeled ‘King James.’ [Moorefield] 

then quickly walked away behind some houses, 

which prevented the takedown team from arresting 

[him] at that time. According to Lieutenant Lando’s 

testimony, it would have been unsafe to attempt to 

arrest [Moorefield] at that moment, as it could have 

resulted in a police chase through a dark wooded 

area. An arrest warrant was issued, and [Moorefield] 

was arrested on March 3, 2010. 

Detective Glenn Hairston [(“Detective Hairston”)] of 

the City of Pittsburgh Police Department, who was 

conducting surveillance for the undercover operation 

on February 17, 2010, also identified [Moorefield] as 

the drug dealer in the undercover buy. Detective 

Hairston was mobile, in a vehicle, while conducting 

surveillance. During the course of the surveillance, 

he had, at times, driven past Lieutenant Lando’s 

vehicle and past [Moorefield] as he walked down the 

street. He had also parked on the other side of the 

street, watching the transaction through binoculars. 

Detective Hairston also had a photograph of the 

Defendant with him, and, although he could not 

clearly see the transaction, he was able to clearly 

and definitively identify [Moorefield] as the person 

who walked up to Lieutenant Lando’s undercover 

vehicle. 

Following the presentation of the Commonwealth’s 

case, [Moorefield] moved for a [j]udgment of 

[a]cquittal, which this court denied. [Moorefield] was 

found guilty of all counts and proceeded to 

sentencing, where he received a sentence of 111⁄2 

[to] 23 months [of] incarceration in the Allegheny 
J-S53002-14 

- 4 - 

County Jail, followed by a period of five (5) years 

[of] probation. 

Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/14, at 2-6 (citations to the record omitted). 

 Following sentencing, Moorefield did not file any post-trial motions or a 

direct appeal. On January 24, 2013, Moorefield filed a pro se petition 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Moorefield and 

granted him leave to file an amended PCRA petition. Rather than filing an 

amended PCRA petition, Moorefield filed a petition to reinstate his direct 

appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On April 17, 2013, the PCRA court reinstated 

Moorefield’s direct appeal rights. 

On April 30, 2013, Moorefield filed a notice of appeal. On May 24, 

2013, the trial court ordered Moorefield to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1925(b). On June 6, 2013, Moorefield timely filed his Rule 

1925(b) statement. On appeal, Moorefield raises the following issue for 

review: 

The Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of 

proof where evidence of record failed to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that [Moorefield] and not 

some other unknown black male sold narcotics to an 

undercover police officer. 
J-S53002-14 

- 5 - 

Moorefield’s Brief at 8.4

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our 

standard of review is as follows: 

As a general matter, our standard of review of 

sufficiency claims requires that we evaluate the 

record in the light most favorable to the verdict 

winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all 

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the 

evidence. 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. 

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish 

guilt to a mathematical certainty. Any doubt about 

the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact 

finder unless the evidence is so weak and 

inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability 

of fact can be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. 

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by 

means of wholly circumstantial evidence. 

Accordingly, [t]he fact that the evidence establishing 

a defendant’s participation in a crime is 

circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where 

the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences 

 

4

 Moorefield raised an evidentiary issue and a discretionary aspect of 

sentencing issue in his 1925(b) statement, but failed to include these issues 

in the statement of questions section of his appellate brief. See Moorefield’s 

Brief at 8. “No question will be considered unless it is stated in the 

statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P. 

2116(a). As a result, Moorefield has waived these claims. Waiver is further 

supported by the fact that Moorefield included no argument on these issues 

in his appellate brief. See Moorefield’s Brief at 12-16. Where an 

“[a]ppellant has cited no legal authorities nor developed any meaningful 

analysis, we find [the] issue waived for lack of development.” 

Commonwealth v. McLaurin, 45 A.3d 1131, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2012), 

appeal denied, 65 A.3d 413 (Pa. 2013) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a));

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009)).
J-S53002-14 

- 6 - 

drawn therefrom overcomes the presumption of 

innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute our 

judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so long as

the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the 

respective elements of a defendant’s crimes beyond 

a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s convictions will 

be upheld. 

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). 

 In his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Moorefield only 

contests the police’s identification of him during the drug transaction. 

Moorefield’s Brief at 12-16. Moorefield argues that the Commonwealth did 

not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he, and not some other AfricanAmerican male, was the individual that sold narcotics to the undercover 

detective. Id. Moorefield asserts that police could not have identified 

Moorefield beyond a reasonable doubt because Lieutenant Lando’s 

interaction with the suspect was brief, because the transaction occurred on a 

darkened street, because Lieutenant Lando had never met Moorefield before, 

because the detectives needed a photograph to identify Moorefield, and 

because Lieutenant Lando did not know who he was speaking to on the 

phone. Id. at 15-16. Accordingly, Moorefield contends that the trial court’s 

verdict was based on speculation and conjecture. Id.

We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the evidence 

supporting the police’s identification of Moorefield was sufficient to sustain 
J-S53002-14 

- 7 - 

each of his convictions. Lieutenant Lando testified that he received from an 

informant the phone number of somebody by the name of “B” who was 

supposedly selling heroin. N.T., 1/23/12, at 9, 24. After discovering that 

this phone number was registered to a “Bran Moorefield,” Lieutenant Lando 

called the phone number, spoke to an unknown individual, and arranged to 

buy six bags of heroin for $60. Id. at 10-11. Being already familiar with 

Moorefield and suspecting that he was the drug dealer in this case, 

Lieutenant Lando took with him to the undercover operation a photograph of 

Moorefield that the police had on file. Id. at 10. After Lieutenant Lando 

arrived at the specified meeting location for the drug deal, he observed an 

individual approach his vehicle that he recognized as Moorefield from the 

photograph. Id. at 15. Moorefield walked past Lieutenant Lando’s vehicle 

and then returned to the passenger side of his vehicle. Id. at 15, 33-34. At 

that point, Moorefield stuck his head in the passenger side window of the 

vehicle and completed the drug transaction. Id. at 14. Lieutenant Lando 

also testified that he parked under a street lamp so that he would have good 

visibility and that he had a clear view of Moorefield’s face during the 

transaction. Id. at 15, 42-43. Likewise, Detective Hairston, who was 

providing surveillance on the night in question, testified that he identified 

Moorefield, using the same photograph as Lieutenant Lando, as Moorefield 

approached Lieutenant Lando’s vehicle. Id. at 46. 
J-S53002-14 

- 8 - 

Thus, the certified record supports the police’s identification of 

Moorefield during the pre-arranged drug transaction. As the fact-finder, the 

trial court was free to accept or reject the credibility of both witnesses, and 

to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. See Franklin, 69 A.3d at 722-

23. Here, the trial court found the testimony of Lieutenant Lando and 

Detective Hairston credible. Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/14, at 8-9. We 

decline to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Based on the 

foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the 

evidence supporting the police’s identification of Moorefield was sufficient to 

sustain each of his convictions. 

 Judgment of sentenced affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/20/2014