### J-S20013-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. IRVIN HARPER

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3468 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 11, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-51-CR-0011481-2016, CP-51-CR-0011482-2016 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: Filed: October 8, 2020 Irvin Harper (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after a consolidated jury trial 

### of trial court docket numbers CP-51-CR-001141- 2016 and CP-51-CR-00011482-2016. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. On July 6, 2018, a jury found Appellant guilty of possession with intent to deliver 

### at CR-51-0011481-2016 and possession of a firearm without a license at 

### CP-51-CR-0011482-2016. 1 After the trial, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm prohibited. 2 On October 11, 2018, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of ten to twenty years followed

_________________ ____________________ _______ 1 

### 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106, respectively. 2 

### 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105.

### J-S20013-20

- 2 -

by seven years of probation. Appellant’s post-sentence motion was denied on October 22, 2018. On November 19, 2018, Appellant timely filed two notices of appeal. Appellant listed both docket numbers on both notices of appeal. However, the trial court clerk of courts sent only one notice of appeal to this Court for filing; thus, both appeals were assigned a single docket number in this Court—3468 EDA 2018. On March 5, 2019, Appellant filed a motion to proceed pro se and an Application for Writ of Mandamus and of Extraordinary Relief. On March 17, 2019, counsel filed an Application to Withdraw as counsel. Upon consideration of these motions, this Court remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). The trial court held a Grazier hearing on April 29, 2019, and ruled that Appellant was permitted to proceed pro se. Order, 6/24/19, at unnumbered 1. On September 6, 2019, Appellant filed a supplemental Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal, and on November 4, 2019, the trial court filed a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion. 3 

### Before we address the merits, we must determine whether these appeals are properly before us. The record reveals that on November 19,

_________________ ____________________ _______ 3 

### Prior to his withdrawal, Appellant’s counsel filed two separate Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements raising identical issues. Two different trial court judges issued opinions pursuant to Rule 1925, one addressing and upholding certain pretrial rulings and the other resolving a sentencing issue against Appellant. Those opinions are not germane to our discussion today.

### J-S20013-20

- 3 -

2018, Appellant filed identical notices of appeal at trial court docket numbers CP-51-CR-0011481-2016 and CP-51-CR-0011482-2016. In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme Court explained that “[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Id. at 976-977. “Where . . . one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeals must be filed.” Id. at 976 (quoting Pa.R.A.P. 341, note). The failure to file separate notices of appeal at each docket requires the appellate court to quash the appeal. Id. at 977. Our Supreme Court held that Walker applies prospectively to appeals filed after June 1, 2018. Id. After our Supreme Court filed its decision in Walker, a panel of our Court decided Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142 (Pa. Super. 2019). In Creese, the Majority concluded that the appellant did not comply with the requirements set forth in Walker. Specifically, the appellant in Creese filed four identical notices of appeal, each listing all four trial court docket numbers. Creese, 216 A.3d at 1144. The Majority quashed the appeals, holding “[this Court] may not accept a notice of appeal listing multiple docket numbers, even if those notices are included in the records of each case. Instead, a notice of appeal may contain only one docket number.” Id. In the instant case, because Appellant’s notices of appeal each displayed more than one docket number, we issued a Rule to Show as to why the appeals should not be quashed pursuant to Walker. Rule to Show Cause, 1/3/19.

### J-S20013-20

- 4 -

Appellant filed a timely response explaining that he filed two notices of appeal. Response to Rule to Show Cause, 1/3/19. The Rule was discharged on January 4, 2019, and the matter was referred to this panel. However, during the pendency of the instant appeals, an en banc panel of this Court expressly overruled Creese’s mandate that a notice of appeal may contain only one docket number. Commonwealth v. Johnson, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2020 PA Super 164, *5 (Pa. Super. filed July 9, 2020) (en banc)). Specifically, the en banc Court opined that where an appellant files a separate notice of appeal at each trial court docket, “[t]he fact that each notice of appeal listed [more than one trial court docket number] does not invalidate [the] notices of appeal .” Id. Thus, pursuant to Johnson, although Appellant’s separate notices of appeal bore more than one docket number, the notices of appeal do not run afoul of Walker or Pa.R.A.P. 341. Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant may proceed with his appeal . 

### We initially observe that Appellant’s handwritten, pro se brief fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous ways. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide guidelines regarding the required content of an appellate brief as follows: Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant (a) General Rule. The brief of the appellant, except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in the following order: (1) Statement of jurisdiction.

### J-S20013-20

- 5 - (2) Order or other determination in question. (3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review. (4) Statement of the questions involved. (5) Statement of the case (6) Summary of the argument. * * * (8) Argument for appellant. (9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought. (10) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule. (11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of the matters complained of on appeal filed with the trial court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement was entered. Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)–(6); (a)(8)–(11). Appellant’s brief blatantly violates this rule, as it fails to include a statement of jurisdiction, the order or other determination in question, a summary of argument, a statement of the questions involved, a statement of the case, and a summary of the argument. Appellant also failed to attach copies of the trial court opinion and Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) supplemental statement to his brief. We could readily conclude that Appellant’s appeal must be quashed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101. When a party’s brief fails to conform to the Rules

### J-S20013-20

- 6 -

of Appellate Procedure and the defects are substantial, an appellate court may, in its discretion, quash or dismiss the appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). (Superior 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.). Moreover, although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. Id. Although Appellant's brief is deficient, we conclude that it does not completely prohibit our review. Thus, we decline to quash the appeal and instead, affirm on the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable J. Scott O’Keefe filed November 4, 2019. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the issues raised in Appellant’s supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/4/19, at 8–10 (concluding Appellant’s complaints about the lack of a preliminary hearing were waived and rendered meaningless by the jury’s guilty verdict); at 11–12 (finding Appellant declined to litigate a motion to suppress); at 13 (determining the cases were properly consolidated for trial); at 14–16 (noting Appellant was not entitled to hybrid representation or representation by counsel of his choice); at 18–19 (deciding Appellant waived claims pf prosecutorial misconduct and that the allegations were without record support); at 20–22 (concluding the evidence was sufficient to support

### J-S20013-20

- 7 -

the convictions); and, at 24 (discerning no error in the admission of a gun into evidence). Thus, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the opinion filed on November 4, 2019, to any future filing that references our decision. Finally, on April 13, 2020, Appellant filed a motion for relief, requesting that a copy of the memorandum filed in this matter be mailed directly to him at SCI-Phoenix. We grant the motion and direct the Prothonotary of this Court to mail a paper copy of the memorandum to: Irvin Harper SCI Phoenix NP-3252 P.O. Box 244 Collegeville, PA 19426 Motion for relief granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/8/20Circulated 09/08/2020 11:11 PM



### IN 

### THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

### PHILADELPHIA 

## covNTy FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ,



### COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vs 

### IRVIN HARPER



### O'KEEFE, J. CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION 3468 

### EDA 2018 

### CP-51-CR-0011481-2016 CP-51-CR-0011482-2016 

### SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Defendant, Irvin Harper, appeals the 

### judgment 

### of sentence for 

### possession 

### of a controlled substance with intent to 

### deliver and 

### possession 

### of a 

### firearm prohibited, resulting in an aggregate sentence 

### of eight to 

### sixteen 

### years' incarceration. This supplemental opinion addresses the additional issues 

### raisedby

### the defendant,

### pro se, 

### pursuantto the Order 

### ofthe Superior Court 

### ofAugust 15, 2019. 

### PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Mr. 

### Harper was arrested onNovember 4, 2016, and 

### charged withpossession 

### ofa 

### controlled substance with intent to deliver, 

### possession 

### ofa controlled substance and possession 

### of a firearm prohibited, docketed at 

### MC-51-CR-0031155-2016. Appellant was 

### arrested at the same time for two counts 

### each 

### ofrape, involuntary deviate sexual 

### intercourse, sexual assault, indecent assault, indecent exposure and one 

### count each 

### ofkidnapping, 

### possession 

### ofa 

### firearm prohibited, unlawful restraint, firearms not to be 

### carried without a license, 

### carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, terroristic 

### threats and 

### simple assault at 

### MC-51-CR-0031158-2016. Additionally, Mr. 

### Harper was

1charged at 

### MC-51-CR-0031159-2016 with two counts each 

### of rape, 

### involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and 

### indecent assault with one count each 

### ofkidnapping, 

### unlawful restraint, sexual assault, 

### indecent exposure, terroristic threats, simple 

### assault and 

### recklessly endangering anotherperson. The cases were presented to a grand 

### jury and 

### informations were 

### filed on December 19, 2016. 

### Consolidation was ordered on 

### June 6, 2018 (the 

### subject

### ofa 

### separate opinion) and the 

### matter eventually sent to the 

### undersigned for trial. Ajury trial was held from June 

### 27" through July 6, 2018, at 

### which time the defendant was only convicted 

### ofthe drug charges. Mr. 

### Harper then pled guilty to the 

### bifurcated charge 

### ofpossession 

### of a 

### firearm prohibited. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to three to six 

### years' incarceration for 

### possession with intent to deliver, a 

### consecutive five to 

### ten 

### years' incarceration for the 

### possession 

### of the firearm 

### prohibited for an aggregate sentence 

### ofeight to 

### sixteen years in prison. Post-sentence motions were filed and denied without

a hearing and timely appeal made to the Superior Court. On 

### February 22, 2019, this court filed an opinion 

### addressing the only issued raised alleging an excessive sentence. There is a long and 

### tortured history from 

### that time forward. On 

### March 4th, appellant filed

a motion to 

### proceed

### pro se as well as an 

### Application for 

### Writ 

### ofMandamus and 

### ofExtraordinary Relief. On 

### March 17, 

### counsel filed an 

### Application to 

### Withdraw as counsel. Upon consideration 

### ofthese 

### motions, the Superior Court remanded the 

### matter for the trial court to 

### conduct a 

### Grazier' hearing on 

### March 25, 2019. Mr. 

### Harper followed this with an 

### Application to Compel on March 29th. On April 16th, the Superior Court ordered that the 

### defendant's 

### pro se motions be forwarded to appointed counsel noting that

### pro se filings by 

### counseled appellants are disapproved2. On April

Commonwealth v. Grazier, 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (1998).

2 Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993); Commonwealth v. Jette, 611 Pa. 166, 23 A.3d 1032 (2011). 229th, 

### the trial court conducted the remanded Grazier hearing andruled that the 

### defendant's request to proceed

### pro se was 

### knowing, intelligent and voluntary and as such 

### Appellant was 

### permitted to 

### self -represent with his court-appointed attorney to 

### remain as 

### back-up counsel. On May 20, 2019, Mr. Harper filed an 

### Application for 

### Reliefwith the Superior Court, after 

### which the court required this court to notify 

### them in writing 

### ofthe 

### pro se application determination. On June 27th, 

### the trial court notified the 

### Superior Court 

### ofthe Grazier hearing 

### of April 

### 29" and its 

### decision that the 

### defendant's request to 

### self -represent was granted. Mr. 

### Harper filed 

### another Application for 

### Relief

on June 28th and again on July 31(1 as well a Motion to Amend his 1925(b) 

### Statement on July 

### 8'. Additionally the 

### defendant filed a 

### Motion for Full 

### Discovery as well as a 

### Motion to 

### Disregard the 1925(b) 

### previously filed by his counsel on the same day. On July 10th, the Superior Court granted

an 

### extension 

### of time for 

### Appellant to file his 

### brief until September 11th. Mr. 

### Harper filed a new 

### Application for Stay on July 24th, an 

### Application for 

### Relief on 

### August 5th, and a 

### third Application for 

### Extension of Time to File 

### Briefon August 14". The next day, August 15", the Superior Court granted the 

### extension 

### oftime for 

### Appellant to file his 

### brief until October 11, 2019, further mandating 

### that no 

### further extensions 

### oftime would be granted. At the same time, the Superior Court also entered an 

### order remanding the case for 120 days for 

### the 

### trial court to 

### provide the 

### defendant with the notes 

### of testimony and documents 

### that the 

### trial court deems 

### necessary 

### and relevant so 

### that the 

### defendant could make 

### a complete 

### assessment 

### ofthe issues 

### raised on 

### appeal. A true and correct copy 

### ofthe 

### transmittal letter and documents that the trial court provided to the defendant is attached tothis supplemental opinion. On September 6, 2019, the 

### defendant filed a 

### supplemental 1925(b) statement, the subject 

### ofthis supplemental opinion.



### STANDARD OF 

### REVIEW:

3

### Whether or 

### not separate indictments should be 

### consolidated is 

### within the sole 

### discretion 

### of the trial court and 

### will only be 

### reversed for a 

### manifest abuse 

### ofthat 

### discretionresulting in

### prejudice and clear injustice to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Newman, 528 Pa. 393, 398, 598 A.2d 275, 277 (1991) (citing Commonwealth v. Lark, 518 Pa. 290, 543 A.2d 491 (1988)). The 

### decision to allow an individual to represent 

### himselfis 

### within the sound 

### discretion 

### of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. An abuse 

### of discretion occurs 

### when the law is 

### overridden or 

### misapplied, or 

### thejudgment exercised was 

### manifestly unreasonable. Commonwealth v. El, 602 Pa. 126, 142, 977 

### A.2d 1158, 1166-67 (2018). The denial 

### of a 

### request to remove court

### -appointed counsel and 

### appoint new counsel is within the sound 

### discretion 

### ofthe court and will not be reversed absent an abuse 

### ofthat discretion. Commonwealth v. 

### Spatz, 562 Pa. 498, 518, 756 A.2d 1139, 1150 (2000) 

### (citing Commonwealth v. Segers, 460 Pa. 149, 154, 331 A.2d 462, 465 (1975)). 

### Whenreviewing a 

### claim 

### ofprosecutorial misconduct, the standard 

### ofreview is 

### limited to whether the trial 

### court abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 

### A.3d 1, 26 (Pa.Super.2014). The 

### standard 

### ofreviewfor a claim 

### ofinsufficiency 

### ofthe 

### evidence is 

### that an appellate court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

### Commonwealth as the 

### verdict winner, and determine whether the evidence presented at trial, including all 

### reasonable inferences that may be drawn 

### therefrom, was sufficient to prove all 

### ofthe elements 

### of the crime 

### beyond a 

### reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. McCalman, 795 A.2d 412 (Pa.Super. 2002). The 

### admission of evidence is within the sound 

### discretion 

### ofthe trial court and will not be

4reversed absent a 

### showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. An abuse 

### ofdiscretion

occurs when the law is 

### overridden or 

### misapplied, or the

### judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable. Commonwealth v. Handfield, 34 A.3d 187, 207-08 (Pa.Super. 2011). 

### FACTS The 

### testimony presented at trial was that in 

### December 

### of 2015, 

### Fatima Vaccarella was living at the Covenant House, a

### homeless shelterinthe 

### Germantown section 

### ofPhiladelphia. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 42-45). The shelter required the residents to obtain 

### employment or be enrolled in school, or they 

### would be asked to leave. Ms. 

### Vaccarella was 

### walking in a 

### park near the shelter when she was approached by the 

### defendant who asked her 

### if she needed a

### job, offering her employment hairdressing, washing hair and cleaning. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 46-48). She accepted the offer and accompanied Harper to his house, where the defendant said he had to retrieve something. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 47-49). Ms. 

### Vaccarella related 

### that once inside, the 

### defendant brandished a gun from the inside 

### ofhis 

### jacket and told her to 

### remove her clothes and to do what he told her. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 49-55). The 

### complainant thither testified that the defendant told her to perform oral sex upon 

### him andthen engage in sexual intercourse with Harper ejaculating on 

### her chest, and that she was too seared to say anything, 

### just complying to get it all 

### over with. (N.T. 6-28- 2018, pp. 49-55). 

### Harper had told the 

### complainant that his 

### nickname was 

### "Gotti". (N.T. 6-28- 2018, p. 63, 65). Ms. 

### Vaccarella returnedto Covenant House but admitted 

### that she had exchanged phone numbers with the defendant and 

### that the incident was 

### repeated later because she was still scared 

### of him and 

### somehow thought he would still get her a 

### job. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 57-60). The 

### complainant further testified that sometime later, she was 

### outside the 

### homeless shelter when the 

### defendant approached, telling her he wanted her again. Ms. 

### Vaccarella told him no and ran back inside the shelter. Obviously upset and shaking, her 

### roommate pressed her as to what was

5wrong and she 

### told her 

### roommate everything, eventually being moved from 

### the shelter and 

### making

a 

### statement to the police. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 60-65). In the 

### statement, the victim admitted to having 

### previously being involved in 

### prostitution a few years earlier when living in Egypt. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 64-66). 

### Jessica Tokarczyk testified that when she was 

### twenty-one years old she 

### resided at 

### the Covenant House around October 2016 for 

### approximately three months. (N.T. 

### 6-28-2018, pp. 96-98). The 

### defendant approached her, in a group 

### ofpeople, and offered her 

### money to help 

### him with a drug run. (N.T. 

### 6-28-2018, pp. 98-100). This 

### complainant checked with 

### 'Robin', another resident 

### of the Covenant House, and 

### after receiving assurances that he was alright, 

### Tokarczyk left with appellant. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 97-103). Harper left her in the park for a short time and then reappeared with a car. They rode around for a while, 

### evidently completing his drug run, 

### ending back at his house with hoagies. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 97-101). Mr. 

### Harper had 

### informed this complainant as well 

### thathis 

### nickname was "Gotti". (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 97-114). This complainant testified that while upstairs the defendant told her she needed to keep her word, 

### that he had given her 

### twenty-five dollars for a 

### drug run, 

### bought her a hoagie and a 

### drink and 

### then he 

### stripped down to his underwear. 

### Tokarczyk stated that she repeatedly told him she did not want to do this, but felt pressured. This 

### complainant stated that the defendant forced her to perform oral sex on him while she was sitting on the bed. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 130-133). She finally removed her clothes and 

### appellant had sexual intercourse with her. (MT. 6-28-2018, pp. 114-119). Harper put his 

### telephone number in 

### this 

### complainant's cellphone and dropped her 

### off a short distance from the Covenant House. Later that day, 

### Tokarczyk told another resident 

### of what happened, then an administrator, and subsequently the police. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 119-126). Arlacia Curtis 

### testified that she was a resident 

### ofthe Covenant 

### House in the spring 

### of2015

6when the 

### defendant approached her and asked if she needed a job. Ms. Curtis 

### responded no and walked away from Mr. Harper. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 189-194). This 

### witness further testified that she was 

### walking withher roommate, Bella, when "Gotti" was walkingby 

### the door 

### ofthe Covenant House and said 

### something to Bella which made her 

### extremely upset and she 

### then ran away. When pressed, Bella told her that 

### "Gotti" had offered her a

### job and 

### that when they went back to his place to fill out an online application on his 

### computer that he 

### pulled out a gun and told her to go upstairs and get undressed. (N.T. 6-28-2018, pp. 190-196). Toni Seibert is a 

### registered nurse who has 

### worked for the 

### Philadelphia Sexual 

### Assault Response Center for the past twenty years and testified that on October 17, 2016, she examined Jessica 

### Tocarzyk and as 

### part 

### ofthat exam she took a 

### report on what the 

### victim said 

### happened with appellant. (N.T. 

### 6-29-2018, pp. 54-72). Aimee Della 

### Porta testified that she was a social 

### worker at the 

### Covenant House since March 

### of2015, and 

### that she spoke with 

### both Bella and 

### Jessica as to the 

### allegations concerning this defendant. (N.T. 7-2-2018, pp. 6-12). 

### Detective Daniel 

### O'Malley 

### of the Special Victims Unit 

### ofthe 

### Philadelphia Police Department 

### testifiedthat he was assigned detective 

### of the 

### defendant's cases, 

### that he 

### reviewed the 

### reports

as to both victims, 

### including photo arrays and 

### acknowledgments that 626 

### Federal Street was the place 

### of both occurrences and 

### that he applied for the search warrants in these cases as well as assisted in

### the execution 

### ofthe warrants. (N.T. 7-2-2018, pp. 37-92). 

### Detective 

### O'Malleytestified that 

### appellant and others were present when the warrants were executed, as to 

### the blue steel handgun with a 

### silver barrel and trigger loaded with nine live rounds 

### recovered from a 

### piece 

### ofTupperware 

### from the 

### kitchen in the property; a large amount 

### of narcotics on the kitchen table with packaging and scales, as well as in a bowl in the kitchen cabinet; and money 

### that the 

### defendant attempted to hand to the 

### landlord when the police entered the premises. (N.T. 7-2-2018, pp. 60-

768). Officer Kevin Keyes testified that he is employed by the 

### Philadelphia Police Department in the Narcotics Field Unit and is a 

### stipulated expert in the field 

### of narcotics. Officer Keyes said he reviewed the reports concerning the confiscated 134 grams 

### ofcocaine, two baggies 

### ofheroin weighing 20.118 grams, grinders, a scale and packaging, and came to the 

### conclusion that the drugs

were 

### possessed with the intent to deliver. (N.T. 6-29-2018, pp. 35-45). 

### LEGAL DISCUSSION PRELIMINARY HEARING Appellant raises several complaints concerning the 

### prosecution's presenting his charges to

an indicting grand

### jury instead 

### ofholding a preliminary hearing. It needs to be noted thatthe law in 

### Pennsylvania is crystal clear that once a defendant has gone to trial and been found guilty 

### of a crime, any 

### defect in the preliminary hearing is rendered immaterial. Commonwealth v. Tyler, 402 Pa.Super. 429, 432, 587 A.2d 326, 328 (1991); Commonwealth v. 

### McCullough, 501 Pa. 423, 461 A.2d 1229 (1983); Commonwealth v. Waters, 491 Pa. 85, 418 A.2d 312 (1980); Commonwealth

v. Allen, 475 Pa. 165, 379 A.2d 1335 (1977). Accordingly, all 

### of appellant's complaints about the lack 

### of a 

### preliminary hearing are 

### without merit. For the sake 

### of thoroughness, the 

### defendant's grievances will be 

### addressed in the order in which they have been 

### presented in the 

### defendant's 1925(b) statement. 

### "1.appellant [sic] asserts that his garanteed [sic] 

### right to a 

### preliminary hearing was violated 

### regarding docketnumber #cp-51-cr-0011481-2016, it was a clear err [sic] 

### ofthe trial court and this 

### violated appellants [sic] garanteed [sic] 

### right to his four

### teenth 

### amendment's [sic] due 

### process andArticle one [sic] 

### section nine 

### ofthe Pennsylvania state 

### constitution [sic]." Supplemental Statement ofMatters Complained 

### ofon Appeal, p. 1. First, this issue has been waived. The law in 

### Pennsylvania is crystal clear 

### that issues first

8raised on appeal and not raised in the trial court are deemed waived. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Commonwealth v. 

### Cain, 2006 Pa.Super. 228, 906 A.2d 1242 (Pa.Super. 2006) Specifically, complaints concerning an 

### indictment or preliminary hearing must be raised in a 

### motion to quash the 

### indictment or 

### information or they are waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 556.4(C); Commonwealth v. Hodge, 279 Pa.Super. 232, 245, 411 A.2d 503, 509 (1979). 

### Addressing the issue on its merits, neither the United States nor the 

### Pennsylvania Constitutions 

### provide a 

### constitutional right to a 

### preliminary hearing by a 

### defendant in a criminal proceeding. Commonwealth v. 

### Mayberry, 459 Pa. 91, 103, 327 A.2d 86, 92 (1974) (citing Coleman

v. 

### Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); Connnonweallh v. McCloskey, 443 Pa. 117, 131-133, 277 A.2d 764, 

### 771-772, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1000, 92 S.Ct. 563, 30 L.Ed.2d 552 (1971)). The 

### pertinent section 

### ofArticle I, section 9 

### ofthe 

### Pennsylvania Constitution states: "In all criminal 

### prosecutions the accused hath a right to be heard by 

### himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause 

### of the 

### accusation against him, to be 

### confronted with the witnesses against him, to have 

### compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and, in 

### prosecutions by 

### indictment or 

### information, a speedy public trial by animpartial

### jury ofthe 

### vicinage..." Clearly, the cited 

### provision 

### ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution does not confer upon a 

### defendant a 

### right to a 

### preliminary hearing, and in fact 

### specifies prosecutions by 

### indictment or 

### information. As 

### there is

no 

### constitutional right to a 

### preliminary hearing, the 

### defendant was 

### not denied a 

### constitutional right by 

### proceeding by way 

### ofa grandjury. "2.appellant [sic] asserts that the 

### common pleas court 

### of PHILADELPHIA [sic] never retained subject matters [sic] 

### jurisdiction 

### of #cp-51-cr-0011481-2016 and it was a err [sic] 

### ofthe court 

### ton [sic] 

### hold appellants [sic] trial 

### injune [sic] 2018 and to 

### sentence him on 10-11-2018 due to this docket not going to a 

### municipal court for a 

### probable causehearing first." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters Complained 

### ofon Appeal, p. 1.

9It is assumed 

### that Harper is again bemoaning the lack 

### ofa 

### preliminary hearing. The de

### fendant's cases 

### proceeded by 

### way 

### ofpresentment to a grand

### jury followed by the issuance 

### ofbills 

### ofinformation, as 

### provided by 

### Pennsylvania Rules 

### ofCriminal Procedure 556 et seq. As this issue

was 

### just discussed in the 

### previous section 

### ofthis opinion, there is no 

### need for it to be 

### reargued here. LikeWise, the 

### defendant was convicted by a 

### jury 

### of drug and gun charges, and as noted 

### previously any defect in a 

### preliminary hearing is immaterial. Commonwealth v. Tyler, 

### supra; Commonwealth v. McCullough, 

### supra. "4.appellant [sic] asserts that the trial court made a 

### major err [sic] in concert with the 

### prosecution when they violated rule 556,and [sic] 556.2 and 

### misused the indicting grand

### jury procedures,the [sic] trial court abused its 

### descretion [sic] by allowing the 

### prosecution to 

### bring #cp-51-cr=0011481-2016 [sic] in front 

### ofa grand

### jury knowing that docket had 

### nothing to do with the other two cases that involved two 

### witnesses who 

### accused appellant 

### oftwo separate crimes 

### that went to 

### the grand 

### jury only because 

### of allegations 

### of witness intimidation.appellant [sic] asserts that 

### #CP-51-CR-0011481-2016 was a 

### seperate [sic] case 

### ofnarcotics and gun 

### violations and 

### that case 

### had nothing to do with the witnesses this was a 

### violation 

### of rule 556,556.2 [sic] and a clear violation 

### ofthe 14 

### amendments [sic] due 

### process and article [sic] one section nine 

### ofthe 

### pennsylvania [sic] state 

### constitution the rights 

### ofthe accused andthe right for 

### appellant to have a 

### preliminary hearing [sic]." 

### Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters 

### Complained 

### ofon 

### Appeal, p. 1. Again, the lack 

### of a 

### preliminary hearing is 

### ofno 

### consequence once a 

### defendant has 

### been convicted by a

### jury ofthe 

### charges complained of. Additionally, this issue is 

### likewise waived. The law in 

### Pennsylvania is crystal clear that issues first raised on appeal and 

### not raised in the trial court

are deemed waived. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Specifically, complaints 

### concerning an 

### indictment or preliminary hearing 

### must be raised in a motion to quash the indictment or 

### information or they are waived. See 

### Pa.R.Crim.P. 556.4(C); Commonwealth v. Hodge, 279 Pa.Super. 232, 245, 411 A.2d 503, 509 (1979).

10

### "5.appelant [sic] asserts that his rightto be 

### confronted by

### the officers who found the 

### narcotics was violated when they failed to 

### testify at a 

### preliminary hearingto 

### showthey had

### probable cause as tothe 

### drug and gun 

### violations,those [sic] officers didnt [sic] testify at 

### appellants [sic] trial and this was a clear violation 

### of appellants [sic] 

### right to 

### cross-examination ofwitnesses against him violating the six 

### amendments [sic] 

### confrontation clause." Supplemental Statement of Matters Complained 

### of on 

### Appeal, pp. 1-2.

In addition to the 

### fact thatthe 

### defendant has been found guilty by a

### jury and the immateriality under the law 

### ofthe lack 

### ofa 

### preliminary hearing as 

### previously discussed in this opinion, the defendant pled guilty to 

### the charge 

### of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105, Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or 

### transfer firearms. (N.T. 7-9-2018, pp. 1-9). 

### SUPPRESSION MOTION Harper next complains that this court failed to conduct a 

### hearing on his oral motion to suppress. Specifically: "3.the [sic] trial court err [sic] when it did not allow 

### appellant who ask the court 

### threw [sic] a [sic] oral motion to have a 

### suppression hearing regarding #cp-51-cr-0011481-2016,the [sic] trial court 

### abused its descretion [sic] by 

### not allowing appellant to 

### have a garanteed [sic] right 

### ofa suppression hearing on 6-26-18 this [sic] was a 

### clear violation 

### ofpa.r.crim.p.581 [sic] and the fourth 

### amendment amd [sic] article [sic] one section 8 

### ofthe 

### pemmsylvania [sic] state 

### constitution and due 

### process." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters Complained 

### ofon 

### Appeal, p. 1. 

### Appellant's claim fails for several reasons. First, when the trial court asked Harper 

### if he wanted the court to 

### review the 

### affidavit 

### ofprobable cause as a 

### 'four corners suppression motion', the 

### defendant twice responded no, he did not want the court to 

### review it. (N.T. 6-26-2018, pp. 7- 11). It is 

### elementary 

### that 

### if a 

### defendant specifically refuses to allow the 

### court to 

### review the affidavit 

### ofprobable cause as an issue 

### of suppression, he is 

### obviously precluded from claiming the

11court erred in failing to hear a motion to suppress on that issue. 

### Additionally, the defendant was represented by 

### extremely able counsel who had specifically discussed a 

### four corners motion with the defendant. Counsel advised the defendant that he could not proceed with such a motion as it would have been 

### frivolous and 

### that he could not file a 

### motion that he did not have a good faith basis for. (N.T. 

### 6-26-2018, 7-9). Finally, as 

### noted above, 

### the defendantwas 

### represented by 

### counsel, and the law in 

### Pennsylvania is crystal clear: a 

### defendant in a criminal case has no 

### constitutional right to act as co-counsel before the trial court while 

### represented by an attorney. Connnonwectlth v. 

### Pursell, 555 Pa. 233, 724 A.2d 293, 301 (1999) (citing Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993)). 

### Pro se actions have no legal effect where 

### the defendant is 

### represented by counsel and as such, any such 

### application for

### reliefis a nullity. Id. Our Supreme Courthas opined that the proper procedure is to refer the 

### pleading to 

### counsel and to take no further action on the 

### proposed pleading unless counsel files and moves onthe motion. Commonwealthv. 

### Jette, 611 Pa. 166, 23 A.3d 1032 (2011); Commonwealth v 

### Glacken, 32 A.3d 750, 753 (Pa.Super. 2011). 

### CONSOLIDATION OF CASES Appellant further contends that the pre-trial court erred in 

### consolidating his cases for trial. 

### "6.the [sic] 

### trial court err [sic] and 

### abused its 

### descretion [sic] 

### when it 

### allowed the three cases to be 

### consolidated on 

### june 6 2018. [sic] Judge giovanni o 

### campbell [sic] abused his 

### descretion [sic] the [sic] three 

### cases had no common plan or scheme and they were 

### not committed in the same act or on 

### the same day and this 

### prejudiced the 

### jury and 

### confused the

### jury." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters Complained 

### ofon Appeal, p. 2. Rule 582(A) 

### ofthe 

### Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 

### provides, in relevant part: "(1) Offenses charged in separate indictments or informations may be 

### tried together if: (a) the evidence 

### ofeach 

### ofthe 

### offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other and is capable

12

### of separation by the

### jury so 

### that there is no danger 

### of confusion." Consolidation 

### ofoffenses requires the 

### prosecution to 

### show that there are shared similarities and details 

### of each crime 

### tending to show motive; intent; absence 

### ofmistake or accident; 

### common scheme, plan or design such that 

### proofof one tends to 

### prove the other; or to establish the identity 

### ofthe 

### person charged. Commonwealth v. Newman, 528 Pa. 393, 399, 598 A.2d 275, 278 (1991) 

### (citing Commonwealth v. 

### Lark, 518 Pa. 290, 303, 543 

### A.2d 491, 497 (1988)). The 

### commonality between the two cases is obvious. Both women claim to be 

### approached by the 

### defendant outside 

### ofthe 

### Covenant House in the Germantown section 

### of Philadelphia 

# -a homeless shelter that 

### requires its 

### residents to be employed; offering both 

### employment; taking both back to his apartment, forcing each to have sex with him and

### returning them near 

### theirresidence when finished. Given 

### the similarities 

### ofthe two 

### incidents, evidence 

### ofeach 

### offense would have been admissible in a separate 

### trial for the other. 

### Moreover, the distinct offenses were readily capable 

### of separation by the

### jury so there was no danger 

### ofconfusion. Although there were similarities, the two incidents were easily distinguishable from each other. As to the 

### prejudice component, it is extremely important to 

### note that the 

### defendant was acquitted 

### of any 

### of the sexual offenses, merely found guilty 

### ofthe drugs found in his 

### apartment and the 

### gun charge to 

### which he pled guilty. The law is clear that the trial 

### court's decision 

### whether to 

### consolidate separate indictments is within the sole 

### discretion ofthe trial court and will only be 

### reversed for a 

### manifest abuse 

### ofthat discretion 

### resulting in 

### prejudice and clear injustice to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Newman, 528 Pa. 393, 398, 598 

### A.2d 275, 277 (1991) (citing Commonwealth v. 

### Lark, 518 Pa. 290, 543 

### A.2d 491 (1988)). 

### Accordingly, this claim 

### ofthe defendant is 

### without merit. 

### SELF

### -REPRESENTATION The 

### defendant now claims he was denied his 

### right 

### of 

### self -representation and that as such

13he is 

### entitled to a 

### new trial. A criminal 

### defendant's right to 

### counsel includes the right to waive counsel and 

### represent 

### one's self. Commonwealth v. El, 602 Pa. 126, 134, 977 A.2d 1158, 1162 (2018) (citing 

### Faretta v. 

### California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 

### L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Commonwealth v. Szuchon, 506 Pa. 228, 484 

### A.2d 1365 (1984)). 

### However, the right

### ofself-representation is 

### not automatic. Only timely, clear and unequivocal requests 

### trigger an inquiry into 

### whether the request is 

### knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Commonwealth y El, 

### supra (citing 

### Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at 836; Commonwealth v. Davido, 582 Pa. 52, 868 

### A.2d 431, 438 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1020, 126 S.Ct. 660, 163 L.Ed.2d 534 (2005)). 

### Particularly the defendant avers: 

### "7.the [sic] trial court abused its 

### descretion [sic] by 

### not having a 

### grazier [sic] 

### hearing when appellant filed a 

### motion on 1-25-2018 

### asking the trial court to 

### proceed pro se,the [sic] 

### court 

### never heard his 

### motion and held [sic] a proper hearing,this [sic] 

### forced appellant to use a [sic] 

### ineffective counsel

### james [sic] 

### Lloyd esq. [sic] violating his 6 [sic] 

### amendmentright." Supplemental Statement

### ofMatters 

### Complained 

### ofon Appeal. p. 2.

The basis 

### of the 

### defendant's claim is that he filed what was titled an 

### Omnibus Motion on January 25, 2018, 

### wherein Harper asked 

### that the court appoint him 

### "a co

### -counsel" as well as an investigator. 

### (Motion 

### of 1-25-2018). 

### Appellant already had counsel appointed to represent

## himin fact this was the 

### defendant's third counsel, having already had the 

### Defender Association 

### of Philadelphia as well as W. Fred Harrison, Jr., Esquire 

### representing him. A 

### request to have co- counsel appointed is 

### inappropriate given that, as

### previously noted, the courts will not allow hybrid representation. Commonwealth v. 

### Purcell, 555 Pa. 233, 724 A.2d 293, 302 (1999) (citing Commonwealth Y Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993)); Commonwealth V. 

### Jette, 611 Pa. 166, 23 A.3d 1032 (2011); Commonwealth v. Glacken, 32 

### A.3d 750, 753 

### (Pa.Super. 2011). Mr. 

### Harper's request to have co

### -counsel was inappropriate.

14

### Additionally, 

### prior to trial, Mr. 

### Harper complainedthat he did 

### not want the assigned attorney to 

### representhim. (N. T. 6-26-2018, pp. 3-14). 

### Appellant never requested to 

### represent

### himself



## - only that he did not 

### want this attorney, and at that time the trial court advised appellant that he did not have the 

### right to a court-appointed attorney 

### ofhis choosing. At that point Harper did 

### not ask to 

### represent 

### himself (N.T. 6-26-2018, pp. 3-14). Had he done so, a Grazier3 hearing 

### would have been held. 

### Harper's failure to request to represent 

### himself at 

### that time is a 

### waiver 

### ofany such complaint. Commonwealth v. El, 

### supra (citing 

### Faretta v. 

### California, 

### supra; Commonwealth v. 

### David°, supra). 

### FAILURE TO 

### APPOINT NEW COUNSEL Contrary to the 

### defendant's previous claim, Harper also contends that the trial court erred in failing to 

### remove court-appointed counsel and 

### appoint new counsel, specifically: 

### "8.appellant [sic] assert [sic] 

### that it was a err [sic] 

### ofthe trial court 

### when on 

### 6-26-1028 [sic] he ask [sic] the court to remove attorney 

### james lloyd esq [sic] due to them 

### having a fall [sic] out the [sic] court abused its descretion [sic] and this violatrd [sic] 

### appellants 6 [sic] 

### amendment right to 

### proper counsel and a fair trial." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters 

### Complained 

### of on Appeal, p. 2. 

### Amazingly, the defendant points to the same exchange as in the 

### previous section 

### of this 

### opinion to 

### contend he was asking for new counsel, 

### not to 

### proceed

### pro se. The 

### defendant complained that he did not want his then counsel, but when asked 

### specifically what his complaint was with counsel, the only answer provided was that he wanted a 

### motion to suppress. As 

### noted earlier, when the trial court inquired 

### if the 

### defendant wanted the court to 

### review the four corners 

### ofthe affidavit as a four 

### corners suppression motion, the 

### defendant declined. Although the 

### Sixth Amendment to the United States 

### Constitution provides that a criminal

3 Commonwealth v. Crazier, 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (1998).

15defendant is 

### entitled to 

### representation by counsel at all critical stages 

### ofthe 

### prosecution, a defendant who does not 

### employ an 

### attorney at his own expense, but has court

### -appointed counsel at public expense, does not 

### have the 

### right to 

### counsel 

### ofhis choosing. Commonwealth v. Kelly, 5 

### A.3d 370, 377-78 

### (Pa.Super.2010) (citing Commonwealth v. 

### Lucarelli, 601 Pa. 185, 971 A.2d 1173, 1178- 79 (2009)). See 

### also Commonwealth v. Meehan, 427 Pa.Super. 261, 

### 270-71, 628 A.2d 1151, 1155 (1993); 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Neal, 387 Pa.Super. 165, 174-75, 563 A.2d 1236, 1241 (1989). Furthermore, only 

### when the 

### defendant has presented a 

### substantial, clear and 

### unequivocal reasons for a change 

### ofappointed counsel will new counsel be 

### appointed. "A motion for change 

### of counsel by a 

### defendant for whom counsel has been appointed shall not be 

### granted except for substantial 

### reasons." Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(C). In order to satisfy this standard, the 

### accused must demonstrate he has an 

### irreconcilable difference with counsel that precludes the attorney from representing him. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 562 Pa. 498, 518, 576 A.2d 1139, 1150 (2000) (citing Commonwealth v. Tyler, 468 Pa. 193, 197, 360 

### A.2d 617, 619 (1976)). 

### Appellant's unspecified and 

### un-enumerated allegations did 

### not warrant dismissal 

### of his court-appointed counsel and appointment 

### of a 

### new attorney. 

### Although counsel and 

### appellant did not like 

### working with each other, Harper offered no

reason why counsel 

### would be incapable 

### ofzealously 

### representing him. The 

### defendant's failure to specify any 

### substantial reason for the removal 

### ofcounsel 

### required the court to continue appointed 

### counsel's representation, and 

### therefore no abuse 

### ofdiscretion. As such, the 

### defendant's claim is without merit. 

### PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT Harper next attacks the 

### prosecution alleging 

### deliberate misconduct, to wit: 

### "9.appellant [sic] asserts that the 

### commonwealth [sic] 

### used false omitted affidavits geting [sic] probable cause for appellants [sic] arrest and search warrants that was provided by 

### detective omalley [sic] #695 

### andthis evidencewas used threw [sic] 

### out appellants [sic] 

### trial

16

### proceedings violating his right to a fair trial and 

### appellant asserted a 

### motion to the court on 9-7-2017 asking for a franks [sic] hearing to 

### challenge the 

### veracity 

### ofthe trufulness [sic] 

### ofthe 

### affidavits." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters 

### Complained 

### ofon Appeal, p. 2.

As well as:

And: 

### "10.appellant [sic] asserts 

### that a.d.a 

### elizabeth Tischer [sic] is in direct violation 

### ofprosecutorial misconduct [sic] when she in [sic] concert with detective omalley [sic] #695 to use [sic] false affidavits and 

### false testimony to the court knowing that information was false and she failed to fix the false testimony to the court 

### knowing that information was false and she failed to fix the false 

### statements used 

### against appellant." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters Complained 

### ofon 

### Appeal, p. 2.

"14. 

### Appellant asserts that prosecutor 

### Elizabeth Fischer is in direct violation 

### ofprosecutorial misconduct [sic] when she lied to the court 

### regarding the 

### weight 

### ofthe narcotics to make 

### appellant appear to be a 

### larger drug dealer then [sic] he was said to 

### be to enhance appel

### lant's sentence 

### if he was found guilty. The 

### prosecution also presented Officer Keys [sic] who lied on the stand and 

### framed appellant as to the 

### weight 

### ofthe 

### narcotics and 

### appellant has the 

### prooffrom the lab 

### reports. A.D.A. Fischer lied to 

### the trial court and she also pre

### sented Officer 

### Key's [sic] who lied and framed 

### appellant and she failed to 

### correct that testimony knowing Officer 

### Key's [sic] lied to 

### the court and 

### provided false information." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters Complained 

### ofon 

### Appeal, p. 3.
Our courts have defined such misconduct as when "the prosecutor, a 

### person who holds a unique 

### position 

### oftrust in our society, has abused that 

### trust in order to 

### prejudice and deliberately mislead [the 

### factfinder]." Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 26 

### (Pa.Super.2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Pierce, 537 Pa. 514, 645 A.2d 189, 197 (1994)). 

### "Prosecutorial misconduct will

### justify a 

### new trial where the 

### unavoidable effect 

### of the 

### conduct or 

### language was to 

### prejudice

17the 

### factfinder to the 

### extent that the 

### factfinder was 

### rendered incapable 

### of fairly weighing the evidence and 

### entering an 

### objective verdict. 

### Ifthe prosecutorial 

### misconduct contributed to the verdict, it will be deemed prejudicial and a new trial will be 

### required." Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d I, 26 

### (Pa.Super.2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

### Francis, 445 Pa.Super. 353, 665 A.2d 821, 824 (1995)). As 

### concerns the first two allegations 

### ofmisconduct, Pennsylvania Rule 

### ofAppellate Procedure 1925(b) 

### requires that the Statement 

### ofMatters 

### Complained 

### ofon Appeal must sufficiently, concisely and 

### coherently identify the issues to be raised. See Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 

### A.3d 1109, 1114 

### (Pa.Super.2016); Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa.Super.2001). As the Superior Court has noted, 

### "Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial 

### judges in 

### identifying and focusing upon those issues 

### which the parties plan to raise on appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a crucial 

### component 

### ofthe 

### appellate process." Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306, 308 (1998). When

a defendant fails to 

### adequately identify, in a concise manner, the issues he seeks to pursue on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation 

### of a legal analysis pertinent to those issues. Commonwealth v. Dowling, 

### supra, 778 A.2d at 686; Commonwealth v. Ray, 

### supra; In re 

### Estate 

### of Dauber!, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.Super.2000). "When a court has to guess what issues an 

### appellant is appealing, that is 

### not enough for 

### meaningful review." Commonwealth v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55, 57 

### (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Giles v. 

### Douglas, 747 

### A.2d 1236, 1237 

### (Pa.Super.2000)). Appellant does not identify 

### what false or 

### omitted statements were included in 

### the affidavit 

### ofprobable cause

or 

### propounded by 

### the attorney and/or detective for the 

### Commonwealth. Having no idea 

### ofwhat

error the 

### defendant is 

### claiming, these issues in 

### Appellant's statement fails to 

### adequately identify the point 

### ofcontention, and 

### therefore it is waived. 

### Likewise, 

### Harper's final contention 

### ofmisconduct claims the 

### prosecution mischaracterized

18the 

### weight 

### of the drugs involved, failing to sufficiently develop the claim in order to allow this court to 

### adequately review the allegation. Accordingly, this issue is 

### likewise waived. Commonwealth v. Dowling, 

### supra, 778 A.2d at 686; Commonwealth v. Ray, 

### supra; In re Estate 

### ofDaubed, 757 A.2d 962, 963 

### (Pa.Super.2000). Appellant claims 

### that the facts 

### presented in 

### the application for search and arrest warrants

were false and 

### presented in reckless disregard 

### ofthe truth. A 

### thorough review 

### ofthe record fails to substantiate this claim at all, and Harper fails to produce any 

### evidence to 

### support his claims. The record is void 

### ofany confirmation 

### ofthe 

### defendant's claim that the underlying circumstances

were false or that the 

### officers presented false 

### information to the issuing authority knowingly and deliberately or in 

### reckless disregard 

### ofthe truth or 

### that the 

### defendant presented enough evidence to require a hearing. See 

### Franksv 

### Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Commonwealth v. 

### Iannaccio, 505 Pa. 414, 426, 480 A.2d 966, 972 (1984); Commonwealth v. 

### Hall, 451 Pa. 201, 206, 302 A.2d 342, 345 (1973). 

### Accordingly, these claims need to be dismissed. 

### SUFFICIENCY OF 

### THE EVIDENCE Defendant next contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to find him guilty 

### ofany 

### ofthe 

### charges 

### ofwhich he was convicted. When 

### evaluating a claim 

### ofinsufficiency 

### ofthe evidence, we must determine 

### "whether the 

### evidence is 

### sufficient to prove every element 

### of the crime beyond a 

### reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423, 555 A.2d 1264, 1267 (1989). Further, the evidence must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as 

### the 

### verdict winner, and accept as true all evidence and all 

### reasonable inferences therefrom upon which, 

### if believed, the fact finder properly could have based its 

### verdict." 

### Id "Any doubts 

### regarding a 

### defendant's guilt may be resolved by the 

### fact-finder unless the evidence is so

19weak and 

### inconclusive that as a 

### matter 

### oflaw no 

### probability of fact may be 

### drawn from the combined 

### circumstances." Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 

### (Pa.Super.2013) (en 

### bane); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 

### A.3d 939, 943 

### (Pa.Super.2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 594 Pa. 176, 934 A.2d 1233, 1236 n. 2 (2007)). Furthermore, the 

### prosecution may 

### sustain its burden 

### of proving every element 

### of the crime beyond a 

### reasonable doubt by means 

### of wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001). Only where the 

### evidence is so 

### weak and 

### inconclusive that, as a 

### matter 

### of law, no 

### probability 

### offact can be drawn from the 

### combined circumstances is a defendant entitled to relief. Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 

### (Pa.Super.2013) (en bane). The 

### appellate court does not re

### -weigh the evidence or 

### substitute their

### judgment for that 

### ofthe fact-finder. Id. 

### Specifically the 

### defendant complains: 

### "11.appellant [sic] asserts that the 

### commonwealth's [sic] 

### evidence was insufficient to 

### convict him 

### of a 

### violation 

### offirearms in 

### public when the

### jury found him not guilty 

### ofevery other 

### charge involned [sic] with a 

### violation 

### of firearms,the [sis] 

### prosecution never presented to 

### the trial court a gun 

### regarding #cp-51-cr-0011482-2016 and it was a err [sic] 

### ofthe court to 

### allow the 

### commonwealth [sic] to 

### put the appellant on trial for a gun that was 

### never recoverd [sic] and 

### presented to the 

### court that was 

### the silver gun 

### that was 

### used in the crime and this 

### confused the

### jury." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters Complained 

### of on Appeal, p. 2.

As well as: "13. 

### Appellant asserts that the 

### Commonwealth never proved Appellant had a concious [sic] dominion over the contraband or 

### that Ap

### pellant had 

### constructive possession over the 

### narcotics and the gun 

### that was found in the 

### apartment." Supplemental Statement

### ofMatters Complained 

### ofon Appeal, p. 3. 

### Appellant's contention is 

### that insufficient evidence was 

### presented to 

### convict him 

### ofpossession 

### ofa gun as well as 

### narcotics. First, it has to be noted 

### that the defendant pled guilty to the

20gun charge. (N.T. 

### 7-09-2018, pp. 3-9). The Crier: 

### "Irvin Harper, to this docket number, 

### CP-51-CR0011481-2016, you are being charged with firearm prohibited, how do 

### you plead? The Defendant: Guilty. The Crier: And to this docket number, 

### CP-51-CR-0011482- 2016, 

### you are being charged with 

### possession 

### ofa

### firearm prohibited, how do 

### you plead? The Defendant: Guilty." (N.T. 7-9-2018, pp. 8-9). Accordingly, the 

### defendant's complaint is 

### without merit. As to the 

### complaint concerning the drugs, the 

### apartment from which the drugs were confiscated was the 

### apartment the two 

### complainants identified as to where they were taken, the drugs, together 

### with the 

### bagging material, grinder and scales were on the 

### kitchen table, with the paraphernalia, in 

### plain view

### ofeveryone inthe premises. (N.T. 7-02-2018, pp. 48-57; N.T. 6-29-2018, pp. 6-12). The 

### defendant was on the premises when the arrest warrant was being served and his license was 

### registered at 

### that address. (N.T. 

### 7-2-2018, pp. 48-60). Mr. 

### Harper was 

### attempting to give the 

### owner 

### ofthe apartment building a large sum 

### ofmoney. (N.T. 7-2-2018, pp. 59-60). The defendant occupied the 

### third floor 

### of the building, where the narcotics were found. (N.T. 7-2- 2018, pp. 59-65). The 

### complainant Fatima Vaccarella had described the gunthat she was assaulted with as a 

### silver gun. The loaded gun found inthe third floor 

### of 626 Federal Street was a blue gun, with a silver colored barrel, a silver colored rod and a silver 

### colored trigger. (N.T. 7-2-2018, pp. 63-66). A set 

### ofkeys with the dog tags 

### ofSamuel Harper together with various proofs 

### ofresidence for Irving 

### Harper and 

### Turquoise Lee Claxton were 

### recovered from 

### the third floor 

### ofthe premises. (N.T. 7-2-2018, pp. 64-67). The crux 

### ofthe 

### defendant's complaint is

### that since there were other people, 

### specifically his girlfriend, who had 

### access to the 

### apartment that he could not be found in 

### possession 

### ofthe drugs. Our Supreme 

### Court has opined

21

### "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 

### offacts 

### that possession 

### ofthe contraband was more likely than not. We have defined con

### structive possession as 

### 'conscious dominion."' Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 510 Pa. 305, 308, 507 A.2d 1212, 1213 (1986) (citing Commonwealth

v. Davis, 444 Pa. 11, 280 A.2d 119, 121 (1971)). To prove 

### conscious dominion, the 

### prosecution must present evidence to 

### show that the 

### defendant had both the 

### power to control the narcotics and the intent to exercise such control. Commonwealth v. 

### Heidler, 741 A.2d 213, 216 (Pa.Super. 1999); Commonwealth v. 

### Gladden, 445 Pa.Super. 434, 665 A.2d 1201 (1995), 

### appeal denied, 544 Pa. 624, 675 A.2d 1243 (1996); Commonwealth v. Magwood, 371 Pa.Super. 620, 538 A.2d 908 (1988), 

### appeal denied, 519 Pa. 653, 546 A.2d 57 (1988). When the 

### contraband is not found onthe 

### defendant's person, constructive possession can be shown to satisfy the 

### prosecution's evidentiary burden and 

### constructive possession may be established by the 

### totality 

### ofthe circumstances. Commonwealth v. Macolino, 503 Pa. 201, 206, 469 A.2d 132, 134 (1983), Commonwealth v. 

### Fortune, 456 Pa. 365, 318 

### A.2d 327 (1974). The 

### Commonwealth may establish the elements 

### ofthe crime entirely by 

### circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Ramos, 392 Pa.Super. 583, 573 A.2d 1027, 1032 (1990), 

### allocator denied, 589 A.2d 692 (1990).

In the 

### present case, it is crystal clear that sufficient 

### evidence was presented to find the defendant in 

### possession 

### ofthe 

### narcotics in his apartment, which hehad exited only when the 

### police

were 

### entering the building 

## - after taking a gas 

### powered saw to 

### the iron gate. Several 

### proofs 

### of residence identified the premises as 

### the 

### defendant's residence, the 

### Department 

### ofMotor Vehicles has the 

### defendant's vehicle registered to the premises, and the two 

### complainants had identified 

### Harper's apartment. Additionally, the victim, Jessica Tokarczyk, testified that when the defendant

22first contacted her, he 

### told her he 

### needed to do a drug run and asked her to go with him, 

### which she did. The 

### evidence was not only sufficient, but overwhelming. 

### ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE The 

### defendant's last 

### complaint is 

### that the trial court improperly allowed the 

### admission 

### of evidence during trial, specifically: 

### "12.appellant [sic] asserts 

### that it was a err [sic] 

### ofthe court to 

### permit the 

### black gun 

### that was recoverd [sic] on federal street [sic] the day he was arrested and it was a clear err [sic] 

### when

### judge o 

### campbell [sic] 

### ruled that the gun was admissible and was allowed to be con

### solidated at his trial 

### knowing the witness steated [sic] it was a silver gun and 

### that confused the

### jury." Supplemental Statement 

### ofMatters Complained 

### ofon Appeal, p. 2. The 

### standard 

### ofreview for a claim 

### ofinadmissibility 

### ofevidence is that 

### the admission 

### of evidence is 

### within the 

### sound discretion 

### ofthe trial court and will not be reversed absent a 

### showing that 

### the trial court clearly abused its 

### discretion. An abuse 

### of discretion occurs 

### when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the 

### judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable. Commonwealth v. 

### Handheld, 34 A.3d 187, 207-08 (Pa.Super. 2011). 

### Appellant contendsthe 

### pre-trial court erred in 

### allowing the prosecution to

### present the handgun found in the 

### defendant's apartment during the trial, alleging that it was not the gun that the complainant described. While it is true that Ms. 

### Vaccarella told the police that the gun she was 

### threatened with by 

### the defendant was a big silver gun, 

### the pistol retrieved from 

### the defendant's apartment was a blue steel gun, the barrel, rod and trigger and trigger guard were all silver. The law recognizes 

### that all 

### relevant evidence presented by the 

### prosecution is intended to 

### prejudice the defendant 

# -itis only 

### the evidencethat is so 

### prejudicial that it would inflame the

### jury that becomes inadmissible. The trial court is not 

### required to sanitize the trial to eliminate any unpleasant facts from the

### jury's consideration. 

### Ifthe facts form part 

### ofthe history and natural development 

### ofthe

23events and offenses with which the 

### defendant is charged. Commonwealth v. 

### Brouster, 863 A.2d 588, 592 

### (Pa.Super.2004) (citing Commonwealth v. 

### Serge, 837 

### A.2d 1255, 1260-61 (Pa.Super.2003)). Our Supreme Court has ruled "[a] weapon shown to have been in a 

### defendant's possession may properly be 

### admitted into evidence, 

### even though it cannot positively be 

### identified as the weapon used in the 

### commission of a particular crime, 

### if it 

### tends to prove that the defendant had a 

### weapon similar to the one 

### used in the 

### perpetration 

### ofthe 

### crime." Commonwealth v. 

### Brouster, 863 

### A.2d 588, 592 (Pa.Super.2004) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 537 Pa. 1, 16, 640 

### A.2d 1251 (1994)). In the instant case, the 

### pre-trial court did not abuse its 

### discretion by 

### permitting the 

### Commonwealth to present the 

### handgun found in the 

### defendant's apartment to the

### jury. The probative value 

### ofthe handgun outweighed any 

### prejudice to this defendant. Accordingly, this issue is without merit. 

### Accordingly, the

### judgment 

### ofsentence ofthis court should be affirmed.



### DATE: 

### November 4, 2019 BY 

### THE COURT:

24

### IN 

### THE COURT OF 

### COMMON PLEAS OF 

### PHILADELPHIA COUNTY 

### FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA 

### COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vs 

### IRVIN 

### HARPER Proof of 

### Service 

### CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
3468 

### EDA 2018 

### CP-51-CR-0011481-2016 CP-51-CR-0011482-2016

I 

### hereby certify that I am on this day serving the foregoing 

### Court's Opinion upon the person(s), and in the

### manner indicatedbelow, whichservice satisfiesthe 

### requirements

### ofPa.R.Crim.P. 114: Defendant:

Defense Attorney:

Type 

### of Service: District Attorney: Mr. 

### Irvin Harper #NP-3252 S.C.I. 

### Phoenix P.O. 

### Box 244 

### Collegeville, PA 19426 

### James Lloyd, Esquire 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1605 

### Philadelphia, PA 19107 ( ) 

### Personal (X) 

### First Class Mail ( ) 

### Interoffice ( ) Other, 

### please specify

Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Esquire 

### Appeals Unit District 

### Attorney's Office 3 South Penn Square 

### Philadelphia, PA 19107 Type 

### ofService: ( ) 

### Personal ( ) First Class Mail (X) 

### Interoffice ( ) Other, 

### pjfase specify Date: 

### November 4, 2019 

### Allison M. O'Kleleile, 

### Law C I

25FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDICIAL CHAMBERS

J. SCOTT O'KEEFE JUDGE August 29, 2019

Mr. Irvin Harper, #NP3252 SCI 

### Phoenix PO Box 

### 244 Collegeville, PA 19426 

### RE: Commonwealth v. 

### Irvin 

### Harper CP-51-CR-0011481-2016 CP-51-CR-0011482-2016 3468 

### EDA 2018 Dear Mr. Harper: THE JUSTICE JUANITA KIDD STOUT CENTER

FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1301 FILBERT STREET, SUITE 1221 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 (215) 683-7080/81 FAX: (215)683-7082



### Pursuant to 

### the Order

### ofthe Superior Court filed August 15, 2019, I am 

### enclosing herewith the following notes 

### oftestimony: June 26, 2018, June 27, 2018, June 28, 2018, June 29, 2018, July 2, 2018, July 5, 2018, July 6, 2018, July 9, 2018, October 11, 2018, and 

### April 29, 2018. Also enclosed herewith Motion to Modify andReconsider Sentence 

### with Denial. Trial Exhibit List, notes 

### oftestimony December 13, 2016, 75-49 Detective 

### O'Malley (C-2), 

### Affidavit of Probable Cause (C- 3), Sketch 

### "Gotti" (C-4), Arrest 

### Paperwork (229 

### Flow chart, 

### Medical checklist-Exhibit C-5), 483

### -Jessica Tokarczyk (C-6), 483-Aimee 

### Della-Porta (C-7), 483 

# - Robin Holmes (C-8), 

### 483-Fatimah Vaccarella (C-9), 483 Arlacia Curis (C-10), 483 Cara Mastro (C-11), Photo array 10-18-2016 (C-12), photo imager 

# - Fatimah Vaccarella (C-13), photo arrays 10-20- 16 and 10-24-16 (C14), PSARC Meds (C-15), Search Warrant 198201 (C-16), Certificate 

### of non-licensure (C17), Search 

### Warrant 198202 (C-18), Search Warrant 198203 (C-19), Search warrant 198211 (C-20), Property 

### Receipt 3276840 (C-21), Property 

### Receipt 3276839 (C-22), Property 

### Receipt 3276948 (C-23), 

### Property Receipt 3276915 (C-24), Property 

### Receipt 3276914 (C-25), 

### Property Receipt 3276949 (C-26), Property Receipt 3257599 (C-27), Property Receipt 3265301 (C-28), Property Receipt 3257600 (C-29), Property Receipt 3276950 (C-30), Trace Report (C-31), DNA reports (C-32), Seizure analysis (C-33), Ballistics 

### Report (C-34), 75-49 and PARS (C-35), 

### photos 

### ofFederal Street (C-40), Photos 

### ofMarion Street (C-41), 

### Photos of Grand Marquis (C-42), photos from PSARC (C-43), Stipulation (C-47), Search 

### Warrant 204116 (C-48), Property 

### Receipt 3310793 (C-49), Stipulation (C-50), text messages (D-1). 

# FILE COPYThank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, 

## 62.dee&ght- 

## O 1 Allison M. 

### O'Keefe, Law Cler to The Honorable J. Scott 

### O'Keefe, Judge 

### JSO'Kilk Enclosures

cc: District 

### Attorney's Office (w/o enclosures) Appeals 

### Division 3 South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA James Lloyd, Esquire (w/o enclosures) 1315 Walnut Street Suite 1605 Philadelphia, PA 19107