J-A07030-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DENZELL DOUGLAS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1601 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 31, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0003409-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JUNE 2, 2023

Denzell Douglas appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following his convictions for knowing and intentional possession of a controlled 

substance and possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”).

1 Douglas challenges 

the weight of the evidence. We affirm. 

The Commonwealth presented evidence of the following at Douglas’

bench trial. On February 1, 2019, while conducting narcotics surveillance,

Officer Erick Crawford observed Douglas on the 4200 block of Ormond Street 

in Philadelphia. N.T., Trial, 11/15/21, at 20-21. During that day between the 

hours of 9:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., Officer Crawford observed Douglas 

approach the driver’s side of three separate vehicles. Id. at 21-24. Each time

Douglas approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, Officer Crawford saw a 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16) and (a)(30), respectively. 
J-A07030-23

- 2 -

person extend their hand out of the window with money and saw Douglas take 

the money. See id. at 21, 22, 24. Officer Crawford observed Douglas hand 

over small items to the driver of the vehicle, after receiving money from the 

individuals in the first two vehicles. Id. at 22, 23. However, after receiving 

money from the driver of the third vehicle, Douglas “walked around to the 

rear of the car and then sat in the front passenger seat.” Id. at 24-25. The 

vehicle drove away from the area and Officer Crawford had backup units follow 

the vehicle. Id. at 24, 25. Backup officers saw Douglas exit the vehicle and 

start walking back to the 4200 block of Ormond Street. Id. at 25. Officers 

later stopped the vehicle and recovered “six clear Ziploc packets of all blue 

[glassine] inserts in addition to just three blue [glassine] inserts, no clear 

packets” from the driver of the vehicle. Id. All the packets were stamped 

“2019.” Id.

On February 6, Officer Crawford called a number ending in 6134 and 

placed an “order for $70 worth of heroin and $30 worth of crack cocaine.” Id.

at 26. Officer Crawford received the number from an anonymous source in the 

same area where he observed Douglas on February 1. Id. at 32. When he 

called the number, a male voice answered and agreed to provide the narcotics 

for the price of $100. Id. at 27. The male also told Officer Crawford to drive 

to the Texas Chicken and Burgers parking lot. Id. Officer Crawford drove to 

the location and Douglas approached the passenger side window of the 

vehicle. Id. at 28. Douglas handed Officer Crawford one bundle of heroin and 
J-A07030-23

- 3 -

one clear baggie with packets of crack cocaine. Id.2 The heroin packets “were 

all clear Ziploc packets with blue [glassine] inserts, all stamped 2019[.]” Id.

Officer Crawford then left the area. Id. at 29.

A second officer, Officer Walter Bartle, observed the transaction 

between Douglas and Officer Crawford from his vehicle stationed in the same 

parking lot.3 Id. at 47, 49. Officer Bartle saw Douglas approach the 

passenger’s side of Officer Crawford’s vehicle and “with a hand motion went 

into the passenger’s window in Officer Crawford’s vehicle.” Id. at 50. Officer 

Bartle videorecorded the entire transaction. However, the Commonwealth did 

not introduce the video as evidence due to its failure to timely pass the video 

to defense counsel. Id. at 4, 47.

Police did not arrest Douglas following his encounter with Officer 

Crawford. Officer Crawford testified that the police arrested Douglas on 

February 22, while Officer Bartle testified that the police arrested him on 

February 11. Id. at 44, 51, 52-53. Upon arrest, officers did not recover 

prerecorded buy money, a cell phone, or narcotics from Douglas. Id. at 44. 

____________________________________________

2 A bundle of heroin amounts to 14 packets. See N.T., Trial, at 28. 

3 Officer Bartle testified that he observed Officer Crawford and Douglas in the 

Texas Chicken and Burgers parking lot on February 26, 2019. See N.T., Trial, 

at 46. However, the Criminal Complaint states that the drug transaction

occurred on February 11, similar to the testimony of Officer Crawford. See

Criminal Complaint, dated 2/22/19. 
J-A07030-23

- 4 -

Douglas testified in his defense, claiming that on February 6 he was at 

his friend’s house which was near the area of Ormond Street but that he did 

not have any contact with officers or sell drugs that day. Id. at 58-61.

At the close of trial, the court concluded that the evidence showed that 

Douglas engaged in the drug transaction with Officer Crawford and found him 

guilty of PWID. The court made a negative inference based on the 

Commonwealth’s late passing of the video. Id. at 71. The court nonetheless 

credited the officers’ identification of Douglas. Id. It stated, “I don’t have any 

doubt [that is] reasonable it was you in the parking lot of that chicken burger 

place.” Id. at 73-74. The court found Douglas guilty of the above-referenced 

offenses and sentenced him to 111⁄2 to 23 months’ incarceration followed by 3 

years of reporting probation. Douglas filed a post-sentence motion challenging 

the weight of the evidence, which the court denied. This appeal followed. 

Douglas raises a single issue: “Did the lower court err and abuse its 

discretion when it denied [Douglas’] post-sentence motion for a new trial 

where the verdict was so against the weight of the evidence presented at trial 

as to shock the conscience?” Douglas’ Br. at 3 (answer omitted). 

Douglas claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his 

weight of the evidence claim. He maintains that the court erroneously relied 

on the testimony regarding the transaction with Officer Crawford that occurred

in the parking lot. Douglas argues that the testimony “was so rife with 

uncertainty and contradiction that its use as the sole basis for [Douglas’] 

conviction shocks one’s sense of justice.” Id. at 14-15. He claims that the 
J-A07030-23

- 5 -

evidence “supports the conclusion that [Douglas] was misidentified as the man 

who sold narcotics to Officer Crawford.” Id. at 15. 

Douglas also notes that Officers Bartle and Crawford gave contradictory 

testimony about the timing and circumstances of his arrest and points out that 

officers did not recover anything from his person on the day of his arrest and 

the Commonwealth failed to introduce the video of the drug transaction. 

Douglas states that the Commonwealth’s failure to provide the video 

“undercuts” the officers’ testimony that Douglas sold narcotics to Officer 

Crawford. Id. at 17. Douglas argues that police could have done more to 

confirm the identity of the seller but instead relied on the contradictory 

memories of Officers Crawford and Bartle. Douglas also claims that his trial 

testimony supports his conclusion that this is a case of misidentification. 

We review the grant or denial of a challenge to the weight of the 

evidence for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 

1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013). “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the 

finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence and to 

determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Clemens, 

242 A.3d 659, 667 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted). A trial court should 

grant a new trial based on a weight challenge “when the jury’s verdict is so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of 

a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to 

prevail.” Clay, 64 A.3d at 1055 (citation omitted).
J-A07030-23

- 6 -

Here, the trial court concluded that the verdict was not against the 

weight of the evidence. It found the testimony of Officers Crawford and Bartle 

to be credible and that “[Douglas’] testimony was not credible.” See Rule 

1925(a) Opinion, filed 9/20/22, at 8. 

Indeed, the Commonwealth presented more than merely 

sufficient evidence to support [Douglas’] conviction for 

possession with intent to deliver and knowingly and 

intentionally possessing a controlled substance. During the 

very detailed testimony provided by each Officer, they 

described extensive opportunity to view [Douglas] on 2 

separate occasions. First, Officers Bartle and Crawford 

observed [Douglas] in the alley engaging in multiple 

exchanges. Next, Officers Bartle and Crawford again made 

observations of [Douglas] engaging in various exchanges in 

the parking lot. Given the fact that these Officers were 

conducting surveillance and trained to do so, this [c]ourt 

found it highly unreasonable to conclude that they were both 

mistaken about having witnessed [Douglas] in several 

exchanges on January 31, 2019, as well as several more 

exchanges on February 6, 2019 after having delivered 

narcotics to Officer Crawford. These Officers are trained law 

enforcement professionals who were on an investigative 

assignment for the purpose of identifying the sale of 

narcotics. Thus, the officers had to be intentionally 

fabricating their observations if there were a shred of truth 

to the testimony offered by [Douglas].

Consequently, this [c]ourt could not conclude fabrication on 

the part of the officers because in addition to no motive to 

fabricate, the officers corroborated each other’s testimony, 

and [Douglas] admits to being present each day described 

by the officers. Moreover, [Douglas] never denies wearing 

the clothing described by the officers as they observed the 

numerous exchanges in both the alley and the parking lot. 

It simply defies logic that someone looking like [Douglas], 

wearing the same clothing as [Douglas], and in the same 

area as [Douglas] but it was not [Douglas]. Moreover, 

Officer Crawford called the telephone number generated 

during the investigation and placed an order for narcotics 

which was in fact delivered by [Douglas]. It should be noted 
J-A07030-23

- 7 -

that what was delivered was precisely what Officer Crawford 

ordered - $70 heroin and $30 cocaine. Thus, there was no 

doubt which was remotely reasonable that it was not 

[Douglas] who sold narcotics to Officer Crawford on 

February 6, 2019 in the parking lot of Texas Chicken and 

Burger.

Id. at 8-9 (emphasis in original).

We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination. As 

the court explained, the officers had multiple opportunities to view Douglas 

and identify him as the same individual that met with Officer Crawford in the 

parking lot. As factfinder, the court was “free to believe all, none or some of 

the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Clemens, 242 

A.3d at 667 (citation omitted). Even considering the Commonwealth’s failure 

to pass the recording of Officer Crawford’s and Douglas’ interaction, the court 

had the opportunity to see and hear the evidence and give it the appropriate 

weight. We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/2/2023