J-S32024-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JUAN MEDINA

Appellant No. 1559 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 13, 2012

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0009759-2011

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, and FITZGERALD, *JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 17, 2017

Appellant, Juan Medina, appeals from the June 13, 2012 judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (“trial 

court”) sentencing him to a term of 7-14 years’ incarceration following his 

conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance 

(PWID).1 Upon review, we affirm.

Briefly, on June 13, 2012, Appellant was convicted of PWID following a 

jury trial. Following multiple reinstatements of his direct appellate rights, 

Appellant filed the instant appeal. The trial court summarized the factual 

history of the matter as follows.

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 
J-S32024-17

- 2 -

At trial, the Commonwealth first presented the testimony 

of Philadelphia Police Officer Brian Myers. Officer Myers testified 

that, on March 30, 2011, at approximately 5:40 p.m., he was on 

duty with the Narcotics Field Unit, which is responsible for 

investigating illegal sales of narcotics. On this particular date, 

he and his surveillance team were on assignment in the target 

area of North 5th Street and Hunting Park Avenue, specifically to 

investigate street sales of narcotics. From a discreet position at 

the northeast corner of the above intersection, Officer Myers 

observed a Hispanic male wearing a green jacket and blue jeans 

standing on the corner and looking in all directions. A few 

moments later, Appellant, who was wearing a red hat and brown 

jacket emerged from a corner store located one half-black away 

on the southeast corner of Fairhill Street and Hunting Park 

Avenue. Appellant walked eastbound to 5th Street, where he met 

up with the other male and engaged in a brief conversation. 

Appellant then walked back to the corner store on Fairhill Street 

with his right hand in his jacket pocket the entire time. At that 

point, Officer Myers radioed a description of Appellant to his 

backup officers and instructed them to stop Appellant for 

investigation. (See N.T. 06/12/12, pp. 14-20).

Philadelphia Police Sergeant Robert Friel testified next for 

the Commonwealth. Sergeant Friel testified that, on March 30, 

2011, he was on duty with the Narcotics Field Unit, serving as a 

back-up officer to Officer Myers. Sergeant Friel observed 

Appellant walking westbound on Hunting Park Avenue, between 

5

th and Fairhill Streets, before he entered a store on the corner 

of Fairhill Street and Hunting Park Avenue. Upon receiving 

information from Officer Myers, Sergeant Friel and his partner, 

Officer Coolen, entered the corner store, where they 

encountered Appellant sitting at a table toward the back of the 

store. Sergeant Friel and Officer Coolen approached Appellant 

and announced “Police”, at which time Sergeant Friel observed 

Appellant retrieve a clear plastic bag from his right jacket 

pocket, and discard it onto the floor beneath the table. As 

Officer Coolen tried to get Appellant to stand up, Sergeant Friel 

immediately went under the table and retrieved the bag. He 

testified that, “At that point, [Appellant] started to fight us.” 

Upon detaining Appellant in handcuffs, Sergeant Friel placed the

bag, which contained a tan substance suspected to be heroin, 

under property receipt, and submitted it to the chemistry lab for 

further analysis. (See N.T. 06/12/12, pp. 36-47). 
J-S32024-17

- 3 -

The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of 

Philadelphia Police Officer Antonio Morrone, who testified as an 

expert in the field of packaging and distribution of narcotics. 

Officer Morrone testified that he examined the heroin recovered 

by police, and that based on its size (173 grams) – in addition to 

its purer color (tan) and consistency (grounded and moist) – the 

heroin was possessed with an intent to deliver. Officer Morrone 

explained that, beside never personally encountering a single, 

personal purchase of this size, a user never would purchase 173 

grams of heroin because it would be too expensive (it would cost 

between $8,500 and $13,000) and lose its purity over time 

(more rapidly depending on exposure to light and air). He 

further explained that a heavy user ingests 100 to 130 

milligrams per day, and therefore the 173 grams of heroin 

recovered in this case would last a user 12 to 17 months. 

Moreover, in his experience, users typically purchase only a 

couple small packets at a time, not 737 [(sic)] grams. In fact, 

the only people he had encountered with such an amount were 

at a higher level in the drug distribution chain – i.e., “not a 

regular street dealer, it would be somebody in the higher chain 

of the distribution of heroin.” (See N.T. 06/12/13, [(sic)], pp. 4-

20).

[FN2] Both Sergeant Friel and Officer Coolen were in 

plain clothes, with their police badges exposed. 

(See N.T. 06/12/12, pp. 37-38, 49-50).

[FN3] The Commonwealth introduced via stipulation 

chemical analysis evidence establishing that the item 

recovered by police – one clear bag containing a tan 

powder – tested positive for heroin and weight 173.7 

grams. (See N.T. 06/12/13 [(sic)], p.24).

[FN4] At the time of trial, Officer Morrone had spent 

28 years with the Philadelphia Police Department, 25 

of which were in the Narcotics Field Unit. In addition 

to undergoing narcotics training with the New York, 

New Jersey and Pennsylvania state police, he spent 

five years working, and undergoing extensive 

narcotics training, with the Federal Drug 

Enforcement Agency (DEA), including training on the 

manufacturing of narcotics from plant source to final 

packaged product. Over the course of his career, 

Officer Morrone personally had participated in more 
J-S32024-17

- 4 -

than 800 drug arrests. (See N.T. 06/12/13 [(sic)], 

pp. 4-15). 

Trial Court Opinion, 8/17/16, at 2-3 (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 3/13/13). 

Appellant raises four issues on appeal, which we repeat verbatim.

I. Whetther [(sic)] the trial court abused its discretion by 

improperly admitting Officer Morrone’s testimony as to his 

personal opinion?

II. Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a 

conviction without evidence of the delivery or transport of 

the drugs in question?

III. Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a 

conviction without the fact that Appellant possessed the 

drugs in question being proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt?

IV. Whether the [trial] court abused its discretion in denying 

Appellant’s objection to closing argument of prosecutor 

based on prosecutorial misconduct[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 9. 

Appellant’s first challenge is to the trial court’s admission of Officer 

Morrone’s testimony regarding his opinion about the use of the quantity of 

drugs found at the scene. Officer Morrone was qualified as an expert 

witness in the field of packaging and distribution of narcotics. Appellant is 

challenging the following testimony by Officer Marrone. 

It’s my personal opinion, I have never seen one purchase this 

large amount, because mostly users that I know, and have 

spoken to several thousands of them, and distributors and 

dealers, would not have this amount. They would just buy a 

couple of bags, a bundle per day. Having this much finger tips, 

my personal opinion, they would abuse it.
J-S32024-17

- 5 -

N.T. Jury Trial, 6/13/12 at 14. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence provide 

for opinion testimony by expert witnesses. Pa.R.E. 702. “Our standard of 

review in cases involving the admission of expert testimony is broad: 

‘Generally speaking, the admission of expert testimony is a matter left 

largely to the discretion of the trial court, and its rulings thereon will not be 

reversed absent an abuse of discretion.’” Commonwealth v. Watson, 945 

A.2d 174, 176 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 596 

A.2d 840, 842 (Pa. Super. 1991), appeal denied, 616 A.2d 982 (Pa. 1992) 

(additional citation omitted)). 

Upon review of the record, Appellant failed to object to this testimony, 

thus Appellant failed to preserve the issue for appeal and the issue is 

waived. See Commonwealth v. Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278, 

1288 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“It is well established that absent a 

contemporaneous objection [to an evidentiary issue,] the issue is not 

properly preserved on appeal”) (citations omitted). Even if the issue was 

not waived, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

admitting the testimony of Officer Morrone as he was qualified as an expert 

in the field of packaging and distributing narcotics. Moreover, the trial 

court’s August 17, 2016 opinion adequately addresses the issue. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 8/17/16, at 5-10. Thus, Appellant’s claim fails. 

Appellant’s next two issues are challenges to the sufficiency of the 

evidence, namely, whether there was evidence of a delivery or transfer of 
J-S32024-17

- 6 -

the drugs in question and whether Appellant possessed the drugs in 

question.

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in 

the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient 

evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, 

we may not weight the evidence and substitute our judgment for 

the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and 

circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the 

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no 

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of 

proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt 

by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in 

applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and 

all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 

finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and 

the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759, 767 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852, 856-57 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(citations omitted)). “To sustain a conviction for PWID, ‘the Commonwealth 

must prove both the possession of the controlled substance and the intent to 

deliver the controlled substance.’” Id., (quoting Commonwealth v. Lee, 

956 A.2d 1024, 1028 (Pa. Super. 2008)). Upon review, the trial court’s 

August 17, 2016 opinion adequately addresses these issues. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/17/16, at 10-12. When the officers announced their presence, 

Appellant retrieved the bag of heroin from his jacket pocket and threw it on 

the floor. Thus, the Commonwealth established possession. Moreover, the 
J-S32024-17

- 7 -

quantity of drugs, the packaging, the condition, and the circumstances of the 

arrest, established that Appellant intended to deliver the controlled 

substance. Thus, Appellant’s claims fails. 

Appellant’s final claim is that the trial court abused its discretion when 

it overruled Appellant’s objection, based upon prosecutorial misconduct, to 

the Commonwealth’s closing argument. Specifically, Appellant challenges 

the prosecution’s comments “Should we have turned [Appellant], should we 

have gone up the chain, try to figure out who this next connection was? 

Maybe. There is only one person in the room who knows whose 

[Appellant’s] next connection was, that’s [Appellant.]” N.T. Jury Trial 

6/13/12, at 19-20. Upon review of the record, the trial court adequately 

addressed this issue in its August 17, 2016 opinion. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/17/16, at 13-16. Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion in overruling Appellant’s objection.

In conclusion, we find that Appellant’s claims are waived, or meritless. 

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of sentence. We direct that a copy of the 

trial court’s August 17, 2016 opinion be attached to any future filings in this 

case.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S32024-17

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/17/2017
Circulated 06/29/2017 11:43 AM