J-S57034-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2016 

James Womack (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered following his convictions for possession of a controlled substance, 

possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (PWID) and 

criminal conspiracy. We affirm. 

The trial court aptly summarized the relevant factual and procedural 

history of this matter as follows. 

On April 5, 2014, Agent Richard Miller (hereinafter “Agent 

Miller”) was contacted by Lieutenant James Smith (hereinafter 

“Lieutenant Smith”), concerning information about [Appellant], 

who had an active warrant for his arrest. Lieutenant Smith 

informed Agent Miller that [Appellant] was staying at the Holiday 

Inn Express on Finley Road in Rostraver Township, gave Agent 

Miller a physical description of [Appellant], and advised him that 

[Appellant] was probably with Mr. Aaron Jackson (hereinafter 

“Jackson”). Agent Miller then proceeded to the Holiday Inn 

 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellee, 

v. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

JAMES WOMACK, :

 :

 Appellant : No. 89 WDA 2016 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 14, 2015, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, 

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-65-CR-0002102-2014 
J-S57034-16 

- 2 - 

Express where he saw [Appellant] and Jackson walk through the 

lobby, walk to the parking lot, and enter in the rear of a maroon 

Ford Explorer. Agent Miller and Lieutenant Smith then followed 

the vehicle to the Denny’s parking lot. After [Appellant] and 

Jackson exited the vehicle and stood in front of the Denny’s 

entrance, Agent Miller, Lieutenant Smith, and Sergeant Joe 

Dugan (hereinafter “Sergeant Dugan”) approached them. The 

[o]fficers told [Appellant] he was under arrest, [Appellant] 

complied, and was subsequently taken into custody. 

After [Appellant] was handcuffed, Agent Miller conducted a 

search where he found U.S. currency totaling $3,014.00, sixteen 

(16) bags of heroin, two cellular phones, a hotel key card for the 

Holiday Inn Express, and a Pennsylvania photo identification card 

with the name of Matthew Wall from Monessen. Agent Miller 

explained that these particular stamp bags of heroin were 

marked “Taco Bell,” and came with wrapping paper, which is 

typically used to package heroin. However, Agent Miller did not 

find any drug paraphernalia on [Appellant]. [Appellant] was then 

transported to Rostraver Police Department. 

While Agent Miller was interacting with [Appellant], 

Lieutenant Smith witnessed Jackson make “furtive” movements, 

which resulted in Lieutenant Smith handcuffing him, patting him 

down, and finding a brick of heroin on his person. The bags 

found on Jackson were also marked “Taco Bell.” Lieutenant 

Smith further found a brick wrapper, around $1,200.00 in U.S. 

currency, and a hotel key marked 5-A inside a sleeve marked 

313. However, Lieutenant Smith did not find any paraphernalia 

on Jackson’s person nor marks of drug use. 

Agent Miller and Lieutenant Smith then returned to the 

Holiday Inn Express to inquire about who was renting room 313. 

The clerk told them that it was rented out by a man named Rick 

Evans, and Ann Malys (hereinafter “Malys”), the hotel manager, 

subsequently provided records indicating the same at trial. Malys 

explained that photo identification is required in the check-in 

process and that normally only two cards are given out per 

room; Room 313 was rented at approximately 3:53 in the 

afternoon. She testified that the room was rented for one night 

and paid for in cash. Malys testified that she was not at work on 

[the previous day,] April 5, 2014. 
J-S57034-16 

- 3 - 

The [o]fficers then went to the room and knocked and 

announced that it was the police. The [o]fficers were able to 

enter Room 313 by the means of the hotel key found on 

[Appellant]. Officer Crawford of the Rostraver Police also arrived 

on the scene and entered the hotel room as well. At this point, 

no one was in the room and Agent Miller instructed Officer 

Crawford to guard the room and not let anyone enter until they 

returned with a search warrant. The [o]fficers obtained a search 

warrant around 9:30 p.m. and returned to the hotel around 9:40 

at night. Agent Miller, Lieutenant Smith, Officer Crawford, Officer 

Dorcon, and Officer Rush participated in the search of the hotel 

room. 

When searching the hotel room, Agent Miller and 

Lieutenant Smith did not find any drug paraphernalia. However, 

Lieutenant Smith found thirteen (13) bricks of heroin wrapped in 

magazine paper, and then in a plastic bag under a mattress, 

closest to the window. The bags were marked “Taco Bell.” He 

also found wrappings from bricks of heroin in the center drawer 

of the nightstand. Lieutenant Smith testified that the total 

amount of heroin stamp bags found in the hotel room was six 

hundred and sixty-six (666) bags. Six hundred and sixty-four 

(664) of the stamp bags were marked as “Taco Bell” while two of 

the bags were not stamped. The parties stipulated that the drugs 

seized were heroin and the amount contained in the reports 

were correct. 

Trial Court Opinion, 3/10/2016, at 1-3 (citations to notes of testimony 

omitted). 

 This matter proceeded to a jury trial on July 6, 2015, at the conclusion 

of which, Appellant was found guilty of the aforementioned charges.1 On 

December 14, 2015, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 30 to 

60 months’ incarceration followed by a consecutive term of three years’ 

 

1

 Although the record indicates that 16 stamp bags of heroin marked “Taco 

Bell” were recovered from Appellant’s person, the Commonwealth proceeded 

to trial only on the possession, PWID and criminal conspiracy counts related 

to the two bricks of heroin found during the search of room 313. See

Criminal Information, 6/2/2014; N.T., 7/6-8/2015, 303-304. 
J-S57034-16 

- 4 - 

probation. This timely-filed appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial 

court complied with the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

 On appeal, Appellant asks us to consider whether the evidence was 

sufficient to convict him of PWID, possession and criminal conspiracy with 

respect to the heroin recovered from the Holiday Inn Express. Appellant’s 

Brief at vii. 

Before we address Appellant’s issues on the merits, we must 

determine whether they have been preserved properly for our review. With 

respect to sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, it is well-settled that the 

1925(b) statement must specify the element or elements upon which the 

evidence was insufficient, or the claim may be waived. Commonwealth v. 

Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257-58 (Pa. Super. 2008). However, even if a 

sufficiency claim is vague, this Court may review it where the case is 

straightforward, the record is not long and complex, the trial court readily 

apprehended the appellant’s claim, and the trial court thoroughly addressed 

the merits of the claim in its opinion. Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 

1058, 1060 (Pa. 2007). 

In his 1925(b) statement, Appellant asserts general sufficiency 

challenges for each of his three convictions, but fails to specify which 

element or elements of each crime he is challenging. Appellant’s Concise 

Statement, 2/19/2016. Nonetheless, in its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court 

addressed each claim in turn. Trial Court Opinion, 3/10/2016, at 3-9. 
J-S57034-16 

- 5 - 

Accordingly, we decline to find waiver. Laboy, supra. We now turn to 

Appellant’s substantive claims. 

Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to present evidence 

sufficient to prove that Appellant knew the recovered heroin was in room 

313 and failed to present evidence of an agreement between Appellant and 

Jackson to sell the heroin. Appellant’s Brief at 2. 

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 [Commonwealth as 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 weigh 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. 

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 716 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

(citation omitted). 

Instantly, Appellant was convicted of two possessory offenses, PWID 

and possession, as well as one count of criminal conspiracy with respect to 

the two bricks of heroin recovered from room 313. 

When contraband is not found on the [Appellant’s] person, 

the Commonwealth must establish constructive possession.... 

Constructive possession is the ability to exercise conscious 

control or dominion over the illegal substance and the intent to 

exercise that control. [T]wo actors may have joint control and 
J-S57034-16 

- 6 - 

equal access and thus both may constructively possess the 

contraband. The intent to exercise conscious dominion can be 

inferred from the totality of the circumstances. 

To establish the offense of possession of a controlled 

substance with intent to deliver, the Commonwealth must prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the [Appellant] possessed a 

controlled substance with the intent to deliver it.

The trier of fact may infer that the [Appellant] 

intended to deliver a controlled substance from an 

examination of the facts and circumstances 

surrounding the case. Factors to consider in 

determining whether the drugs were possessed with 

the intent to deliver include the particular method of 

packaging, the form of the drug, and the behavior of 

the [Appellant]. 

Thus, possession with intent to deliver can be inferred 

from the quantity of the drugs possessed and other surrounding 

circumstances, such as lack of paraphernalia for consumption. 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 121-22 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). 

 The trial court addressed Appellant’s claims with respect to his 

possessory offenses as follows. 

In this case, the jury heard testimony from Agent Miller 

describing the items found on [Appellant’s] person, which 

consisted of U.S. currency totaling $3,014.00, sixteen (16) bags 

of heroin, two cellular phones, a hotel key card for the Holiday 

Inn Express, and a Pennsylvania photo identification card with 

the name of Matthew Wall from Monessen. Agent Miller 

explained that these particular stamp bags of heroin were 

marked “Taco Bell,” and came with wrapping paper, which is 

typically used to package heroin. The [o]fficers were then able to 

enter Room 313 by the means of the hotel key found on 

[Appellant]. After receiving a search warrant, Lieutenant Smith 

found thirteen (13) bricks of heroin wrapped in magazine paper, 

and then in a plastic bag under a mattress, closest to the 

window. The bags were also marked as “Taco Bell.” 
J-S57034-16 

- 7 - 

Given the testimony presented at trial, [Appellant] is not a 

person registered [] to possess a controlled substance. Clearly, 

heroin is a controlled substance. Here, the jury heard that it was 

confirmed after testing from the Greensburg State Police Crime 

Lab that the powder contained heroin and heroin is a Schedule I 

controlled substance. Moreover, the jury heard testimony from 

Tristan Wenzig, a technical support operator and a criminal 

analyst, who confirmed that the currency found on [Appellant] 

was tested by an ion scan for narcotics, which resulted in a 

positive reading for heroin on the currency. 

* * * 

[Additionally,] the jury heard testimony from Detective 

Anthony Marcocci (hereinafter “Detective Marcocci”), an expert 

in the area of narcotics and narcotics investigations, who opined 

that, taking into consideration the factors of the amount of cash, 

the fact that the stamp bags marked “Taco Bell” in green ink 

found on [Appellant’s] person matched the stamps found in the 

hotel room, and the possession of the hotel key to the same 

hotel room where the large amount of heroin was found, 

[Appellant] possessed the heroin for distribution. Specifically, he 

testified that heroin users usually do not have any significant 

amount of money to buy heroin. He testified that [it is] his 

experience that drug dealers will typically “post up” in a hotel 

room, have another person sign them in, and pay in cash. 

Further, he testified that six hundred and sixty-six (666) stamp 

bags was a large amount of heroin and is not consistent with 

personal use. 

* * * 

[W]hile Jackson testified that [Appellant] was not involved 

in the sale of narcotics and that he never told [Appellant] about 

the drugs in the hotel room, he testified that [Appellant] did, in 

fact, meet him at the Holiday [Inn] Express and purchase the 

two bundles of heroin that were allegedly on his person. 

* * * 

[Additionally, t]he jury heard testimony that both 

[Appellant] and Jackson had access to Room 313, which was 

established when hotel room keys for Room 313 were found on 
J-S57034-16 

- 8 - 

each of them. By having access to Room 313, they both, in fact, 

had control over the heroin. [Appellant’s] possession of the same 

brand of heroin on his person established his intent to control 

the larger stash of heroin in the hotel room. 

Trial Court Opinion, 3/10/2016, at 4-5, 7 (citations to notes of testimony 

omitted). 

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence 

presented is sufficient to demonstrate that Appellant knew of, and had the 

ability and intent to exercise dominion and control over, the heroin 

recovered from the hotel room. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 

1078, 1093–1094 (Pa. 2011) (holding that intent to maintain conscious 

dominion may be inferred from totality of the circumstances). Accordingly, 

we conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to 

establish both possessory offenses. 

To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy: 

[T]he Commonwealth must establish that the 

[Appellant] (1) entered into an agreement to commit

or aid in an unlawful act with another person or 

persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent and (3) an 

overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. 

Circumstantial evidence may provide proof of the 

conspiracy. The conduct of the parties and the circumstances 

surrounding such conduct may create a ‘web of evidence’ linking 

the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Additionally: 

An agreement can be inferred from a variety of 

circumstances including, but not limited to, the relation between 

the parties, knowledge of and participation in the crime, and the 

circumstances and conduct of the parties surrounding the 

criminal episode. These factors may coalesce to establish a 
J-S57034-16 

- 9 - 

conspiratorial agreement beyond a reasonable doubt where one 

factor alone might fail. 

Jones, 874 A.2d at 121-22. 

The trial court found the evidence sufficient, holding that the 

aforementioned evidence made clear that it was Appellant and Jackson’s 

intent to possess the heroin with the purpose of selling it, which possession 

constitutes an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. Trial Court 

Opinion, 3/10/2016, at 7. Moreover, the court noted that the jury found 

incredible Jackson’s testimony that Appellant had nothing to do with selling 

heroin. Id. At trial, Jackson admitted that he had previously pled guilty to 

conspiring with Appellant to sell the heroin recovered in Room 313. Id. “[I]t 

is for the fact-finder to make credibility determinations, and the finder of fact 

may believe all, part, or none of a witness’s testimony.” Commonwealth v. 

Thompson, 934 A.2d 1281, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2007). It is well-established 

that, in evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, “[t]his Court may 

not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment or that of the factfinder.” 

Commonwealth v. Hacker, 959 A.2d 380, 388–89 (Pa. Super. 2008) 

(internal citations omitted). Accordingly, we find that the evidence was 

sufficient to establish each of the elements of criminal conspiracy. See 

Jones, 874 A.2d at 122. Based on the foregoing, we affirm Appellant’s 

judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S57034-16 

- 10 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/12/2016