J. S27008/15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA v. : : KEITH CONDE, : No. 156 EDA 2014 : Appellant : Appeal from the Judgmen t of Sentence, July 11, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP - 51 - CR - 0010909 - 2012 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE AND FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 17, 2015 Appellant appeals his co nvictions for possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver, simple possession, and criminal use of communication facility. 1 Finding no error below, we affirm. On multiple dates in early 2012, police observed appellant make controlled drug buy s with a confidential informant in Philadelphia. Appellant used a telephone to facilitate these buys. Appellant was convicted by jury trial on May 3, 2013, and sentenced to an aggregate term of 7 to 15 years’ imprisonment on July 11, 2013.

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 35 P.S. §§ 780 - 113(a)(30) and (a)(16), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a), respectively.J. S27008/15

- 2 -

On appeal, ap pellant argues that the trial court erred in not permitting him to obtain the identity of the confidential informant. Appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that his convictions are against the weight of the evidence, and that his sentence was excessive. We find no error with the trial court’s holding. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well - reasoned opinion of the trial court, it is our determinati on that there is no merit to the questions raised on appeal. Judge Alice Beck Dubow’s comprehensive, 14 - page opinion, filed on June 12, 2014, thoroughly discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. We will adopt it as our own and affirm on that basis. Additionally, we note that appellant has waived his sentencing issue. A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim is not absolute. Two req uirements must be met before we will review this challenge on its merits. First, an appellant must set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence. Seco nd, the appellant must show that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. The determination of whether a particular issue raises a substantial question is to be evaluated on a case - by - case bas is. In order to establish a substantial question, the appellant must show actions by the trial court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.J. S27008/15

- 3 -

Commonwealth v. Treadway , 104 A.3d 597, 599 (Pa.Super. 2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Bowen , 55 A.3d 1254, 1262 - 1263 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied , 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013); see also Pa.R.A.P., Rule 2119(f), 42 Pa.C.S.A. (requiring concise statement in brief to appeal discretionary aspects of sente nce). Appellant has not included in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of his sentence. The Commonwealth has specifically objected to appellant’s omission of the concise statement . (Commonwealth brief at 22.) “Where an appellant fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) and the Commonwealth objects, the issue is waived for purposes of review.” Commonwealth v. Montgomery , 861 A.2d 304, 308 (Pa.Super. 2004). Consequently, appellant has waived this issue. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/17/2015I Pur s uant t o 35 P.S. §780 - l 1 3(a)(30) . ? Pursuant to 35 P . S. §7SO - J l 3(a)( l 6) . 1 Pur s uant t o 18 P aC . S . A . §7512 . facing his own c har ges for n ar c oti cs an d "c h os e to giv e us in fo rmatio n on h is supp l i e r . " (N . T. P hi lade lphia Po li ce De partment , w a s wo rkin g w ith a co nfid e n tial in fo rm an t ("CI" ) who was Po l i ce Office r Ri c hard Graml i ch , fr o m th e Int e nsi ve Drug Inv es ti g ation S quad of th e FACT UA L H I S T ORY D ef en d ant appeale d . court se n te n ce d the Defen d ant t o a tot al of s e v en t o fift e en years o f inc arceration. Th e Commu ni catio n F aci li ty 3 o n May 3, 201 3 after a three day l o ng tri al. On J u l y 11 , 2013 , the trial Con tro ll ed S ub s tance (" PWJD "), 1 four counts of Kno w ingly and I n t e n ti onally P osses s in g a Con tr oll e d Su b stan c e by a Pers on N ot Re g ulated ( " K&l"), 2 an d one c o u n t o f Crimin al Use of occasions, a j u ry conv i c ted th e D e fendant of fou r counts of P ossess i on w ith Intent t o D e li ve r a (" D efe nd ant") sell lar ge quan ti ti e s o f h e ro in t o a c onfidential 

### i nformant on 

### four diff e rent As a result of th e Ph il a de l ph i a Po li ce D ep artm ent o bserving the D efe ndant , Ke ith C o nd e, OP IN ION KEITH C O N DE 

# FD 

# LED JU N 1 · 2 201 4 

# c .. 

# First"JJ~~f

# ~'lf

e ta~ s Un it 

## ,s net of PA 156 E DA 20 1 4 

### v. CP-51-CR ~ OOl 0909-2012 COMMO NW E AL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PH I LA D ELPHIA COUNTY 

# rm sr JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF . PENNSYLVA N IA

TRIAL DIVISION - C RI M I NAL Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM2

Officer Gramlich th en gave the C I pre - r e c o rded " bu y m o n ey" and s t ay e d in an u nm arked vehicle whi l e Officer Graml ic h observe d th e C I ap proach the co rner of "Horr o cks an d Longshore" in Philadelphia, PA. (N.T. 5 / 1/13 p. 35, 37, 42, 46.) Fro m approx im ate l y hal f a b l ock away , Office r Graml i ch observed a 2 0 00 fo ur -door black Lin co l n w ith a Pennsy l vania li cen s e p late marked HXR-4882 ("Li n col n ") occupied by two mal es, a dri ver and a fro nt passenger drive u p to the Cl. (N.T . 5/1/13 p . 38, 49 , 1 23.) T il e C I en t e red the rear passe n ge r s eal of the vehicle, remai n ed ther e for a few mi n utes, and th en exited the vehic l e . (N.T . 3/18/13 p . 38 . ) The C I imm e diat e ly retu rn e d to Officer Gramlich . The CI , while the po l ice we r e prese n t , purch a sed heroin fro m the Defe nd an t on numerous occas i o n s . The first tr ansaction occurr e d on Feb ru ary 3, 20 1 2 at ap p rox i mate l y l : 40 P.M. whe n a p l ain-clothed Office r Graml ic h an d Police Officer T h o m as Ke l ley (from th e D i s tri ct Atto rn ey's Office Narco tics Un i t) m et th e C l at a co n fi d en ti al l o c atio n an d spoke with the C I about how they wan t ed the " transacti o n to go dow n ." (N . T . 5/1/13 p . 36, 49, 6 0 .) Officer Graml ich thoro u gh l y searche d the CI to ensu r e th at he h a d n o mo n ey o r c ontrab and. (N.T. 5 / 1 /13 p. 37, 4 1 ) The CI di aled th e same pho n e number th at the C I had pre vi o usl y pro v id e d t o O ffi c er Gramli ch , 267-386

- 6365, an d had a «dru g -r elated co n v er sation w ith the per s o n 011 th e oth e r e nd of that phone." (N.T. 5/1 / 13 p . 37 , 43

- 44 . ) The Cl th e n rel ay ed to Offi c e r Gr amli c h a sp e cific ti m e an d location that th e CI an d the perso n on the othe r e nd of the p h one agr eed to me et t o d e li ver heroin to the CI. (N . T. 5/1/13 p. 37 . ) 5 / 1 / 13 20 , 2 1 , 3 1. ) The C l provided Office r Gramli c h with a p h o n e number and a d escrip ti on of his heroi n dealer. (N . T. 5/1/13 p. 32

- 33.) Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM)

~ The jury found the Defe nd ant no t gui lty of t he char g e s r e lat ed t o the F ebru ary 3, 2 0 I 2 tran sac ti o n . T h e di fference between this fi r s t tran sa cti on and th e other fo ur tran sacti ons w as th at for thi s li r s l transac ti o n , n o n e of th e p olice officers we r e able to identi fy the Defendant as a driver or p a s s en ge r in th e Linco ln an d th ere wa s an o th er person in the Linco ln . F o r the other fo ur transac tions, th e p o l ice i de ntifi ed th e Defend ant a s the driv er of th e Lin co ln and no one else was in the vehicle . S/1113 p. 64.) After the tran saction , Office r Gramlic h thor o ughly searc h e d th e CI to e n sure that N.T. 5/2/13 p . 1 7 3 , Ex h ibi t C- 7 ) T h e p ac kets were again s t amp e d with " W ASS U P." (N . T. or 442 mi lli g r ams, of a su b stance th at t este d pos iti ve fo r h ero in. (N . T. 5/ 1 / 1 3 p . 6 4 , 72, 1 13, retu rn ed to Officer Gramli ch. (N.T. 5/ 1 /13 p. 64.) Th e C I turn ed o v e r appro x imatel y 63 packets, T h e CI ente r e d th e v e hi c l e for a few min u t es, e xi t e d th e v ehicl e, and imm e di at ely p. 180-182.) was dri ving th e car an d the r e was n o one el s e w as i n the car. (N. T. 5/ 1/13 p . 6 9- 71 ; N .T. 5 /2/13 Office r Gr amlich an d D e t ec tiv e Georg e b o th obse rv e d that i t was th e Defendan t who 63 , 123.) 5/1/13 p. 63; N.T. 5/2/13 p. 18 0- 1 8 2 .) Th e same Lincoln pulled u p to th e co rner. (N. T . 5/I/l3 p. mo n ey , " an d watched the C I walk ag ain t o th e corn e r o f " Horrocks an d L ongshore. " (N. T . p. 1 80-182.) Officer Graml ic h th oro u gh ly search e d th e C I, h and e d th e C I "p re-r e cord e d b u y the CI, who ma d e a pho n e call to the sam e p ho n e n umb er. (N .T. 5 11 / 1 3 p . 62 , 14 9 ; N.T. 5/2/13 5/J/13 p. 61

- 63; N.T. 5/2/13 p. 180-1 8 2.) Offic er Gramli ch an d De t ecti ve Jo e G eor g e m et with The second transac tio n occu rre d on F e b ru ary I 6, 2012. at ap p rox im at e l y 1 :2 0 P . M . (N.T. except w h en he was in s i de th e ve h icle. (N.T. 5/1/13 p . 50

- 5 1. ) 4 '"WASSAP" in black i n k. (N.T. 5/1/13 

### p. 59.) The CI d id no t l eav e Office r Grarn li c h 's sig h t, 53 , I 08; N.T. 5/2/J 3 p .1 72-173; Exhibit C

- 4.) Some of th e packets were stamped wi th packets, or 975 mi lligrams, of a substan ce that tes t ed positi ve for heroi n . (N .T . 5 /l/13 p. 39, 42 , Office r Gramli ch th oroughly sear ched the C l . Th e CI turned ove r appro xi mately 65 Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM4

The thi r d and fo rth tran sac ti o n s o c c urr ed on March 7 , 2 01 2, an d March 2 1 , 20 1 2 in th e lat e afte rn oo n . O ffi c er Gramli c h and De t ecti v e G eorge me t with th e CI, w ho made a phon e c al l to th e s ame p h o n e n umbe r as befo re. (N. T . 5 /l/l 3 p.76-77 , 85, 149. ) As a r e sul t of th e p h o n e call s, the same eve n ts occ urr ed o n eac h d ay. O ffic e r Graml i c h thor o u g hl y s e ar che d th e CI, han ded th e C I " p re -r ecord ed buy mon e y," and o b se rve d as th e C J w a lked t o th e c o me r of "Horrocks and Lo n gs h o r e." (N. T. 5/1/13 p. 7 6-77, 85, 1 4 9.) T h e L inc o ln p ul le d u p to th e come r . (N .T. 5/1/l 3 p. 77, 1 23.) Th e C l got in to the veh icl e fo r a few min u t es, ex it e d th e ve hi cle, an d returned to O fficer Graml ich. (N. T . 511/13 p. 7 9, 85

- 86.) The C I turn ed ove r p ac ke t s of a substance th at tes t ed posi tive for h e r oi n . (N.T. 5/1 /1 3 p . 

### 8 0- 8 1 , 86, 116 -1 1 7. ) Some of th e packe t s were s t amped with "WASSUP'' an d so m e were s t amp e d w i th "H ALLA D AY." (N.T . 

### 5/l /l 3 p. 

### 80-81, 86, 116- 1 17 . ) After th e trans actio n, 

### O ffi cer Gramli c h th o rou g h I y 

### searc h ed the After the transac tion , "back

- up officers," w h o w e r e s t ationed i n th e ar ea, fo ll owed th e Li n co l n lo a shoppi n g cen t er at "G and H u ntin g P ark. " (N. T . 5 /1 / 1 3 p. 64.) O ffic er Gramlic h drove t o that locati on, spotted th e Defe n dan t at a p hon e s t ore, and c o nta c t e d an un marke d

" SWA T office r , Of

fi ce r Vall ejo . " (N.T. 5/1 / 13 p. 65, 71 .) O ffi c er Gramli c h exp laine d to Officer Vall ejo th at th e L i nco ln was in vol v ed i n an ong oing dru g inve stigation , and a sked Offi cer Valle j o to s t op th e L incoln and ob t ai n id e n ti fic ation from th e driv e r . (N.T. 5 /1 /1 3 p . 65, 7 1; N . T . 5/2/ 1 3 p. 86

- 88. ) O ffic e r Vallejo fo llo w ed the Lin co ln , pull e d the car o v er fo r no t using a tu m signal , and ob t ai ned ide n ti fi c ation in f ormati o n from the Defendant . Th e iden tificati o n i nformati o n con fi rmed that th e D e fe ndan t' s name 

### w as Keith C onde. 

### (N .T. 5/1 / 13 p. 66 ; N.T. 5 /2/13 p. 86

- 8 8. ) he did no t have additional money or contrab and. (N . T. 5 /1 / 1 3 p , 6 4

- 65.) Th e C l di d n o t leave Officer Gramlich's s i g h t excep t when h e was in s id e th e v e hicl e. ( N .T . 

### 5 /1 / 1 3 p. 7 3-74.) Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM5

T h e Cl then s t epp e d i nto th e ve h icle, the D efe n dant s t arted driv in g west on Lo n gsho r e, we n l around the co rn e r at S o uder Str eet , an d then pull e d in to a dri veway whi l e b ac k- up pol i ce officers and Officer Graml ic h followed th e v ehicl e. (N.T. 5 / 1/ 1 3 p . 92 . ) The CI ex it e d the veh i cle that was stopped in the dri veway and re tu rne d t o Officer Gr aml ich. (N.T. 5/1 /1 3 p. 95 . ) The CI turned ove r appro xi mate l y 299 packe t s, o r 6 . 2 1 2 gram s, o f a s u bs t ance th at t ested Th e fi fth an d fi n al transa ctio n oc c urred on A pril 2 0, 2013 , at approximatel y 4:00 P.M. O fficer Gramlich me t w ith the Cl tor the fifth time and fin al tim e . The C I made a phone call to th e s ame n u mber. (N.T. 5/1/13 p. 90

- 9 2, 14 9 . ) On c e agai n , Offi c er Graml ich thorough l y s e arc h ed the C T , han ded th e CI mon ey, an d o bserved a s the C I wal ked t o the corn e r of " Horr ocks and Lo n gsho r e . " (N. T . 5/1/13 p. 91

- 92.) T he Lincoln pull e d up to th e co rner . (N.T. 5/ 1/1 3 p . 92, 94, 10 I, 123 . ) O ffi cer Gr amli ch ob s e rved th at the Defen d ant dri v in g the car and n o o ne else was in th e car. (N.T. 5/1/ 1 3 p . 92 . ) Ag ai n , Offi cer Gramlich an d D e t ec ti ve George observed that i t wa s the Defend an t who w as dri vi n g th e car an d 1 10 o n e e l se w as in the car. (N .T. 5/ 1 / 1 3 p, 7 8 - 79, 8 5, 87-88 ; N. T. 5/2/13 p . 1 82 , 1 84.) O n Mar ch 7, 20 1 2 , th e Cl h an ded ov e r app roxim atel y 6 3 p ack et s , or 1 .235 g r a m s of hero i n . (N.T. 5/1/13 p. 80

- 81, 1 16; N. T. 5 /2/13 p . 1 74 ; E x h i bi t C -11. ) O n March 2 1, 2012, th e C l h anded over approx im ate l y 1 30 packe ts, or 2 . 1 1 5 gram s of h e r o in (N . T . 5 11 113 p . 86, 1 1 7, N . T. p. 174- 1 75, Ex hib it C-13. ) C J t o e n s ur e Ch at h e d i d not h ave addi ti onal money or c o n trab and. (N.T. 5 11 /1 3 p , 77, 86.) Th e CI d id not l eave O ffi cer Gr amlich's sig ht e x cep t w h e n h e was in s id e th e ve hi cle. (N.T. 5/ 1 /13 p . 76. 79 , 86 . ) Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM6

Th e $50 bill that w as missing from the pre- r ecorded buy money r ecove r ed from th e D e f e ndant wa s nev e r found . (N. T. 5/ 1/13 p . 121; N.T. 5/2/13 p. 44 . ) Officer Gr aml ich used his own ce ll phone to ca ll th e p h one nu mbe r that the C I had been calling du ring the entire i n vestigation and the ce ll phone that w as r eco v ered from th e D e fendant ran g . (N .T. 5 / 1 /13 p . 96, 149 . ) The police arrested and sear ched the D e f e n dan t. (N . T . 5/l/1 3 p . 95; N.T. 5 /2/13 p. 104 - I 07 . ) T he officers recovered the fo llowi n g it em s from the Defe nd an t : a ce ll phon e , $1,950 o f the $2 , 000 p re - reco r ded " b uy money," an additi o n al $275 th at wa s n ot pre - r eco rd ed, and a wallet w i th identification cards that i d e ntified the D e f endan t as Keith Co nd e . (N . T. 5/1/ 1 3 p. 96

- 99; N.T . 5/2/ 13 p . 104-107. ) At Officer Gr arn l ich ' s directi on , eigh t to ten back -u p p olice officers bl oc k ed the driveway where th e Linc o ln was parked so that the Defe n d an t could n ot escap e . (N. T. 5/1/13 p . 95. ) After the trans a ction , Officer Gramlic h tho r o u gh l y s e ar ched the CI to e n sure that h e did not have a d ditio n a l money or contraband. (N.T . 511/13 p. 101.) The C I did no t l eave Offic e r Gr arnl ic h ' s si g ht except for "five or s i x seconds" w h e n be was ri ding inside th e ve h i cl e . (N.T . 5 / 1 /13 p. 92 , 1 01.) positiv e for he r oi n. (N.T. 5 / 1/13 p. 94 , 99, 1 1 8; N.T . 5/2/13 p. 175; Exhibit C-17.) The pack e ts w e r e s t amped w i th " WASSUP." (N.T . 5 / 1/1 3 p . 99.) Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM7

preparatio n of 

### the d e fense and that the request is 

### reaso n abl e ... Only aft e r 

### the defendant shows e stablish , purs u an t to Ruic 573(8 ) (2)(a)(i) , that th e info rm ation sought is materi al to the privil e g e and obtain disclosure o f 

### a c onfidenti al in fo rmant' s i denti ty, 

### a defe n dan t must fir s t 

### Roebuck , 545 Pa . 471 , 68 1 A.2d 1 279, 1 2 83 n . 6 ( 1 9 9 6). "In or d er t o ov e r co m e this qu alified 1 2 7 9 c itin g Comm o nwealth v . Bing. 551 Pa . 6 59, 713 A.2d 56 , 58 ( 1998 ) and Commonwealth v . identi ty o f a co n fi d ential source. 

### Commonwe a lth v . Marsh, 606 P a. 

### 2 54 , 260-261, 

### 997 A .2 d P e nns y l vania reiterated that th e Commonwealth e n j oys a qualified privil e ge to with ho l d the Identi ty o f t h e Co n fidential Informan t. In 

### Co m monwealth v . Ma rsh, U 10 Supreme Co u rt of Th e trial court di d not abuse its discretion by de n yi n g the Defendan t's Mo ti on to D i sclose A . The Trial Court Properly Denied the Defendant' s Motion to Di sc lo s e the Identity of the Confidential Informant and the Defend a nt' s Con s titutional Right s Wer e Not V iolat ed . BASIS F OR TRIAL COURT'S D E CISION 5 . "Whether the sen t e n c e was an improper sentence?" 4. " Whether the verdict was agai nst the we i ght of th e e v i dence?" whether a judg m en t of ac qu i tt al shou ld have b ee n awarde d ?" 3. " Whether th e verdict was based upon i nsufficie n t evidence a s a matter of law and thus cou rt to allow the D efe n dant to face hi s acc u se r (informan t)?" 2. " Wh e th e r th e Defendant ' s Constitutional Rights w e re v i olated for the failur e o f th e trial Commo n weal th's I nfo rm ant? " l. " Wh e ther th e trial court erred in denying P e ti ti oner ' s Motion fo r the disclosure o f the Th e D e fendant r aises the following issues on appeal : S T A 

### TE M E NT OF MATT E RS 

### C OMPLAIN E D O F ON AP P E A L Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PMl 925(b)(4)(vii).

The Defendant n ex t asse rt s th at his " c o n stituti onal ri g ht s w e r e v i o l at ed for th e fai lure of the trial court to allow [ h i m ] Lo face h is accuse r (in fo rm an t )." (S t at e m e n t of Err ors 

# i r 2 . ) As an ini tial matter, th e Defe n dan t wai ved thi s objecti o n b ecau se it is n o t s p ecific en o u g h . Pa.R.A . P Since th e De fe nd an t di d n ot rai s e an y d e fens e t o which the i d entity o f the C I wo u l d b e material , the trial c o urt di d n o t h ave to m ov e to the s ec o n d p ro ng o f th e i n quiry to de t ermi ne whethe r the r e q u e s t to di sclose th e i de ntity of th e CI w as reas o nab l e. Ba s e d o n the pr e l i minary heari ng tran scrip t and th e ar gu m en t s m ade duri ng th e m o ti o n h earin g, th e tri al co u rt was we ll w i thin i t s di scretio n to de n y th e De fe ndan t's Motion to D i sc l ose I d e ntify of I n fo rm ant. ln th i s cas e , the Def

e ndant fai led to raise any defens e t o w h i ch the i dentity o f the CI w ould be material and the trial cou rt fo und that one did n o t e x i st. T he court s h o u l d co n s i de r th e fo ll ow in g fa ct o r s: th e c ri me c h ar ged, th e possible d efenses, the poss ible s ign ific ance of th e i n fo rmant 's t es ti m o ny , an d any o ther rele v an t factors. Commonwealth v . Marsh at 262 c i ting Co mm o nw e alth v. Ca rte r , 4 2 7 Pa . 53, 233, A.2 d 284, 287 ( t 967). that the iden tity of the confiden ti al inform an t is materi al to the de f e n se is th e tri al court r equired to exercise its di sc r etio n t o dete rmine w h eth er the i n fo rmation sho ul d be r e v eal ed by bal an c i ng relevan t fac t ors, which are ini ti all y weig h ted t oward th e Comm o n wealth . " P a . R.C.P . §5 7 3(B)(2)(a)(i); Commo n wealth v. Marsh at 261 citin g Roebuck, s u pra at 1 283; B in g, supra at 58; Commo n wealth v. Herron, 475 Pa . 461, 380 A.2d 1228 (1977). Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM9

Comm o nwealth v. K

i rkland, 200 3 PA Super 279, 83 l A . 2d 607 , 1 1 (Pa.S up er.C t. 2003) citing doubt th at the def

e ndan t possessed a controlled s u bstanc e w i th the i nt c nt to del i ver it. " T o es t abli s h the offen s e of PWID , th e Co mm onweal th " must prove b e yond a re a sonable I. Posses s ion with Inte n t to De li ver B. T he C ommonwealth Pr es en t ed S ufficient Evi de n c e t o C on vi ct th e D e fend ant of A ll C har g e s . trial cou rt denied the Defendan t's Moti on t o Dis cl ose th e Iden ti ty oflnformant. w e r e called t o testify at trial, the Defendant's con sti tu ti onal rights were not vio l ated when the op p ortunity to cross - exami ne each of those po li ce officers, as we ll as all o f the oth er witness who witnesses who testified ag ainst the Defendan t. Si nce th e Defe n dant h a d a full and fair statements into evidence. It was th e P hi l ad elph ia Pol i c e Office r s, an d not th e CI , wh o w er e the In this c ase, th e Commonw e alth neithe r called th e Cl as a w i tn ess n or in troduc ed his ( internal citations omitted ) . (2002) citi ng Ohio v . Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 64, 100 S.C t. 2531, 2537, 65 L. E d .2d 597 (1980) right of cross - examination . Com m onwealth v . 

### Rob in s, 57 1 P a . 248, 258

- 59 , 812 A.2d 514 , 520 preference for face

- to - face confrontation at trial, and th at the pri m ary in t e r est p rotected is the I n general , the Supre m e Court has indicat ed th at the Co n fron t ati on C l au se reflec t s a 3 14 5 , 1 1 l L . Ed.2d 638 ( l 990)(c i ti n g U.S. Const. am e n d . VI)(e mphasis ad d e d ). c onfro n ted with the wi tnesses agai nst hi m . " Idaho v. Wright , 497 U.S. 8 0 5, 8 1 3 , 1 10 S.Ct. 3 139 , Am e ndment , provides that in " a ll criminal prosec u tio n s , the accused s h a ll en j oy th e ri gh t . . . to be Amendment , appl i cable t o the stales through th e du e proce s s c l ause of th e Fourteen th Moreover, this claim is without merit. The Co n frontation C l au se of th e S i xth Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM10

su b s t an ce - from th e Defen d an t. 35 P . S. §780 -10 2(b) , 35 P.S . §780-104( ] ) (ii )(lO). the CI gave m oney to the D efendan t i n o rd e r to pu r c h ase a l ar ge qu an ti ty of h e roi n - a co ntr o ll ed separate occasions prov i de mo r e than e n ough c ir c u mstan tial ev i de n ce fo r th e jury to infe r th at physically obse rve the ex ch an ge of m o n ey fo r dru gs, th e ir combi ne d obse rvatio ns o n four (N.T. 5/1/13 p . 60

- 97; N .T. 5/2/ 1 3 p . 179 -1 8 7 . ) Whi l e the po li c e office r s d id n o t actu ally ens ur e that he did not h ave any m on e y o r co n trab and o n h i m to c omp ro mi s e the i n vesti g ati o n . 5/2/l 3 p . 179 -1 87.) Each tim e, the C I was tho ro u g h l y searched be fore an d aft er th e tran s a c ti o n to obse rve d the CI e x i t th e ve h icle wi th lar ge quanti ties o f heroin . (N.T . 5 /1/1 3 p. 60 -97 ., N. T. T he of fi ce r s als o o b s e rve d the C I en ter the Li n c o ln w ith pre - r e cor de d buy mon ey, an d Lo ng shore't wi th n o one e lse in the car . (N .T . 5 / 1 / 13 p .60- 9 7 . , N.T. 5/2/13 p . 17 9

- 1 87. ) o b s erve d that it wa s th e Defendant w ho w as dri v ing a Linco l n t o the c o rner o f i' Horrcck s an d D efen d ant of PWI D . On fo ur sep arate o cc a sions Officer Gramlich and D etecti v e Gerog e In th i s ca se , th e re is no q u esti on th at the jury h ear d sufficient evi denc e to c onv i ct th e 

# . 87 (1980). A.2d 132, 1 34

- 35 (1983) c itin g Co mm onwea lth v. B e nt ley, 2 7 6 P a . S up er , 4 1 , 4 6, 4 19 A.2 d 8 5, actuall y possessed th e dru g s o r co ntraban d. Com m o n wealt h v . Ma c o l ino, 50 3 Pa .20 1 , 2 0 6 , 469 de f endan t." 

### I d. Fu rthe r , c i r c um stan tial ev id e nc e may be u sed t o e s t abli s h th at th e de fen d ant i ncl u di ng th e " parti cu l ar method o f pac k agi n g, the form of the dru g , an d th e beh av ior of th e controlled su b stance fro m an exami n ati o n of th e fac t s and circ um stances s urro un d i ng th e case, A . 2d 11 8 1 ( P a.S up e r. 2000 ) . Th e j ury m ay in fer th at th e d efe n dan t int e n ded to d e l i v er a Com m onwealth v. Conaway, 7 9 1 A.2 d 359 (Pa.S up e r .2 0 02); Co mm o nw ea lth v. Ag u ado, 760 Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PMII

F ac i l it ation ha s bee n defined as "any us e of a communication fac i lity th at makes easier th e Connn o nw e a l th v . Mo ss, 2004 PA S uper 2 2 4, 852 A . 2d 3 74 , 3 82 (P a. S uper. Cl. 2004). 

# . r ec kle s sl y fa c ilit ated an un d erlyin g felony ; and (3) the underlying felony occurred. int e ntion all y used a communication facility ; ( 2) Appellan t s knowingly , intentionally or Co mmonw e alth must prove beyon d a r e asonable doubt that ; (I) Appell ants knowingly and To sust ain a convic tion fo r Criminal Us e of a Communication Facility, the 3. Criminal Use of a Communicati o n Fac il ity possessed that heroin. 35 P.S. §780-102(b), 35 P.S. § 7 80

- 104(1)( ii )(10) . hero i n - a controlled substan ce - from the Defendant an d that the Defendant in t e n tionall y The jury most certainly had sufficient facts on which to infer that the CI o b tai ned the 9 7 ; N.T . 5 /2/ 13 p . 179

- 187.) CI upon return, and recove r ed l arge quantities of bundled heroin fro m the CI . (N.T. 5/1/13 p . 60- was solely occupied by the Defendant, observed the CI duri ng the en tire transac ti o n , searched the searched the Ct , provided the CI with p r e-recor d ed buy money , sent the CI to the Li n coln that 

### I n this case, the jury hear d evidence that on fou r separate occasions Officer Gramlich th e drugs or co n traband . 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Macolino , supra . dis c ussed , circumstantial evidence may be used to establish that tbe defe nd ant actually possessed posses s [ed] a controlled or counterfeit substance . " 

### 3 5 P.S . §780-113(16). As previously s ub s tance , th e Co mm onwealth must prove that the Defendant "knowing l y or i ntentionally To estab l ish the offense of knowingly and i ntentionally possessi n g a controlled 2. Knowimdy and Intentio n ally Possessinu a Contro ll e d Substance Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM12

Additionally , the court is not troubled that the 

### jury found the Defendant not guilty of the charges resulting from the first transaction and guilty of the charges resulti ng from the four subsequent transactions. The difference between this first transaction and the other four transactions was that for this first transaction, none of the police officers were able to identify the Def e ndant as a driver or passenger in the Lincoln and th ere was another person in the Lincoln . When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the verdict may be reversed only if it is so contrary to th e ev i dence as to shock one's sense of justice . Commonwealth v. Simmons. 541 Pa. 211, 662 A.2d 62 I, 630 (1995). Fo r the reasons stated above, the ju ry had sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of four counts of PWID, four counts of K&I, and one count of Criminal Use of Communication Fac i lity. C . Th e Ve rdic t W a s N o t Again s t the W e i gh t o f th e Ev i d en ce The jury heard evidence that on four different occasions, the CI cal l ed the Defendant, set up a meeting with the Defe n dant , and exchanged pre-recorded 

### buy money fo r large quan tities of heroin during that meeting. (N.T. 5/1/13 p.60-97; N.T. 5/2/13 p. 179-187.) Further, when the Defendant was arrested on April 20, 2012 after the fifth transacti o n , Officer Gramlich confirmed that the telephone recovered from the Defendan t was assigned the same phone nu mber the Cl had been calling to set up each tr ansaction. (N . T. 5/l/13 p. 96.) Th i s was sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant's telephone was used to facilitat e PWID, a felony, and therefore convict the Defendant of Criminal Use of a Communicatio n Facility. commission of the underlying felony . " Moss at 382 quoting United S t ates v. Davis, 929 f.2d 554, 559 (10th Cir.1991). Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM1 3

B o th p arties agre e d that the Defendan t faced a man dato ry mini mum of five year s o f incarceration due to hi s prior convictions and the amount of hero i n involve d i n th e Ap ril 2 0 ) 201 2 transa c ti on. (N.T. 7 111/1 3 p. 6 -7 . ) The maximum sente n ce all o tted by s t atute w a s fifteen y e ar s. 3 5 P.S. § 7 8 0- l l 3 (f)(l ). Th e trial court sentenced th e Defendant t o a sente n ce of s even to fift een y e ar s o f incarceration for th e April 20 , 2 012 PWID conviction, wi th sente n ces fo r th e 

### remaining c onvictions runn in g concurrently. (N.T. 

### 7 / 1 1/13 p . 21-22 . ) T h e tri al c o urt 's sentence H e r e , in fashion i n g an appro pri ate sen t e n ce, th e Co u rt c o nsid ered th e ev id enc e pr ese n ted du ring trial , the ar g u ments m ade b y coun s e l , th e Mo di fi ed Pre se nt ence Re p ort , th e j ury's verdict , th e D efendant ' s p ri or arrests and co n v i ctio n s, the g r av ity of th ese offens e s , th e thr e at t o the community, an d th e Defendan t ' s r e h abi l itative needs (N.T. 7/11/12 p . 6-9, 1 2- 1 5 > 21

- 22) . Further, th e court was bound by appl i cable man datory min i mu ms. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §7 5 08(c) . The Supe rior Cou 11 has found th at " sentenci n g is a m atter w i thin th e sound discreti on o f the sentencing j udge and a sentence w ill n ot be dis tu rbed by an ap p e ll ate court ab s ent m ani fest abuse . A sen t ence mu st ei th er exceed th e statu tory li mits o r be m an ifestly exc e s s ive t o con s ti tute an abuse o f disc r eti o n . " Com m o n wealth 

### v. Fries, 362 

### JJa . Supe r. I 63 , 167, 523 A.2 d . 1 13 4 , 1 135 ( 1 987), appeal denied, 5 J 5 P a . 6 1 9, 531 A.2 d. 427 (1987) c i tin g Com m onwe alt h v , White, 34 1 

### Pa. Su p er. 

### 26 1, 49 1 A.2d. 

### 252 (1 9 85). D . Th e Sentenc e W as Leg al and R e aso nabl e T h e ve r dict s were n o t again s t the wei g ht of th e evidence, no r were th ey shocking, and should not 

### be overturned . for the oth er fou r transac ti o n s , the police identi fi e d the Defe n dan t as th e driver of th e Li n co l n and 110 o n e e l s e wa s i n th e vehicle. Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM14 ALICE BECK DUBOW , JUDGE



### DAT E D:~ BY THE COURT ; Based on th e fo r ego in g, th e S up e rior Co urt sho ul d affi rm th e j u d g m e nt o f se nt e n ce. C ONCL US ION The sente n ce was l egal an d re a sonab l e and s h o uld be up h e l d. di d not exceed statutory l i mi t s, was not manifestl y excessive, an d was not an ab u s e of di scre ti on . Circulated 06/26/2015 02:31 PM