J-S89042-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TYLEESIA KITCHEN

 Appellant No. 148 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 9, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006204-2015

BEFORE: SHOGAN, MOULTON, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED January 12, 2017

Appellant, Tyleesia Kitchen, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. She contends 

the evidence was insufficient to convict her of false identification to a law 

enforcement officer1and possession with intent to deliver.2 We affirm.

We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court’s 

opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 6/15/16, at 1-8. Appellant argues that the 

evidence was insufficient to convict her of false identification to law 

enforcement because the police officers did not inform her that she was the 

subject of an official investigation. She avers that “because she did not 

know she was the subject of an official investigation, it was not illegal for her 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 4914(a).

2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S89042-16

- 2 -

to provide the officer with a fake name when she did.” Appellant’s Brief at 

13. Appellant also claims “the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that [she] constructively possessed the drugs hidden in 

the car, and the trial court erred in convicting her of these possessory drug 

offenses.”3 Id. at 18.

 

3 We note that Appellant raised the following issues in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement of errors complained of on appeal, reproduced verbatim:

a. The trial court erred in convicting [A]ppellant of false 

identification to law enforcement as the Commonwealth 

introduced no evidence that the police informed 

[A]ppellant she was the suspect of an official investigation 

and the Commonwealth neglected, at trial, to introduce 

evidence that [A]ppellant presented false identification to 

police.

b. The trial court erred in convicting [A]ppellant of 

possession with intent to deliver as the Commonwealth 

failed to demonstrate that [A]ppellant had constructive 

possession over the packets of crack cocaine in the trunk 

of the car and in the enclosed soda can.

c. The trial court erred in convicting [A]ppellant of knowing 

and intentional possession of crack cocaine where the 

Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that [A]ppellant 

knowingly and intentionally possessed the packets of crack 

cocaine found in the car.

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Appellant’s Brief at Ex. “A.”

Appellant did not raise issue “c” in her brief and therefore it is 

abandoned on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 

1218 n. 2 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding claims raised in Rule 1925(b) 

statement but not identified in statement of questions presented or 

developed in argument section of brief are abandoned on appeal).
J-S89042-16

- 3 -

“A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of 

law.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). 

As this case involves a question of law, our scope of 

review is plenary. Our standard of review is de novo.

 * * *

[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support a criminal conviction . . . does not 

require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the 

evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Instead, it must determine simply whether the 

evidence believed by the fact-finder was sufficient to 

support the verdict. . . .

 * * *

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an 

appellate court must determine whether the evidence, and 

all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict 

winner, are sufficient to establish all of the elements of the 

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233, 1235-1237 (Pa. 2007). 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). “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. Caban, 

60 A.3d 120, 132 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

This Court has stated that 

[c]onstructive 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 of facts that possession of the 

contraband was more likely than not. We have defined 

constructive possession as “conscious dominion.” We 
J-S89042-16

- 4 -

subsequently defined “conscious dominion” as “the power

to control the contraband and the intent to exercise that 

control.” To aid application, we have held that 

constructive possession may be established by the totality 

of the circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Cruz, 21 A.3d 1247, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations 

omitted). “[C]ircumstantial evidence may be used to establish constructive 

possession of the illegal substance.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 

1078, 1094 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).

After careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the decision 

by the Honorable Sierra Thomas Street, we affirm on the basis of the trial 

court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 8-15. Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/12/2017