### J - S57020 - 17

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

v. DERRICK PHILLIPS Appellant No. 388 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated November 10 , 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 23 - CR - 0002489 - 2016 BEFORE: PANELLA , J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY SOLANO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2017 Appellant Derrick Phillips appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled subst ance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. 1 

### We affirm. On April 5, 2016, at approximately 6:00 a.m., police executed a search warrant at the home of Tiesha Spriggs in Chester. The warrant was based on Spriggs ’ sales of methamphetamines to confidential informants. While executing the warrant, police found Appellant in a closet in a bedroom on the first floor of Spriggs’ house. Appellant asked what was going on, and after being informed that the police were in vestigating sales of methamphetamines, Appellant stated that he had only a small amount of cocaine. The closet where Appellant was found contained men’s clothing,

____________________________________________ 1 

### 35 P.S. §§ 780 - 113(a)(30), (a)(16), and (a)(32).

### J - S57020 - 17

- 2 -

including a jacket with sixteen bags of cocaine inside weighing a total of 7.89 grams – nine small blue baggies of cocaine inside a sandwich bag and seven larger clear baggies of cocaine. In the first floor bedroom area, police also found Appellant’s wallet, containing his driver’s license (which listed a different address from Spriggs’), and tw o cell phones. In Spriggs’ upstairs bedroom, police found Apple brand bagging material identical to the bags found in the jacket, several razor blades, and a grinder. In the kitchen, police found a bag of cocaine weighing 11.35 grams. After the search, A ppellant was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance. 2 

### Jury selection in Appell ant’s case took place on September 13, 2016. During voir dire, Juror 10, who was African American, said she had younger brothers and sisters who had been homeless and had been arrested. Juror 10 said she did not know if her siblings had drug - related prob lems, and added, “But I’ve heard.” She said she would be sympathetic to someone “down on their luck,” but not to a defendant merely because he was a defendant. N.T., 9/13/16, at 55 - 57. Juror 16, who was also African American, said her first cousin was a ccused of drug - related crimes three times, but said that her cousin’s experiences would not affect her ability to

____________________________________________ 2 

### Spriggs was charged with the same offenses but was not tried with Appellant.

### J - S57020 - 17

- 3 -

be a fair and impartial juror. Id. at 64. The Commonwealth used its peremptory challenges to strike, among others, Jurors 10 and 16. Appella nt claimed that the prosecutor had used his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Appellant, who is African American, asserted that the prosecutor had used his peremptory strikes to eliminate the only two African American jurors remaining after one African American venireperson was excused by agreement for a hardship. 3 

### The prosecutor argued that he struck Juror 10 because she indicated that her brothers and sisters had drug proble ms and struck Juror 16 because her cousin had been charged with drug crimes. The prosecutor explained, “Anytime someone has family members closely related that have been affected by narcotics and the nature, and the alleged charges in the present case are drug - related, I think it bears a fair inference that the person could potentially be affected or biased one way or another, Your Honor. And for those reasons, those jurors were stricken, Judge.” N.T., 9/13/16, at 104. The prosecutor also noted that he struck Caucasian jurors who had relatives who had been charged with crimes. Id. at 107 - 08. The trial court denied Appellant’s Batson challenge. The trial court did not explain its rationale at that time, but in the opinion it issued after Appellant file d this appeal, the trial court explained that it found Appellant established a prima facie case of

____________________________________________ 3 

### Jury selection was completed before two other African American venirepersons were reached.

### J - S57020 - 17

- 4 -

discrimination, the Commonwealth offered a race neutral explanation, and Appellant failed to carry his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Trial Ct . Op., 5/15/17, at 11 - 16. Appellant was tried by the jury on September 14, 2016. At the trial, Detective Steven Bannar and Officer James Nolan, who participated in the execution of the search warrant on April 5, 2016, testified. Detective Bannar and Offi cer Nolan averred that that they found Appellant in the ground floor bedroom closet and that Appellant said he had a small amount of cocaine. Detective Bannar also testified about the drugs and paraphernalia found in the jacket and in other parts of Sprig gs’ house. Detective Michael Honicker, an expert in drugs and drug investigations, opined that packaging of the drugs found in the jacket led him to conclude that the cocaine was for distribution, not for personal use. Appellant testified that the bedroo m in which he was found was Spriggs’ son’s room, the jacket in the closet was not his, he did not tell the police he had cocaine, and he did not have any cocaine. The jury found Appellant guilty of all four crimes with which he was charged. With regard to the charge of possession with intent to deliver, the jury found Appellant possessed the 7.89 grams of cocaine found in the jacket, but not the 11.35 grams found in the kitchen. On November 10, 2016, the trial court imposed the following concurrent sent ences: 24 to 60 months’ incarceration, followed by five years’ probation for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance; 24 to 60 months’ incarceration for

### J - S57020 - 17

- 5 -

conspiracy; and one year of probation for possession of drug paraphernalia. 4 

### On Novem ber 18, 2016, Appellant filed a post - sentence motion in which he argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed any of the crimes of which he was convicted. On December 13, 2016, the trial court granted Appellant’s post - sentence moti on with regard to the conspiracy charge and denied it with regard to the other charges. On January 9, 2016, Appellant’s trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal and a petition to withdraw. After the trial court granted the petition to withdraw, Appel lant’s new counsel filed another notice of appeal on January 11, 2016 (254 EDA 2017). This Court dismissed the latter appeal as duplicative of the former. Appellant raises the following issues, as stated in his brief: 1) Whether the judgment of sentence s hould be vacated and Appellant, an African American, granted a new trial since the Commonwealth violated Batson v. Kentucky by using peremptory challenges to exclude two potential jurors (numbers ten and sixteen) based upon their race, especially where the se strikes eliminated the only two remaining African American panelists available to serve on the jury, and the purported race neutral reasons for striking them were pretextual and unsupported by the record? 2) Whether the evidence is insufficient to sust ain the convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia since the Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant actually or co nstructively possessed the alleged cocaine and paraphernalia at issue herein? Appellant’s Brief at 5.

____________________________________________ 4 

### The charge of possession of a controlled substance merged with the crime of possession with intent to deliver for purposes of sentencing.

### J - S57020 - 17

- 6 - Sufficiency of the Evidence We initially address Appellant’s second claim, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, because a successful sufficiency challenge would result in discharge, rather than a retrial. See Commonwealth v. Toritto , 67 A.3d 29, 33 (Pa. Super.) ( en banc ), appeal denied , 80 A.3d 777 (Pa. 2013). We apply the following well - established standard of review: A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law. We must determine whether the evidence is sufficient to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We must view evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdi ct winner, and accept as true all evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom upon which, if believed, the fact finder properly could have based its verdict. Commonwealth v. McFadden , 156 A.3d 299, 303 (Pa. Super.) (citation omitted), appeal denied , No. 118 EAL 2017, 2017 WL 3600378 (Pa., Aug. 22, 2017). Appellant challenges only the element of possession, which is common to all three charges of which he was convicted. 5 

### Possession may be actual

____________________________________________ 5 

### Appellant was found to have violated the following provisions of S ection 13(a) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act: The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited: . . . (16) Knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled or counterfeit substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, unless the substance was obtained directly from, or (Footnote Continued Next Page)

### J - S57020 - 17

- 7 -

or constructive. Constructive possession is a legal fict ion, 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 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 ci rcumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence, and we must evaluate the entire trial record and consider all evidence received against the defendant. Commonwealth v. Roberts , 133 A.3d 759, 767 – 68 (Pa. Sup er.) (citations omitted, some quotation marks omitted, and some formatting altered), appeal denied , 145 A.3d 725 (Pa. 2016). (Footnote Continued)

_______________________ 

### pursuant to, a valid prescription order or order of a practitioner, or except as otherwi se authorized by this act. . . . (30) Except as authorized by this act, the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or l icensed by the appropriate State board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance. . . . (32) The use of, or possession with intent to use, drug paraphernalia for the purpose of planting, pr opagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packing, repacking, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this act. . . . 35 P.S. § 780 - 113(a). It is undisputed that cocaine is a controlled substance under the statute.

### J - S57020 - 17

- 8 -

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well - reasoned opinion of the Honorabl e Kevin F. Kelly, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant constructively possessed the cocaine and paraphernalia (baggies) found in the jacket. See Trial Ct. Op. at 20 - 26 (finding that the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to prove Appellant’s constructive possession, based on Detective Bannar’s and Officer Nolan’s testimony that Appellant was hiding in a bedroom closet when they execute d the search warrant; Appellant was the only person in that bedroom; Appellant told the officers he had a small amount of cocaine; and police found cocaine and baggies in a jacket in the closet where Appellant had been hiding). Batson Challenge Appellant c laims the trial court erred in rejecting his Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes to exclude two African American potential jurors. The trial court rejected Appellant’s Batson claim after concluding that, although Appellant esta blished a prima facie case of discrimination, the Commonwealth offered a race - neutral explanation for its strikes and Appellant failed to carry his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Trial Ct. Op. at 11 - 16. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has explained:

### J - S57020 - 17

- 9 -

In Batson , [476 U.S.] at 89, . . . the United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits a prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on the basis of race. In J.E.B. [ v. Alabama , 511 U.S. 127, 129, 146 (1994)], the High Court extended Batson’s holding to encompass challenges on the basis of gender. As we have previously explained, the framework for analyzing a Batson claim involves the following three steps. First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; second, if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race - neutral explanation for striking the juror(s) at issue; and third, the trial court must then make the ultimate determination of whether the defense has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Batson , 476 U.S. at 97 . . . . The secon d prong of the Batson test, involving the prosecution’s obligation to come forward with a race neutral explanation of the challenges once a prima facie case is proven, “does not demand an explanation that is persuasive or even plausible.” Rather, the issu e at that stage “is the facial validity of the prosecutor’s explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reasons offered will be deemed race neutral.” If a race - neutral explanation is tendered, the trial cou rt must then proceed to the third prong of the test, i.e. , the ultimate determination of whether the opponent of the strike has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. It is at this stage that the persuasiveness of the facially neutral ex planation proffered by the Commonwealth is relevant. As we have recently reaffirmed, “a trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact of the sort accorded great deference on appeal and will not be ov erturned unless clearly erroneous.” Such great deference is appropriate and warranted because the trial court, having viewed the demeanor and heard the tone of voice of the attorney exercising the challenge, is uniquely positioned to make

### J - S57020 - 17

- 10 -

credibility dete rminations. Although the demeanor of the attorney exercising the peremptory challenge is often the best evidence as to the question of discriminatory intent, the trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances before making its ruling. Othe r relevant evidence as to the ultimate question of whether the prosecutor exercised purposeful discrimination and acted with discriminatory intent includes the following: the final composition of the jury, the race or gender sensitivity of the case, and an y questionable remarks made by the prosecutor during jury selection. Commonwealth v. Roney , 79 A.3d 595, 618 – 19 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis in original) (most citations omitted). After a careful review of the record, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Honorable Kevin F. Kelly, we conclude that the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. See Trial Ct. Op. at 14 - 16 (finding prosecutor’s race - neutral explanations for peremptory strikes were credible; prosecutor did not make any statements or pose any questions “even suggesting, let alone showing an invidious discriminatory motive”; prosecutor’s demeanor did not suggest an inappropriate intent; and Appellant’s case did not involve a victim of a different race than Appellant). Appellant argues that two white jurors (numbers 24 and 33) also “knew people who had contact with the criminal justice system,” and the prosecutor’s failure to strike those jurors constitutes evidence that his reasons for striking the African American jurors were pretextua l. Appellant’s Brief at 19 - 21. Appellant did not make this argument in the trial court or in his Appellate Rule 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal, and thus the trial court did not have the opportunity to address it. Even if

### J - S57020 - 17

- 11 -

the argume nt had been preserved, we would conclude that knowing someone who had contact with the criminal justice system is distinguishable from having a relative with a drug problem. We are therefore unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion of May 15, 2017, to all future filings that reference this Court’s decision. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 11/17/20171 35 P a.C . S. §780

- I I 3 ( a)(30). 2 18 P n . C. S . § 9 03(35 Pa . C . S . §78'0

- 1 1 3 ( a)(30 ) ). 3 35 P a. C . S. § . 780 -1 l 3.(a)(30) . fo ll o w i ng : Co un t 1 - P o sses s i o n Wi th I nt e nt t o D eliv er a Con tro ll ed Substance; 3 Coun t 2 - Distri ct Attorn ey of D e laware Cou n ty l o d ged agains t hi m a cri min al inform ation averri n g . the T he D efendan t w a s 

### fo rm all y arraigned o n 

### M ay 1 8 , 20 1 6 , at which tim e. the Offi c e of th e D e fe ndan t Philli ps 

### fo r trial co urt p roc e e di n gs a s to 

### all pros e cute d offen s e s . 

### N.T. 4/21/16. and . aft er th e Co mmo n w e alth's pr ese nt atio n of evi d e nc e, the magist e ri al di s trict judg e h eld 

### O n Ap ril 

### 2 1, 20 16 , a pre limin ary h e arin g 

### took p lace befo re 

### the magiste rial district court

. . o ff ens es. s ub s t anc e , 1 

### criminal co n sp ira c y t o commi t p o ss e ssion with i nte n t to de1iver,2 and re l ated " D efe nd ant " or " Phillips " ) with, 

### i nte r al ia, possessio n w i th in tent t o d e li ver a c ontro ll ed C oun ty C ri min al Inve s ti g ati o n Divi sio n , c harg ing Derri c k Ph illi ps ( h ereinafter referred to 

### as A c riminal c o mp laint w as flie d on Ap ril 5 , 20 1 6, 

### b y D e te c tive S t eve n Ban n ar, D e l aware Date: May 15 , 20 1 7 

### Kelly, J, OP l NION. A. S h e ldon Kov a ch, E s quire w Deputy District Atto rn e y for the Commonw e alth P atrick J. Connors , Esquire -Att orney for Derrick Phillip s Sup erior C o urt No . 388 EDA 201 7 -: 

### DERRICK PHI L LIPS NO. 2489 ~ 16 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN TH E COURT OF COMMON 

### PLEAS OF 

### DELA WARE COUNTY, P E NNSYL V ANIA 

### CRIMIN.AL Circulated 10/26/2017 03:52 PM2 8 A Joi n t tri al o fthe abo ve -c ap ti oned m atter; a s 

### w ell as th e c o - d efe ndant 's c o mp anio n pr o se cuti o n , Com m o nw e alth v . Sp riggs, N o . 2 48 8- 16 , w a s sc hedu l e d t o co mm e n ce the we ek b eg inn i n g Sept e mbe r 1 2 , 2 01 6, b e fo re this co urt . Recog ni z in g th at co-Defe nd ant S priggs s ever al days p ri o r h a d just b ee n arres t e d i n an unre l ate d m atter and th e p oss ibility that it m ay h ave be e n in he r b es t interes t s to subse qu e ntl y n eg oti ate with th e Co mm o n wealth ac omb in e d r es olution o f thi s n e w e r pro s ecu tion ari d th e case prese ntl y pe ndi n g befo re thi s co urt (No . .248 8 -16}, th e m atte r o f Co mm o nw ea lth v . Sp riggs, N o. 2488 -1 6 prev io us ly j o ine d with th e ab ove - cap ti on e d case was conti nu ed, . wi tho u t ob j e ctio n , at th e requ es t o f d efe n s e cou n se l , until Octo b er 18 , 2 01 6, w ith the . de fe n se ' s in Ii min e mo ti o n c arried until th at future trial d ate (O ctob er 18 , 2 01 6). 7 A t this h earing, d e f

e n se c o un s el adv ise d the m ajority of th e cl aim s p ast a dvan ced v i a his di scove ry m o tion ha d b eco m e mo o t , w hil e the r e mainin g woul d b e res olv ed durin g the exc lu s ion ary h earin g. N . T. 6/29/1 6, p p . ·8-10 . 4 3 5 Pa . C.S . § 780-11 3(a) (l 6 }. s 3 5 Pa .C.S . § 180-l 1 3 ( a )( 3 2). 6 1 8 Pa. C.S: §903 ( 35 P a.C . S .§78 0

- 11 3 ( a }( 30) } . S e ptember 14 , 2 01 6. De fe ndant' s m o ti o n s e e kin g sep ar ate trial s was m o ot. 8 N. T . 9/12/1 6 , p . 5. See also Order dat e d Hearing d ated Septemb e r 7 , 2 0 16 . On th at dat e (S e p te mb er 1 2, 2 016 ), th e c o urt ruled th at th e court se t s uch a pro c e e di ng fo r Sept e mb er 1 2 , 

### 2016 , m ate rial t o thi s moti o n. 

### See N o tic e of Septemb er 7 , 2 01 6 . 

### See Motio n for Sep arat e T ri al s o f D efe ndant date d Se p te mb e r 7 , 20 · 16. This N . T . 6/29/16, p . 3 2. De fe nd an t Phillips lod g ed a counseled Moti o n fo r Separ ate Trials o f D e fendant o n the defense lawy e r c am e to an a greement mate rial to th e D e fendant's ex c lus i o n ary ch allenge ." took place. N.T. 6/ 1 9/16. At the c onclu si on o f thi s he aring , the Common we alth's atto rne y and 201 6 . 

### See He aring Notice dated Jun e 14 , 2 01 6 . On Jun e 

### 29, 201 6 , this pas t s c hedul e d li s tin g Thi s c o urt s cheduled a hearin g r e levant t o the D e fendant's pretrial m o tion for Jun e 27 , E vidence. 

### Se e . Omnibus Pr etrial Moti o n dat ed Jun e 14 , 2 016 . R e li e f. TWs o mn ibu s filing in c luded a Motion for Di s covery 

## and a Motion for S uppre s sion of On Jun e 14, 2 016 , Defend ant Phi11ip s l o dged a coun s eled, Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Possession of a C o ntr oll e d Substance ; " Cou n t 3 - Posse s sion of Drug P araph ernaliar' and C o u n t 4 - Criminal Conspiracy to commit Po s se ssi on With Intent to Deliver a C ontrolled Substance . 63 1 4 F o r se n te n c i n g p urpose s an d w ith c oun se l ' s agre eme n t, C o un t 2 - Possess i o n o f a Co n tro ll e d S ub s t ance , 35 P a . C . S. § 7 8 0-l 1 3(a)( 1 6) , wa s mer ged into C o un t I - Po s se s si on W ith In tent to D e li v e r a C o n tro ll ed Sub s tance, 3 5 Pa.C . S . §780

- I I 3 (a ) q O ) . N . T . 11 / 1 0/16 , p p . 3-4 . 15 35 P a. C . S . § 7 8.0 -l 1 3 ( a) ( 30) . 9 3 5 P a. C.S . § 78 0 -1 I 3(a ) (30 ) . to 3 5 Pa . C . S . §780

- l 13 ( a)( 1 6} . 1 1 35 Pa . C . S. § 7 80 -1 13 ( a ) (32 ). 12 1 8 Pa.C . S. §9 0 3(35 Pa . C . S. §78 0-l 1 3(a)(30) ) . I J I d . T h e cou rt furth er me m o ri ali ze d i t s ru lin g de n yi n g . the D efe nd an t's s e ver an ce m o tio n as m oo t p er 011 order dated Sep te mbe r 1 4 ~ 

## to 16. See a ls o O r der d ate d S ep te mber 1 4, 2 01 6 , Apprec i atin g that t h e abov e -n amed Defe nd an t s in c e t h e i n s t ant matter ' s comm e n cement an d th rou g h t h at ti m e had . be en inc arc er ated, a s we ll as re l ated l y th atde f e n se co un s e l w a s rea dy to s o p r ocee d , th e cou rt th e n calle d th e ab o ve captioned c a s e fo r tri al , desp i te an y - su.c h p as t Co mm o nw ealth j oi nder n o tificati o n. 11/10/ 1 6 . T h i s co urt th e n sen tenced D e fend ant Philli ps t o th e fo ll o win g : Co unt 1 (Poss e s s i o n With In te nt t o De live r a C on tr oll e d Su b s t an ce(; - A te rm of twe nty- fo u r (24) thr o ug h s i xty (6 0) A s en ten ci n g h earin g t ook p l ace be fo re thi s c ourt o n N o vemb e r 10, 20 16 . 1 4 N . T. c o urt sc he dul e d se nt e n ci n g for N o v e mb e r 10 , 2 01 6. N. T. 9/ 1 4/1 6 , p. 2 9 9. to un de rgo a s ub s t anc e abu s e evaluation. N.T. 9/ 14/16 , p. 2 9 9 . See a lso P a . R Cri m . P. 

### 7 02. T h e Thi s co u rt as se nte ncing aid s or d e red a p re se nt e nc e in v estig ati o n and dire cte d Defendant Ph ili ps cou rt h e ar d ar g ument rel e v an t to thi s motion and d e ni ed th e s ame. N .T. 9 /14/16 , p p . 296-98 . d e fe ns e c o un se l o r ally p r o ffer ed a M oti o n fo r Ju d g me n t o f A cqui ttal m ate ri al to C o un t 4 - C riminal Co n s pi racy to c o mmit Po ss es si on Wi th 

### I n tentto Delive r a Co n tro ll e d Su b stan c e. l'' The N . T . 

### 9 /14/16 , pp. 

### 2 91

- 95 . See a ls o Jury V erdi c t. Immedi ately subs equ e n t t o the jury's ver di c t, the foll o w ing : C ount 1 - Pos s ess ion Wi th Inte nt t o D e liv er a Con tr o lle d Sub s tanc e ." Co unt 2 - Po ss es si on of a C o ntr o lled Subst an c e; 1 

# ° C ount 3 • P o s s e s si o n o f D rug Paraph e rn al i a; 11 and Co unt 4 - C rimin al Co n sp ir acy t o commit P o ssess i o n With Inten t t o Deli v e r a C o ntrolled S ub s tapc e . 1 2 

### (Septemb er 14 , 2016) . N . T . 9 /1 3 /16. N.T. 9/14/1 6. T he ju ry fo u nd th e D efend ant 

### gu il ty 

### as t o A 

### j ury tri aJ c ommenced o n Septe mb er 13 , 2 016 , and c on c lu d ed th e followin g dayI(> 18 Pa . C . S. §903(35 Pa . C.S . §780-1 I 3(a)(30)). 17 35 {>a.C.S. §780-113(a)(30). . 18 35 Pa,C.S. §780-l 13(a)(32) . 19 35 P~.c . s . §7&0-113(a)(30) . 20 18 Pa . C.S . §!>03(35

Pa . C . S . §780~113(a)(30)). 21 61 Pa.C.S. §§4501 . et seq. 22 35 Pa.C.S. §780

- 113(n)(30) . See also Criminal Information Count I. 23 

### 35 Pa.C . S . §780- J.1.3( a)(32). 

### See . also Criminal Information Count · 3. 4 the Defendant's judgment of acquittal application regarding Count 4 - Criminal Conspiracy to Controlled Substance, 22 as well as Count 3 - Possession of Drug Paraphemalia,23 while granting Defendant's motion relevant to his convictions of Count 1 - Possession With Intent to Deliver a defense's post- s entence motion. See Order dated December 13, 2016 . The court denied the On December 13, 2016, this court entered an order denying and granting in part the sentence motion hearing as then set commenced and concluded on December 8, 

### 2016. relevant to this motion was scheduled. 

### See Hearing Notice dated November 22, 2016 . The postDefendant's Post-Sentence Motion dated November 1'8, 2016. On December 8, ~016, a listing The Defendant on November 18, 2016, lodged a counseled, Post-Sentence Motion. 

### Se e Certificate ofImposition of Judgment of Sentence . reduction incentive conslderation." absent objection. N.T. 

### 11/10/16, pp . 

### 25-27. See also conspiracy to commit possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance). 20 The Defendant was afforded the applicable time served credit and deemed ineligible for risk recidivism through sixty 

### (60) months imprisonment at a state penal institution to run concurrently to Count 1 (possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance); 17 and Count 3 (Possession of Drug Paraphernalia) 18 - A one (1) year period of state probationary oversight to run concurrent to bo th Count l (possession with intent to deliv e r a controlled substancej'' and Count 4 (criminal probationary oversight to run consecutive to his parole; Count 4 (Criminal Conspiracy to commit Possession With Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance) 16 - A term of twenty-four (24) months incarceration at a state correctional facility followed b y a period of five (5) years state26 With the filing of thi s sec ond appeal noti ce, the Sup erior Co urt d is misse d sua spo n ie th e first app e al under S uperi o r Co u rt No . 25 4 E D A 2 017 , a s dupli cative o f the m att e r in Superi o r Co urt No. 3 88 E D A 2 017 . See S u pe ri or Court No . 2 54 EDA 2017, Order 

### d ated Febru ary 14 , 2017. 

## s Recognizing the Defendant's now vacated s e ntence per Count 4 - C ri mi nal Co n spi ra cy to commit P ossession w ith Intent to Deliv e r a Controlled S ub st anc e, 1 8 P a. C .S. § 903(35 Pa .C.S. § 7 80

- l 13(a)( 3 0)) , w as an i d enti cal i nc arceration term an d impo s ed wh o lly c o n curre nt to that o f Count 1 (Po ssessi o n w ith Iute ntto D e liv er a Controlled S ub s t an c e, 35 P a .C.S. § 7 8 0- I I 3(a)(3 0 )) , thi s court's i nt e nd e d s ent e ncin g sc heme yet st aye d wholl y in tact an d re se ntencing wa s not ne e ded . Commonwealth v . Se rran o, 61 A .3 d · 2 79 , 28 7-88 (P a.Su p er, 20 13 XRe m and ed for res e ntencing as v a cated judgm e nt may have up s et s enten c in g s ch e me .); Co m mo n wea lth v. Carter, 122 A . 3 d 3 8 8 , 393 (2015)(V a cated and rem an d ed w hen e ntire se nt e n c in g schem e wa s affected .); an d Com m o n wea lth v. Fe r guson, 107 A.3d 2 0 6 , 2 1 3

- 1 4, 21 6 ( 2 01 5X V acatin g e nti r e s en tenc e p u rsu ant t o All eyne an d r e m an di n g fo r r ese nten c i ng on all cou n ts , wher e th e se n te n c e e ncompass ed b oth c o un ts s ub je c t t o m and atory min i mum s ente n ci n g provi s i o n s and count s not s ub

j e c t to mandat ory minimum sentencin g prov i sion s .) Se e a lso C e rtific ate of Impo s i tio n o f J u dg m e nt of Sent e n c e . 2 i With th e setting asid e of th e De fe nd ant 's c riminal co ns pi r acy to commi t po sse s si on with int en t t o d e liv e r a controlled s ub s tance c o n vi ctio n ( C ount 4) and it s re sultant s ente nc e, the D efe nd ant' s a gg r e g ate se n tenc e at b ar r e m ained tw o (2 ) through five ( 5 ) ye ars ln c ar o er auon to b e s erved 

## ut n stm e corrcc tlonal i nati tu ti o n f ollo w ed b y fiv e (5 ) y ear s con se cutiv e, s tat e prob ationary over s ight. See Certificat e of Impo sl tlo n of Ju d gm e n t o f S ent e nc e. 

# I

! 2 4 18 Pa . C .$. § 903(3 5 P a. C . S. § 780-113( a )(30)). See als o Crimin al Informati o n C ount 4. 

### 2017. 2 6 Connors . Se e Notice of Appeal dated J anu ary I J, 2017. See a ls o Sup e rior C o u rt No . 38 8 EDA On January 11, 2017, the Defendant lodge d a second 

### N otice o f App eal 

### v i a Attorn e y 9, 2017. 

### D e fendant Phillip s 

### was eligible for 

### th at o ffice' s 

### stewardship. See Corre s pond e nc e dated January Connors, E s quire of the Delaware ' County Public Defend er ' s · Offic e re qu e sti ng he determi n e if TI1is court on that s ame date (Janu ary 9, 2017) forwarde d c orre s p o ndenc e to Patric k J, 254 

### EDA 2017. 2017 , 

### and Motion to 

### Withdraw as Counseldated January 

### 9, 201 7. 

### See also Superi or Court No. Appeal, as well as . a Motion to 

### Withdraw as Coun s el. 

## Se e N oti ce of App eal date d 

### J anuary 9 , The Defendant's 

### trial attorney contemporaneously lodg e d on J anuary 9, 2 0 17 , a No tice o f' 

### that offen s e . 24 

### Se e Order dated December 

### 13, 2016. 2 5 commit Poss ess i o n With Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substan c e and vacated hi s s e nte n c e a s t o6



### v. Coale, detail e d a defe n dant's i nitial b urd en in a d vanci n g s u c h an attack as fo ll ows: the co n trollin g anal ysis o f 

## a B atson c l aim. T h e Pennsy l vania Supre m e Court in Commonweal th r ace .. .. " 

### I

d. 47 6 U. S . at 89, 1 0 6 . S.Ct. at 1 7 1 9: S u bsequ en t case l aw h as estab lished and refined Pro tec tio n C lau se fo rbid s [ a ] p r osecu tor t o c l aim pot e n tial juro r s so l e l y on acc o u n t of their I n 

### B a t son, th e Supre m e Court of the Un ited States recogn i ze d th at· " . . . the Equ al ea ch sup ported b y r ac e- n eutral reaso n s. R es ult an tl y, thi s error assignmen t 

### i s with ou t m erit. d is trict att o rney's e xercise o f s u c h p e r e mp t ory chall e n ges was not r ac i all y m o ti vated, b u t were an d it s P en n s yl van i a ap p e ll ate court pro ge n y . As th e r ecord at b ar d emo n s tr ate s, th e ass i stant U n ite d States Supre me Co u rt d ecis i o n , Batson v. Ken t ucky, 4 16 U .S. 79, 1 06 S.Ct. 1 712 ( 1 986), A m eri can ju r o rs we re n ot bas e d o n r ac i all y n e u tral ju sti fi cati o n s an d thus in vio l ation of the C o mmo nw ealth 's u se o f tw o (2 ) p ere mp to ry c h all e n ges to exc lud e two (2) po ten ti al, Afric an 

### B y th is fir s t ap pe ll ate co mpl ai n t, th e D efe nd an t Ph i llips advanc e s that th e 

### I. Tlte iudgme11t of

seuteuce should b e . va c ated a11d Mr; Pl,illips; a11.Africa1t 

### A m e ri c an, should be 

### granted a n e w trial s in ce 

### the Commo11weaftJ, 

### v iola te d Bat s o 1 1 v . K e 1itt1 c kv by usi11g 

### peremptory cl1alle11g e s to exclude two . pote11tial furors (numb e rs 

### ten and s ix tee 11) bas ed upon tlieir 

### race, especially wh e re tltese strikes e limi,,ai e d th e 011ly 

### t w o . r~ mainlngAfri c an.Am e ri c au pa11elists availabl e to serv e on the 

## i11rv 1 . 

### a1td tlte purporte d i'a ce -ne11trai reaso11s for s trik liig



### tltem were 

### pre textual a11d tmsupp o ri e dhy 

### 'ti, e rec ord. compl ai nt s st at e m e nt s. See S t at e ment o f M atters C ompl ai n e d. D e fend ant Phi1lip s v i a A tt o rn e y C onno r s o n Feb ru ary 2 1 , 2017 , file d th e b e lo w ap pe ll ate 

### Se e Ord e r date d F ebru ary 2, 2 017 . p ermitte d th e tri al l awy e r (John 

### I

- 1 . P av l off, E s quir e ) t o w ithdraw as th e D e fend ant's co un se l , 

### a ls o P a .RA . P . 

### 1 92 5 ( b). This court per a sep ar ate o i: d er o f thi s sam e d ate ( F eb ruary 2, 20 1 7) a conci s e st ateme n t o f matter s c o mplaine d o f on app eal. See Or de r d at ed F eb ru ary .2, 201 7 . See B y an o rd er of F ebru ary 2 , 2 0 17, th is c ourt i ns tru c te d Defendant Phi llips' l awyer t o lo dg eis the facial validity of the

S . Ct 1769, 1771 (1.995). Rather, the issue at that stage" ' Cook supra 597 Pa. at 586 1 952 A.2d at 602 quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U . S. 765 . , 767-68, 115 " ' ... does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.' " Commonwealth v. .. Commonwealth v . Cook supra 597 

### Pa. at 586, 952 A.2d at 

### 602-03. The race-neutral explanation 652, 680, 108 A.3d 692, 708 (2014) citing Commonwealth v , Cook supra 597 Pa. at 586, 952 A.2d at 602; and 

### Commonwealth v . Wtlliams s upra 602 Pa. at 393, · 980 A.2d at 530 

### citing Kentucky supra 476 

### U.S. 

## at 93-97, 

### 106 S.Ct. at 1712-23; Commonwealth v . Watkins, 630 

### Pa. Commonwealth v. Harris supra 572 Pa. at 506-07; 817 A.2d at l042-43 citing 

### Batson v, neutral explanation. Commonwealth v. Cook supra 591 

## Pa. at 586, 952 A.2d at 602 quoting the burden shifts to the . striking party to provide for the challenged , prospective juror a racesupra 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. Commonwealth v. Uderra, 580 Pa. 492, 509, 862 A.2d 74, 84 (2004) citing Batson v . Kentucky from the manner of the prosecution's questions and statements during 

### votr dire examination." "[T]he necessary inference may derive from 

### a pattern of strikes 

### against minority jurors or

Under Batson, once the objecting party makes out a prlma facie case of discrimination, Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 

### Pa. 572, 

### 586, 952 A.2d 5.94, 602 (2008) quoting Commonw e alth v. Harris, 572 Pa. 489, 506-07, 817 A.2d 1033, 1042~43 (2002) citing Batson v . Kentucky supra 476 

### U.S. at 93-97, 106 S . Ct. at l712-23 . See also Commonwealth v . Williams, 602 Pa. 360, 

### 393, 980 A.2d 510, 530 (2Q09) .

To establish a prima facie c a se of purposeful d i scrimination ... the defendant [must] show that he [i]s a member of a cognizable racial group, that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge or challenges to remove from the 

### venire members of the defendant's race; and

- that other relevant circumstances 

### combine [] to 

### raise an inference that the prosecutor removed the jurorts) for racial reasons. Batson, 476 

### U.S.. at 

### 96, 106 

### S.Ct. 1712 .... . [F]irst, the defendant must make a prlma facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference - that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective-jurors 

### on account of race; . · , .8

836 

### F.2 d 1 084 , 10 86 

### ( 8th C ir . 19 8 7 ); 

### Un ited S t a tes v . 

### D a vid, 8 0 3 

### F . 2d 15 6 7 , 1571 ( 11th 952 A. 2 d at 6 07 

### c iti ng H

arrison v . R

ya n, 909 

### F. 2 d 8 4 , 8 8 ( 3d C ir .1 99 0 ) ; 

### U n ited S t a tes v. Ba tll e , b lac k j uro rs is no t n ecess aril y fat al to th e p rose c utor ' s bur de n . of p r odu ction ." 

### Id. 5 97 Pa. at 59 4 , w as s truc k 

### fo r a rac i al r easo n , ... a pro s e cut or 's failure to ex plain e ve ry p ere mpt o ry ch all e n ge o f (2 0 06). " [W]hil e a d efe nd an t can pr ove a 

### B a t so n vio lation b y sh owi n g that ev en o n e bla ck ju ro r· at 6 07 (E mp h as i s i n ori gi n al.) 

### qu ot in g Rice. v. Co lli ns, 5 4 6 U. S. 3-33 , 338, 12 6 

# s.c . 969 , 974 fr om , th e o p po n en t of the s tri ke .' " 

### Commonwe alth v. Coo k supra 597 Pa at 593-9 4 , 952 A.2d " ' .. . th e ultim ate burd e n of persu as ion regarding ra ci al motivati on r es t s with, and neve r s hi fts r a c e- n eu tr al e xpl an ati o n for a qu es ti o ne d per empt ory s trike, it i s i mp ortan t t o b e mind fu l th at at 5 92-593, 9 52 

### A.2 d at 6 0 ~. 

### Will iam s supra 60 2 P a . at 3 96, 9 80 

### A .2 d at 53 1 -32 

### c iti ng Co m m onwe al t h v . Coo k s upra 597 P a . p o s sib le inab ili ty to co mp re h e nd the s eri ou s n ess o f the pen al ty s ou g hr.)." 

### Co m m onwea lth v . p e nalty ; th e inabili ty t o r es p o nd appropri ately t o que s ti ons as ked; and y o uth, i nd icating a und e rst and th e law; prio r e x po su re to th e c rimin al j us tice s ys tem ; re lu ct an ce t o imp ose th e d eath 

# I I I n dete rmin i n g wheth er the p ros e cu ti on h as satis fi ed its burden o f p ro du ci n g a " .. . c h ar a ct e ri s tics th at re late to a pro s p e ctive juro r' s abili ty to serv e 

### ( i .e . , 

### ' the i n abili ty t o 

### Ke ntuc ky s upr

a 476 U . S . at 98 , 10 6 S . Ct. at 1724. E xp lanatio ns c on s id e re d r ac e-neutr al in c lud e b e 

### tri e d .' ., Com mo nwea lth v . Co o k s u pr a 5 97 P a. at 593 , 9 52 

### A. 2 d at 6 0 6 

### q u o tin g Bats o n v . rationale must be " ' ... cl ear and r e a s on abl y spe c ifi c , as we ll as r e l ate d t o th e p arti c u lar c ase t o 

### Ne w York, 500 U.S. 3 5 2, 3 6 0, 111 S .C t. 1859, 186 6 (1 9 9 1') . Th e Commonw ealth 's race- n eutr al 6 02 

### quotin g Purke tt v, 

### El e m s up ra 5 14 U . S . at 767-768 , 1 15 S .Ct. at 1771 

### qu o t i n g H e rn a n dez v. ex pl anation, the r eas on offere d will b e de e m ed ra c e n e utr al. ' " I d . 5 97 P a . at 586, 952 A .2 d at pro sec utor' s ex pl anati on . U n le s s a d is criminato ry i nt e nt is inher e nt in the pros e c ut o r 's9

s up ra 597 P a. at 5 86, 9 52 A. 2d at 6 02. " It i s at thi s stage th at th e p e r s u as iv e n ess o f th e fac iall y Co mmonw e alth v . Wa t

ki n s sup r a 63 0 P a . at 6 80 , 108 A . 3 d at 70 8 c itin g Co mm o nw ea lth v. Cook A. 2 d at 6 0 2

- 0 3 q uo ti ng Comm on w e alth v . Ha rri s su pra 5 72 P a . at 507 , 8 17 A. 2d at 1042-4 3; and s u pra 6 02 P a . at 3 9 3 , 9 8 0 A.2d

- at 53 0 c it ing Co mmo nwea lth v , Coo k s u p ra 597 P a. at 58 6 , 95 . 2 43 c i t in g Pu rke tt v . El e m s u p r a 5 14 U. S . at 7 68, 11 5 $ .Ct . at 1 77 1 ; Commo nw ea lth v , Will ia m s 5 86

- 87 , 9 5 2 at 6 0 2 -0 3 qu ot ing Co mm on w e al th v . H arri s 

### su pr a 572 P a. at 5 0 7, 8 1 7 A. 2 d at 104 2 - his burden of p r ov i n g purpo sefu l di scri min ation. ' " Co mm on w eal t h v. Co o k s u

p r a 59 7 Pa. at prong o f th e te s t , i .e . , the ultim at e de t ermi nati o n of wh e th erth e op ponent o f' th e s tri ke h as c ard e d 

### " ' If a ra ce-ne utr al ex pl an ati o n i s te nde re d, th e tri al co u rt mu s t th e n proc eed to th e thi r d Commonw e alth v . H

a rri s supr

a 572 

### P a . at 5 07, 81 7 A.2d at 1043 qu o tin g H e r nan d e z v . N e w York s upr a 5 0 0 

### \J . S. at 3 65 , 111 S.Ct. at 18 6 9. Harris previously op i ne d th at below:



### In the typi cal p e rempt o ry ch all e ng e inquiry, the d e ci s i ve · question 

### will be whether coun se l' s race-neutr al e xplan ation for a p e re mptory c hallen g e s hould be believed. There will seldom b e

. much evidence beari ng on th at issu e , and the best e videnc e ofte n 

### will b e th e d e m eanor o f the attorn ey who exerci s e s th e c h allen ge. A s with the s t ate o f mi n d o f a j uror , evalu atio n o f the pr osec u t o r' s s t ate of mind b ase d on d e m ean o r and cr e dibility li es 'pe culi arl y within 

### a trial jud g e ' s pr o v i nc e .' Salient to current consider ations, th e Penn s ylvania Supre me Court in Common we a l th v. 607. whether peremptory c h allenge s were made fo r r a ci al re a s on s ." 

## Id 597 P a. at 594, 95 2 A .2 d at a ddition 

### to the prosecutor's e x plan ation , 

### may be probati ve in th e . ultim ate determin ation 

### o f United States v . For

be s, 8 J 

### 6 F.2d 100 6, . 1011 

### Fn . 7 

### (5th Cir.1987 ). "Circum s t antial eviden c e) i n 

### S.Ct. 653, 169 L.Ed.2d 

### 5 17 ( 2 007); Bu i v. Hal ey, 321 F . 3d 1304, 1317 ( 11th Cir . 2 003) ; and Cir.1986); Yee v. Dunc a n, 463 F.3 · d 893, 900 (9th Cir.20'06) , ce rt. den ie d , 552 U . S . 1043 , 12 81 0

court ' s dete rmination may be ov e rturn e d on appe al only i f it is 'clearly e rroneous . ' ") citin g credibility de t ermination with 

### regard to counse l' s proffered reasons for a strike. . . . The trial trial court . is in the best positi o n to observe the proceedings and s o is 

### call e d upon to make a 

### Cock rell su

p ra 5 3 7 U.S . at 340 , 123 S . Ct . at 1 04 1 ; 

### Comm o nwealth v. Smith, 866 A.2d 1 1 38, 

### quoti n g . Commonweal th v. 

### Cook s u pra 597 Pa. at 587 , 9 52 A.2d at 603 

### quoting Mille r - El v. 286, 9 51 A.2d 294 (2008); 

### Commonw e alth v. William s s upra 6.02 P a . at 3 95, 980 A.2d at 531

1 140 (Pa . Super . 2005)( " With regard to appellate review of 

### Batson claims, we recognize that the j ud g e ... in assess i ng the credibility of the neutral re a sons for peremptory strikes proffe red by the 

### Sneed , 58 7 Pa . 3 1 8, 899 A.2d 106 7 , 1076 

### (2006)("B a t son contempl ated a centr al role for the tri al 

### Hernandez v . New York supra 500 U . S . at 364, 111 S . Ct. , at 1866 . 

### Se e als o Commonw e alth v .

l awyer w h o exerc ised them . "), 

### abro g ate d on oth e r grounds by 

### Common we alth v . Jones, 591 P a . 

### quoting Mi ll e r -El v. Cockre ll, 537 U . S. 322 , 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 1041 (2003) 

### quotin g credibi l ity dete rmi n ations. ' " 

### Commonw e alth v , 

### Cook s u pra 591 Pa . at 587, 952 A.2d . at 603 anal yzes o n ly th e transcripts 

### from voi r dire , i s n ot a s 

### we ll po s i tioned as the trial court i s to 

### make cl e arl y erroneou s .' . . . ' Such g reat deference 

### i s n e cessary b ec ause a reviewing court , which a fi n di n g of fact of the s ort accorded gre at de fe rence on app e al' and 

### will not b e overturned unless " '[T]h e 

### trial cou rt ' s decision on the ultimate que s tion of di s cri minato ry inte n t represents A . 2 d at 53 1 -532 . The total ity o f 

### the circ u mstanc e s i s reviewed in deciding whether a d efendant sufficiently e s tabli s hed purposeful dis c rimi n ation. 

### Commonw e alth v . W i lliam s supra 

### 602 Pa . at 

### 396, 980 

### 95 2 A . 2d 

### at 

### 602-03 quotin g Commonw e alth v . Harris supra 572 

### Pa. at 489, 817 A.2 d . at 1042

- 43. 

### supra 602 Pa . at 393, 980 A. 2 d . at 530 

### ci tin g Commonwealth v. Cook supra 597 Pa . . at 586-87, neutral explan ation proffer e d by the Commonwealth i s relevant." 

### Commonw e alth v . Willi a m sCo mmon wealth 's atto rn e y pro ff er e d th at " . . . her fir s t c o u s in h ad bee n c h ar g ed w i th and 

# I



# I

i i ! i I J to be on our ju ry pan e l. " N .T . 

### 9/ 1 3 / 1 6, p . 

### 10 4. Regar ding pote nti al juror No . 

### 16, th e The pro s ecu tor fu rth er ad v ance d "[q ]ui te frankl y, Ju dge , I d on't kn ow what o r n ow [ sic ]th at fa c t i mp a c t s th e po te nti al j ur o r 's d ec i si on - m akin g proc e ss in th i s ca se . T h erefore I di d no t wan t h e r si blin gs s uff

e re d fro m dru g a dd ictio n s 

### and th atthey W e re " o n 

### th e s treet s. " . N . T . 

### 9 / 13 / 1 6, p, 

### 104 . A. 2 d at 10 4 2-43 

### c iti n g Batson v . Kentucky s upra 47 6 U . S. at 

### 93-97, 10 6 S.C t. at 

### 17 1 2

- 23 ; an d 

### Co mm o n we alt

h v. Wi lli ams s u

p r a 6 0 2 P a . at 393 , 

### 98 0 A .2 d at 

### 5 3 0. 5 9 7 Pa. at 586, 952 A . 2d at 

### 6 0 2 qu o ti n g Co mm onwe alth 

### v . H a rris sup r a 572 

### Pa . at 

### 5 06 -0 7, 8"1 7 ne utral exp l an ati o n , if an y. N.T. 

### 9/ 1 3/ 1 6 , p p. 

### 10 3w 04. See also Commonwealth v . Cook s upra Co mm o nw ealth, th e s triking party , to provi d e for th e ex e rci s in g o f the s e c h al l e n ge s a r a c e ra c e, 

### Com mo nwe a lth v. Co o k s u p ra 5 9 7 P a . at 585, 95 2 A.2d at 

### 602, th e cou rt tu rned t o th e

T h e assis t an t di s tri c t attorn ey as to p an e li s t N o. 

## w · offered that s h e h a d relat e d h e r ri s e to an i nf

er e n c e th at th e pro s e c ut o r s tru ck on e (1) or more p ros p ective ju r or s o n acco un t of At this point e.

primafa c i e sh ow in g hav i n g b ee n e s t ab li s h ed b y Defe n d an t Ph il li ps givi n g 

### N.T . 9 / 13 / 1 6, p. 

### 1.03.

Yo u r , Hon o r , the Bat so n c h alleng e to m ake [ sic ] . I th ink th e re cor d w ill be c lear th at o u t o f th e en tire p anel th er e we re o n ly fi v e 

### I will refe r t o as 

### d ark

- s kinned j u rors , 

### African Am erican p e rhap s, but c ertainly w ith dark s kin . One of th e wo men may hav e bee n Hi spanic . T wo 

### o f th e m w ere 

### n ot eve n 

### re a ch e d , #4 8 an d 4 9 . 2 8 wa s e xc us e d for a, har d s hip . Th e o nl y tw o re m ai nin g African

. Am e rican 

### juro r s w ere s tricke n 

### b y the C ommon wealth . 

### That l eav e s none. I make a c h all e ng e t o th at de c i si o n. 

### at s ide bar brou g ht 

### to th e atte ntion o f th e c ou rt the 

### fo llo w in g: Imm e di at e ly follow i n g the 

### s e ating of the jury , but pri o r to it be in g swo rn , d e f ense counse l &57 A. 2d 6 77 (2004). Co mmonw ea lth v. D oye n, 

### 8 48 A . 2 d 1 0 07 , 101 3 (P a . S u pe r , 

### 2 004 ), app e a l d e nied, 57 9 Pa . 

### 7 0 0 ,

### l2

citing Commonwealth v. 

### Harris supra 572 Pa. at 507, 817 A.2d at 1042-43; and Commonwealth Pa . at 393, 980 A.2d at 530 

### citing Commonwealth v. Cook 597 Pa. at 586, 952 A . 2d at 602

- 03 Purkett v. Elem supra 514 U . S. 

### at.768, 115 S . Ct 

### at 1771; Commonwealth v. Williams supra 602 proving purposeful discrimination.' " Commonwealth v, Cook supra 

### 597 Pa. at 586-86, 952 at 602-03 quoting 

### Commonwealth v . Harris 

### supra 

## 572 Pa. at 507, 

### 817 A . 2d at 1042-43 c iting " ' .. . the ultimate determination of whether the opponent of the strike has · carried his burden of Nos. 10 and 16, the trial eourt 

### then proceeded to the third 

### prong of the 

### Barson challenge analysis 

### N.T. 9/13/16, pp . 107

- 08 . A race-neutral explanation clearly being tendered by the prosecution as to both panelist Judge, I struck #14 because he indicated - a Caucasian Individual because him and his brother have been charged with DUis. . . . I struck #21 because her 

### husband had Aggravated Assault charges. I 

### struck #26 because her 

### friend was charged with a crime. . . . Toe 

### ethnicity of 26 was also Caucasian. other strikes 

### as follows: In response to 

### this generalized argument, the 

### Commonwealth's attorney presented his Commonwealth's justifications to be persuasive. N.T. 9/13/16, p . 

### 107. two (2) 

### potential jurors were in 

### fact not race-neutral and that he did not 

### find the reasons, those jurors were stricken, Judge." N.T. 9/13/16, p. 104 . Defense counsel summarily contended that the prosecution's reasons for excluding the person could potentially be affected or biased one way or another, Your Honor. And for those alleged charges in the present case are drug-related, I think it bears a fair inference that the family 

### members closely related that have been affected by narcotics 

### and the nature, and the 9/13/16, p. 104. The prosecutor concluded his explanation 

### by stating, "[ajnytime someone 

### has convicted of drug charges and again, Judge, I think that's - that can't be minimized." N . T.

### v . Watkins supra 630 

### Pa. at 680 , 108 A.3d 

### at 7 0 8 · 

### citin g Co mmon wea lth v, 

### Cook su pr a 5 9 7 

### P a. at 586, 952 A.2d at 602. The court h av ing co ncl u de d th at the C o mmon w e alth b e d ad v an c e d s ufficient ra ce -n e utral re a s on s 

### a s it 

### relate d t o pan eli st s 

### l O an d 1 6 

### a s w ell a s 

### th at tho s e e xplan ations 

### appeared reason abl e an d c redibl e i n light o f 

### th e s ali e nt rec o rd and D e fendant 

### Phillip s thu s h av in g fail e d t o carry 

### hi s . burden o f pr o ving 

### purp o s e fu 1 dis c rimin ation , his 

## "Bat s on" c l aim 

### w as refu s ed . N. T . 9 /13 / 16, p , 

### 108 . In 

### ligh t o-f th e totality 

### o f the 

### materi al circumstanc es , the cou rt ' s d ec isi o n o n the ultim at e que s tion of di s criminat o ry intent w as n o t " clearly e rro n eo u s." Com m o n w e a lth v . 

### Co o k su p r a 

### 597 Pa . 

### at 587, 9 52 A.2d at 6 03 

### q uo ting Mill e r -El v, Co ckrell s up r a 5 37 U . S. at 340 , 12 3 S. C t. at 1041 quoting 

### Hernandez v . N e w Y o r k supra 500 

### U . S. at 3 6 4, 111 S . Ct. at 

### 18 66 ~ Com m o n wea lth v . Smith s up ra 

### 866 A. 2 d at 

### 1140 c iting 

### Comm o n we alth v . D oyen 

### su p r a 848 A.2d at 

### 1013. Th e pro se cut or ' s spe c i fic exp l anati o n s w e re g i ven mom e n ts after th e c h all e n ge d pe re mp to ry s trikes w e re exe rci se d , and th e c ourt, w h o dire c tly o b serv ed th e de m e an or of the ass i stan t dis tri ct att orn ey throu g h o ut th e entire j u ry se l ec tion p ro c ess , m a d e an ex press d e t ermin ati o n th at th e j u s ti fi cati ons for th e p e re mp tory s tri kes w e re b o th cr edi bl e an d r ace -n e u tral , Ea ch of the e xpl an ati o n s offere d ab o u t the se p aneli s ts (N o s. 10 and 

### 1 6 ) r eferred t o arti c ul at ed c on s id eratio ns th at re l ated d ire ctl y to the se pros pec tiv e j u rors' ability t o fairl y and i mp artiall y serve i n a , drug trial, b o th i ndividual s h av e family m e mbe rs s uf feri ng fr om . illi c it s ub s t anc e a ddi ction s, a s we ll as one . ( 1 ) re l ati v e hav in g b ee n char ged and c o n vic ted of c o ntro lled s ub s tanc e offe n ses . 

### See Co mm o nw ea lth v. Co o k s u p r a 5 9 7 Pa . at 5 92 , 9 52 A. 2 d at 606 and Co mm o n we a lth 

### v . Sm i th su pr a 86 6 A .2 d at 11 4 0 . Furth e r , defe n se c o un s el fail ed to id e n tify an y s t at eme nt s and/or o th e r ac t s o r o miss i o n s b y th e pr osec uto r i n di cating a ra cial .bi as. 

### Comm o n wea lth v, 

### C o ok sup r a 5 97 P a . at 5 9 4- 5 95 , 9 5 2 A .2 d at 6 07 . 

### See a lso 

### N.T . 9 /1 3/ 1 6 , p. I 07.14

wa s able to provid e vari ou s, s p e cific and rac e neutral e x p l an ation s. Th e C ommonwealth' s (N o s. 10 and 1 6 ) . N . T . 9/1 3 /16, p . 104. For striking the panelists, th e a s si s t ant district attorney th e pro s ecutor pro ffered to rebut D e fendantPhil l ips' prima fa c ie c a s e related to th e s e p an elists l 0 3 . This court th e n li st ened att e ntively to tbe e xp l anatio ns by Commonwe alth 's attorn e y th at The court in the matter at b ar made a preliminary fi n din g as to pote n tial juror s 10 and 16 that Def e ndant h a d es t ablish e d 

### eprimaf ac i e ca s e o f purposeful di s c ri mination. N . T . 9/13 / 16, p. 586, 952 A. 2 d at 602 . Watkin s s upra 630 Pa . at 680, I 08 A.3d at 708 citin g Common we alth v, Co ok s upra 597 Pa. at Commonw e alth v . Ha r r is supra 572 Pa . at 507 , 8 1 7 A.2d at 1042

- 4 3 ; and Commonw e alt h v. 5 3 0 ci t in g Commonwea l th v . Cook s upra 597 P a. at 58 6 , 9 52 A . 2d at 602

- 0 3 citing 514 {J . S . at 768, 1 1 5 S . C t. at 1771; Commonwealth v, William s supra 6 0 2 Pa . at 393, 98 0 A.2d at 

### Commonwealth v . Harri s s up r a 572 P~. at 

### 5 "07, 817 A . 2d 

## at 104 2 -43 

### ctttn g Purke tt v . El e m supra di s pute the persuasiv e ne ss of tho se e x p l an ations . Id. 597 Pa. at 586, 9 52 A . 2d at 602 quoting prosecutio n advanced such reasons, th e burde n re turned to Defendant Phillips to reasonably Cook supra 597 Pa. at 586, 952 A.2d at 602-03. Afte r such ~ prlma faci e showi n g, once the an d Co m monw e al t

h v . William s sup r

a 602 Pa . at 393, 980 A. 2 d at 530 citing Commonwealth v. Pa . at 680, l 08 A.3 d at 708 

### ci ttng Commonwealt h v . Cook s up r

a 5 9 7 Pa. at S86, 952 A.2d . at 602 ; Ken tu cky supra 476 U.S . at 93-97 , I 06 S. C t. at 11 1 2 .: 23 ; Commonw e alth v, Wa t kins supra 6 3 0 Commonwealth 

### v , Harr is s upra 572 P a . at 506

- 07, 817 A . 2 d at 1042

- 43 citing Bat s on v . forthose challe n ges . Commonwealth 

### v. Cook supra 597 Pa . at 586, 

### 952 A.2d at 602 

## quoting made 

### by the Commonwe alth 

### before the pro s ecution was requi red to provide race-neutral 

### re asons a 

### prima fa c te ca s e of purposeful di s crimination in ch all enging th e ce rtain peremptory strikes Under the burden s h ifting fr am e wo rk o f Batson, the Defend ant wa s require d to establi s h

# I 

# l ' 

# I

IS 2 7 See 35 Pa.C.S . §§780· l O 1 et seq. matter did not involve a specific, individual victim of a differing ethnici ty from the Defendant a s he was tried 

### with s e ver al Controlled Substance, Drug, Dev i ce and Cosmetic Act27 viol ation s . with an inappropriate intent material to jury selection. In a ddition, unlike most other crim es , thi s seating of the jury, nor did this court note anything about the pro s ecutor's demean o r c on s istent s uggesting, l e t alone showing an invidious discriminatory motive re l ated to the Commonw e alth's s tatemen t s made by the a s sistant district attorney and/or any oth e r mat erial evid e nce, ev e n Yet , throughout the entirety of the juror selection process th e record is devoid ofany question s or unavailable thus to b e seate d, whil e another for hardship wa s e xc u s ed . N.T . 9 /13/16 , p . 103 . African-Am e rican perhaps" paneli s ts among the venir e , two (2) of whi c h were not r ea ch e d and both African-Americans. As offered by defense counsel, there were five (5) " dark- s kinned, the Commonwealth did exercise peremptory challenges. 

# to strike panelists No. 

### 10 and No. 

### 1 6, Unqu e stionably, Defendant Phillips is African-American. 

### It i s equall y uncontroverted manner. N.T. 9 / 13 / 16, p. 108. assistant district attorney exercised his peremptory ' challeng e s in a rac i all y, di s criminatory Accordingly, the court concluded the Defendant failed to carry his burden of s howing that the race-neutral reasons for the exercise of the challenged peremptory strikes . N . T . 9/13/16 , p . 10 8. The court determined these explanations offered by the pros e cutor to be c redible and 

### 104 . . could be resultantly biased unfairly 

### prejudicing the prosecution or 

### the defense. N.T. 

### 9/13 / 16 , p . involving allegations about 

### the illicit substance, cocaine, 

### these pote ntial jurors (Nos. 

### 1 0 and 

### 16) family members, including homelessness, as well as criminal convictiont s ), and the present trial attorney stated, inter alta, that due to th e adv e rse impa c ts of controlled s ubstances on immediate1 6 3 1 Th e De f

e nd ant in s etti ng forth h i s po ss ess i on of a contro ll e d s ub s tance , pos se ssi o n w ith i n te nt t o dis tribu t e a con tr o ll e d s ub s tan c e , and po s s es s i o n o f dru g parap h e rn ali a s u fficie n cy ap p e ll ate c omplain ts d oes n ot co n te n d th e tri al ev i de n c e fail e d t o estab li s h an y o f the o th e r c l e m e n t s re qu i s ite to e s t ablis hin g a s a matte r of l aw th e s e c ri m e s . See S tat eme n t o f M atter s C o mp l ai n e d N Q . 2. 28 35 Pa.C.S . § 7 8 0 ~ l 1 3 ( a) ( 3 0) . 29 35 P a . C . S. §7 80 · 11 3(a} (l 6 }. 30 35 Pa . C . S . §7 8 0 · l 1 3 ( a) ( 3 2 ) . in s u ffic i e nt a s a m att er o f l aw to s u s t ain h is c onv icti o n s for p oss e ss i on o f a co n tro ile d s ub s t an c e wi th i ntent to d e li ve r , 28 possess i on o f a co n troll ed 

### s u bs t ance, " an d possess io n of dru g paraph emali a." Mo re s p eci fi call y, th e D efe ndant argues th e p r o s ecutio n di d n ot es t abli s h he "actually o r co nstru ctively po s sessed th e all eged cocai ne an d p arap h ern ali a at is s u e." 3 1 Se e 

### II. The evidenc e is insufflcieut t o sustain the cotiv i cti<ms

for poss e s s ion ofa c o ntroll e d sub s tanc e witldntent to deliv e r, m, s s es si o11o fa 

### c o11troll e d subst

a u c e. and 

### poss es sio11 of<lrllJ! paraphernalia s inc e th e Commo11wettltl, fail e <l 

### to pro.v e . b e

yond a 

### re a s onabl e doubt

, that Mr . Pftlllips actually 

### or constructively po sse s s ed th e 

### all e g e d c ocai ne a1td parapl1 e mnlia . a t 

### is s u e . A . 2 d at 1013. and 

### Commo n w e a l th v. Smith supra 8 6 6 A. 2 d at 1140 

### cit i n g Com mo nw e a l th v . Doye n sup r a 848 

### 340 , 1 23 S.C t. . at 1041 q uoti n g H ern and e z v . Ne w York s u

pr a 

### 500 U.S . at 

### 36 4 , 1 11 S . C t. at 18 66 ;

D e fend ant P hilli ps v ia thi s s econd e rro r assign m e n t maint ai ns th at th e trial e vi d e nc e was 

### v, Co ok supra 

### 5 . 97 Pa. at 5 8 7 , 9 52 A.2 d at 

### 6 03 q u o tin g Mill e r- El v . Coc krell supr a 5 3 7 U. S . at and 

### Co mm o nw ea lth v . W

illi a m s s upra 6 0 2 

### P a. at 

### 3 9 3 , 9 8 0 A. 2d at 

### 5 30 . See also Com m o n wea l th 817 A. 2 d at 10 42-43 

### citin g B atson v . K e ntu cky s up ra 47 6 U. S . at 

### 93-9 7 , 10 6 

### S .C t. at 

### 171 2

- 2 3 ; sup r a 597 P a . at 

### 5 8 6, 952 A . 2 d a t 

### 6 0 2 q u otin g 

### Co mm o n w ealth v , H arri s 

### s u pr a 5 72 P a . at 

### 506 -07 , s ustain defen s e co un s e l' s 

### B a tso n gro un de d obj ec ti on 

### is meritles s, See Co mmonw e al t h v. Co o k pu r su an t t o 

### Bat

son and it s pro g eny . 

### Defend ant Phillip s' claim that th e court e rre d i n 

### f ai l i n g . t o h aving found the fa c ially

- neutral e xplan ati on s by the C o mm o n w e al th t o be c redibl y persuasive Comm o nwealth e ngaged in pu rpo s eful ra ci al di s c ri min ati o n w h e n s e atin g th e jurors, th e cou rt In light o f th e 

### foregoing, D e fend an t Phi llip s 

### fail e d to carry hi s bur de n 

### of p ro vin g th at th eAc c o rdin g l y , the s e o th erwise nec ess ary e l em e nt s of these c ri me s w ill not in this opini o n be di s c ussed. Se e

Commonw e alth v , V

e on, 109 A . 3d 754, 77S (Pa.Sup e r, 2 015 ) , re v e rsed o n oth e r gro u nds, 1 5 0 A.3 d 43 5 (P a. 2 016 )( ' ' In order t o p reserv e a c h allen ge t o the su ffi c i e n cy of th e e v i d e n c e on appe al , lite app e llant' s Rul e 1925( b) statement must state with speclflcity . tlte element or e lem e nts of tile crim e up o n whi c h lite app e lla111 all ege s til e e vidence w a s lmmjJlcie111 . Com monwe alth v. Ga rla n d , 6 3 A . 3d 33!), 344 ( P a . Su per . 2 0 13 ); Co m m o nwea lt h v . G ibbs, 981 A,2d 274 , 2 81 (Pa . S uper, 2 00 9 ) . 'Such s pe c ifici ty i s of p arti cu l ar i mpo rtan ce In c a s es , wh ere , as h ere , the app e ll an t w as con v i c ted of mu ltip l e cri mes eac h o f which co n tai n s num e r ous e l em e n ts th at the Co mmon w ealth mu s t prov e be y ond · a re asonabl e doub t. ' ") , (E mphasi s ad de d.) Se e a l so Co mm o n wea lth v , M

~ C ree, 857 A . 2d 1 88 , 19 2 ( Pa.S u pe r , 200 4) citi n g C011!111 o nw ea // h v . Le m o n, 8 0.4 A. 2d 34, 37 ( Pa . Su p er . . 2 00i); Co m m o n w e alt h v. Selb e rt; 799 A . 2d 54 , 62 (Pa. S uper , 2002) ; and Pa. S S Jl (Crim) 16.0J and J6.1 3 (a) (3 1 ) . 1 7 find er is free to r e solve any doubt s re gardin g a d efendant' s g uil t." ' Co mm onwealth v . H a n sl ey Th e e v idence at tri al n ee d not ' ' ... p reclud e ev e ry po ss ibili ty of i n no cen ce , and the fact 546 , 5 4 -9 ( Pa . Supe r. 2003) , a pp e al de ni ed

, 5 1 5 P a. 691, 83 5 A. 2d 10 9 (2003). 

### B ull i ck ; 830 A.2d 

### 99 8 , 1000 (Pa.Super . 2003) 

### quoting Commonw e a lt h v . Goo di n g , 81 8 A. 2 d Common w ealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Sup e r , 2 00 5) q uo t i n g Co mm o n weal th v. [ th e court's ] j udgm e nt for the fact-finder." Common we alth v . Orr, 38 A. 3 d 8 68 , 872 (P a.S u pe r . 2011) c iting Commonw e alth v. 

### H a n s l ey, 2 4 · A. 3 d 410, 41 6 ( P a. Su p er. 2 011 ) q u o ting (1984). A court d e ciding a sufficiency challenge" ... m ay not w eigh the e vi dence and substitu t e A. 2 d 354, 364 ( 1 99 4) citin g Co mmon w ealth v . Ca lderi ni, 

### 416 Pa . Sup e r . 2 5~ , 2 6 0-61 , 6 1 

### I A . 2d 206, 207 (1992) c itin g Commonw e alth v. J ac kson, 5 06 Pa. 4 69, 4 72 -7 3 , 48 5 A. 2d 1102 , 110 3 A.2d 493 , 500 (P a. Super . 2007) and Co m monw ea lth v . Ro sario , 43 8 P a. Su pe r . 2 4 1, 2 6 0 -6 1, 6 52 crim e (s) c harged was est ablish e d beyond a re asonabl e doubt. Common wea lth v. P atte r s o n, 940 s uch s upports determine wheth e r a re a sonable jury could have found th at eac h e l eme n t o f th e light mo s t favorable to th e Comm on wealth and also draw ing all rati o nal ev i d e ntiary i nfe ren ces In ev aluati n g any ty p e of s u ffi c i e n c y 

### cl aim , the c ourt mu s t acce pt the ev id e n ce in 

### the complaint is 

### meritless. Defendant 

### Phillips' ch allenged 

### c onvictions to 

### re s t ' on l e gally suffi c i e n t ev id e nc e . This app e llate a review o f th e trial record unde r th e well -se ttl e d s tan dard g ov ern in g s u c h a c l aim rea d il y re v e al s Statement of Matters Complain e d, No. 2 . De s pite hi s averme nts and contenti on s to th e con tr ary,18

2 006) . 

### Se e als o Commonw e alth v . H a nsley.supra 24 A.3d at 416 . Furthermore , the fact-find e r is tasked with being the " ... s ol e jud ge] ] of the c r e dibility and w e ight of al) testimon y 

# t and is 

### supra 940 A.2d at 500 

### qu o tin g Commonw e alth v. Eml e r, 903 A . 2d 127 3 , 1276-77 (Pa . Super . 

### the fact fi n d er 

### i s fre e to believe 

### all, part or 

### none o f the evid e nce ." 

### Commonwealth v. Patte r so n

ce rt ainly free to rejec t o r a c ce pt, in whole or part , th e te stimony o f an y witne ss . Pa. SS J I (C rim) conviction, it 

### mu s t be remembered 

### "[wjhen e valu ating the credibility . and wei g ht of

### the ev i dence, 

### Commonwealth v . Cox, 546 Pa. 515 , 528, 68 6 A . 2d 1279, 1 .2 85 (1996). 2006) 

### quoting Commonwealth v . Thoma s , 867 A. 2 d 594 , 597 (Pa.Super. 2 005). 

### See als o 840 , 847 (Pa . Supe r. 

### 2015) quo t in g Co mmonw e alth v. Harlie, 894 A.2d 800, 80 3 -04 ( Pa . Sup e r. 

# I 

# I In de c id i ng wh e ther a s a matt e r o f Ja w the tri al eviden c e w as s uffi cien t to . s u s tain a c rime 's requi s ite element(s) be y ond a r e a sonable doubt. 

### Co mm on w e alth v. Kri e gl e r , 127 A . 3d combination of i nferenti al e vi dence link s the a ccused to the c rimin ality and/or establishe s the applicable to cases where fhe evidence is ci r cumst anti al r ather th an direct, provided th at the Th e se long established principle s of law g overning a s ufficiency challenge are equally 121 2 , 121 3 (1986) . they m ay not b e d is turbed. " 

### Id. 861 A . 2 d at 3 2 3-24 

### c iting Co mmonw e alth v . Mar ks, 104 A.2d 695 A . 2d 794, 797 (Pa.Sup e r, 1997). " ... [I]f the rec ord c ontains s upport for the convictions, 

### Commonwealth v. Davis, 861 A.2d 3 

## rn , 3 2 3 (Pa.Super. 2004 ) 

### c itin g Common w ealth v . Co o n ,

I 095, 1098 (Pa . Super. 1997) 

### c iting Commonw e alth v . Mudric k, 510 

### Pa . 305, 308, 507 

### A.2d 

### conjecture , the 

### Commonw e alth need 

### not e stabli s h guilt 

### to a mathematical certainty . " A.2d at 

### 549 . Although a conviction must b e based on " ... more than mere suspicion or 

### Commonwealth v . Bull i ck supra 830 A.2d at 1000 

### qu o tin g C o mmonw e alth 

### v. Gooding supra 818 sup ra 24 A.3d at 4 16 

### quoting Commonwealth v . Jon e s s upra 874 A.2d at 120 -. 21 

### quoting19



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

### quoting Commonw e althv. Parke r, 847 A.2d 745, 750 (Pa.Supe r , 2004) 

### quoting Commonwealth v. Thompson, 779 A.2 . d 119 5 , 1199 The Superior Court has past further elaborated on S'JCh constructive possession: Pa. 751, 692 A.2d 563 (1997).

Constructive 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 o f the contraband was more likely than not. We have defined constructive possession a s 'conscious dominion.' (citation omitted}. We subsequently defined 'conscious dominion' as 'the power to control the contr aband and the intent to exercise that control.' (citation omitted) . To aid application, we h ave held that constructive possession may be established by the totality of the circumstances. 

### appeal denied, 619 Pa. 697, 63 A.3d 1243 (2013) 

### citing Commonwealth v. Kirkland supra 831 A.2d at 611; 

### Commonwealth v. /011es, 874 A.2d 108, 121 (Pa.Super, 2005) 

### quoting Commonwealth v. Haskins, 4SO Pa.Super, 540, 677 A.2d 328, 330 (1996), 

### appeal denied, 547 201, 469 A.2d 132, 134 (1983); 

### Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 430 

### (Pa.Super, 2012), 

### Commonwealth v. Vargas supra 108 A.3d at 868 

### citing Commonwealth v. Macollno , 503 Pa. 611 (Pa.Super, 2003), 

### appeal denied, 577 Pa. 712, 847 A . 2d 1280 (2004). 

### See also v. Walker, 874 A.2d 667, 677 (Pa.Super, 2005) 

### citing Commonwealth v. 

### Kirkland , 831 A.2d 607, the defendant, the Commonwealth is required to prove constructive possession." 

### Commonwealth "Where the contraband a person is charged with possessing is not found on the person of Pa.Super, 31, 428 A.2d 223, 224 (1981). 

### Vargas, lO~ A.3d 8,58, 868 (Pa.Super. 2014) 

### quoting Commonwealth v. Thompson, 286 . actual, constructive, or joint constructive possession of the contraband." 

### Commonw e alth v. "In narcotics possession cases , the Commonwealth may meet its burden by showing decision may choose what they value and discount what they find unpersua s ive. 2.04. Regarding the offered testimony and other trial evidence; the finder of fact in m aking a20

Phillip s hiding am o n g articl es of c loth ing . N . T . 9 /14/16 , p p . 31-3 3, 70 . D etec ti ve B anner , at p ro ceeded to a re ar bedroo m 011 the fir s t floor wh e re in an ope n c los e t the y fou n d De fen d ant Lite rall y within se cond s after en terin g the residence , 2507 B e thel Ro a d, several offi c ers ex ec uted the . ma giste rial di strict jud g e app r oved s earc h w arr ant. N . T. 9 /14/ 16, pp. 28-30, 73. dr es sed in plain cl othes and w earing bull e tproo f v e s t s di s pl ay ing in lar g e l e tt e r s , " POLI CE , " On April 5, 2016, at 6:00 A.M., D et ective Bannar and other law e nforcement 

### personnel C-1 =S earch Warrant C o ntr o l No . 20160 3 1 OM7 

## t 02 . su b st ance and related evid e nce se arc h. N . T . 9/1 4/1 6 , pp . 27

- 28 . See C o mm o nweal th Ex hi b it Bannar sought and obtained a w arrant for 2507 Bethel Road wh i ch auth o rized a contro lled meth amph etamine . N . T. 9/14/16 , p , 2 5. Duri ng the cour s e of this in ves tig ation, Dete ctive Sprig gs , w ho investi gators believed was selli n g from that home (2 5 07 B e thel R o ad ) The detective advised that the fo c u s of their e n force ment efforts w as an ind i vidual. n amed T i esha s ales ab o ut the residenc e located at 2 507 Bethel Ro a d, Ch e ster City . N . T. 9 /14/16 , pp . 24-25. poli c e o ffici als in March 2016 w e r e conducting an ongoing in v e s tig ation r e g ardin g illic i t dru g Detective Steven Bannar, Delaw are County Cri minal Investigati o n Divisi o n, and other Defendant Phillips' trial. N . T . 9/14/16. Salient to current c o nsiderations, the facts s ummari ze d infra were c redibly es tablis h ed at (Pa.Super . 2001) , appeal d e nied , 567 Pa. 760, 790 A . 2d 1016 ( 2 001) . Se e als o C o m monw e alth v , 

### H o pkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa . Super. 2013) 

### quo ti n g Commonw ea lth 

### v. Brown s u pra 48 A.3d at 430 ; Commonw e alth v . Varga s su pra t 08 A. 3 d at 868 qu o ti n g Comm o nw e alth v. Ma c ol i no 

### supra 503 

### Pa. at 206, 469 A.2d at 134, and Commonwealth 

### v. Johnson, 61 t Pa . 381, 407 , 26 A.3d 1078, 1093 (2011)~ 

### Commonw e alth v . 

### Hutc h i nson, 947 A.2d 800, 806 (Pa.Super. 2008) 

### citing Commonwealth 

### v . Dargan, 897 A.2d 496 , 503, 5 04 (Pa . Sup e r . 2006 ), 

### app e al 

### den ie d, 591 P a. 671, 916 A.2d 1101 (2007) ; 

### Co mmonwealth v . 

### Bri c ke r , 882 A.2d 1008, 1014 (Pa . Super . 2005) 

### citing Commonw ea lth v . 

### P e ttew ay, 847 A.2d 713, 716 (P a. Super. 2004 ) and 

### Co mmonw e alth 

### v . Parker supra 8 4 7 A.2d at 750 ; 

### Commo nwe al t h 

### v . Brown supra 48 AJd at 4 3 0 quoting Commonw e alth v. Parke r supra 847 A . 2d at 750 ; and Commo n w e alth v . Jones s u p ra 874 A.2d at 121 quotin g Commonw ea lth v . Ki rkland s upra 8 31 A . 2 d at 6 10 cit ing 

### C o mmonw ea lth v . 

### Ma c ol i no s upra 503 Pa . at 206 , 4 69 A.2d at 134 .21

trial, absent any qualifications; identified Defendant Phillips as the individual the police found in the closet concealed about clothing items. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 31-32, 33-34 . The officers removed the Defendant from the closet and "detained him. N.T. 9 / 14/16, 

### p. 32. Defendant 

### Phillips then questioned the officers 

### "what was going 

### on," to which Detective 

### Bannar " ... explained that Thad numerous buys 

### of methamphetamines out of this house." 

### N.T. 9/14/16, 

### pp. 32, 

### 72-73. The detective described Defendant Phillips' immediate reply as 0 

### [h]e alluded to the fact that he only had cocaine on him, a small amount, ... ." N.T. 9/14/16, p. 32. More specifically, Detective Bannar testified the Defendant stated, 11 1've got a little bit of cocaine." 

### N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 33, 73-74. While further searching this rear bedroom, the officers discovered a jacket among the men's clothing in the closet where the Defendant had just moments before been found hiding. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 36, 37, 69, 71, . 

### 74, 100. Additional examination 

### of this coat produced a cJear sandwich bag. N.T. 9/14/16, p, 36 . The contents of this bag included seven (7) clear bags and nine (9) blue bags, each containing what Detective Bannar described as cocaine. N. T . 9 / 14/ 16, pp. 36, 100. At trial, Detective Banner Identifled the larger bag and the sixteen (16) small bags . N.T. 9/14/16; pp. 37-38. See also Commonwealth Exhibit C

- 4 - Large bag containing smaller bags of cocaine. Of-fleer James Nolan, Chester City Police Department , was the first law enforcement official during the execution of the search warrant to enter the residence (2507 Bethel Road). N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 123, 127. Officer Nolan during trial detailed that the officers continuously announced their presence and that they were police authorities as they proceeded into as 

## well as throughout the house. N.T. 9/14/16, p. 128.22 32 A proper custodial chaln regarding these re c overed bags o f co c aine w as establi s h e d vie counsel's s tipulati on. See. Commonwealth Exhibit C-10 - Stipulation. N.T. 9/14/ 16, pp . 47-48. eighty-two (82) hundredths of a gram. N . T. 9/14/16, pp. 44-45. See 

### also Commonwealth The nine (9) blue bags also tested positive for cocaine and weighed a total of one (1) gram and Commonwealth Exhibit C-8 - Pennsylvania State Police Laboratory Report

>- L-16-01905-1. grams 

### and seven hundredths (6.07) of a gram. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 44-45. 

### See also controlled substance cocaine and the total weight of the co n tents of the seven (7) bags was six . Police Laboratory Report revealed the seven (7) clear bags tested positive for the S c h e dule II the Pennsylvania State Police.n N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 43~44. The resulting Pennsylvania State cocaine. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 43-44. These bags were subsequently sent for laboratory testing to contents were field tested and yielded positive reactions for the Schedule II controlled substance, were standing next to each other. N. T. 9114/16, pp. 131-32. 124, 130~31. Throughout the course of these exchanges, Detective Bannar and Officer Nolan . Following the law enforcement officials' recovery of the sixteen (16) baggies, the prompting Defendant Phillips to voice that he was in possession of cocaine . N.T . 9/14/16, pp. officer recalled Detective Bannar responding police were searching for methamphetami nes, morning of the arrest. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 124, 

# no. In reply to the Defendant's questi on, the seconds. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 129-30. aggregate time from when he first saw 

### the Defendant to his being detained was a matter of mere · was then taken 

### info custody. N.T. 9/14/16, 

## pp. 128, 129 . Officer Nolan testified that the the 

### wall and leaning his head out of the same. N.T. 9/14/16, 

### pp, 124, 127-28. The Defendant

Officer Nolan recounted Defendant Phillips inquiring as to the officers' purpose on the however, on more closely examining the closet, he observed Defendant Phillips standing against At first glance, Office Nolan did not encounter an y individuals in the rear bedroom;

### Exhibit C-8 - Pennsylvania State Police 

### Laboratory Report - L -16-01905-1. 

### The a ggre g ate

weight of the sixteen 

### (I 6) bags was seven grams and eighty-nine hundredths 

### (7.89) of a gram. N. T . 9/14/16, 

### p. 46. 

### See also Commonwealth Exhibit C-8 - Pennsyl v ania State Police Laboratory Rep011- L-16-01905-1. Defendant Phillips per this assignment of 

### error advances on appeal that the case 

### record was insufficient as a matter of Jaw 

### to establish he possessed any items of 

### contraband and his convictions 33 must thus be set aside. 

### See Statement ofMatters Complained, No. 2. Based on the above-recounted salient facts credibly established at tri al; as well as accepting the evidence in the ' light most beneficial to the prosecution and the reasoned inferences flowing from such, Defendant Phillips' sufficiency challenge is meritless. 

### Commonwealth 

### v. Patterson supta 940 A.2d at 500 and 

### Commonwealth v. Rosario supra 438 Pa.Super. at 260-61, 652 A.2d at 364 

### citing Commonwealth v. Calderini supra 416 Pa.Super, at 260-61, 611 A.2d at 207 

### citing Commonwealth v. Jackson supra 506 Pa. at 472- 73, 

### 485 A.2d at 

### 1103. On a review . of the totality of the circumstances seen most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

### it is without question that the Defendant had 1 ' ••• the power to control the [controlled substance and paraphernalia] and the intent-to exe r cise 

### thatcontrol," Commonwealth v. Cruz supra 21 A.3d at 1253 quoting 

### Commonwealth v. Parke r supra 847 A.2d at 750 

### quoting Commonwealth v. Thompson supra 779 A.2d at 

### 1199. See also Commonwealth v. Patterson supra 940 A.2d at 500 and 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Rosario supra 438 Pa.Super. at 260-61, 

### 652 A . 2d at 364 

### citing Commonwealth v, 

### Calderini supra 416 Pa.Super. at 260-61 , 611 

### A.2d at 207 

### citing Commonwealth v. Jackson supra 506 

### Pa. at 

### 472h73,-485 A.2d at 

### 1 I 03. At the time the search warrant was executed Defendant Phillips was the only individual in the rear bedroom and also hidden within the very closet where the controlled subst ances arid

3 J 35 Pa.C.S. §780- l 13(a)(30); 35 Pa.C.S. §780-1 l 3{a)(J 6); and 35 Pa. C .S . § 780-113(a)(32). 2324



### It is not necessary for the various bags of cocaine to have been on the Defendant> s person at the time the police detained him to legally prove he possessed the con tr olled substance and paraphernalia (baggies). Commonwealth v. Walker supra 874 A.2d at 677 citing Commonwealth v. 

### Kirkland supra 831 A.2d at 611. 

### See also Commonwealth 

### v. Vargas supra 108 A.3d at 868 citing Commonwealth 

### v. Macolino supra; Commonwealth 

### v. Brown 

### supra 48 A.3d at 

### 430 citing Commonwealth 

### v. Kirkland supra 831 A.2d at 611; Commonwealth 

### v. Jones 

### supra 874 A.2d at 121 quoting Commonwealth v. Haskins supra 450 Pa.Super. at 677 A.2d at 330. Rather, the totality of the evidence must demonstrate that Defendant Phillips had " 'the power to control the [cocaine and paraphernalia] and the intent to exercis e that control.' " Commonwealth v. Cruz supra 21 A.3d at 1253 quoting Commonwealth v. Parke r supra 84 7 A.2d at 750 quoting Commonwealth v. Thompson supra 779 A.2d at 1199. See also Commonwealth v. Hopkins supra 67 A.3d at 820 quoting Commonwealth v. Brown supra 48 A . 3d at 430; Commonwealth v . Vargas supra 108 A.3d at 868 quoting Commonwealth v. Macolino supra 503 Pa. at 206, 469 A.2d at 

### q4, and Commonwealth v. Johnson supra 611 Pa. at 407 1 26 A.3d at 1093 ; paraphernalia (baggies) were recovered. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 31-33, 34, 70, 124 , 127-28, 129-30. See also Commonwealth Exhibit 

## CA - Large bag containing smaller bags of cocaine. On being discovered by the police and advised that · they w e re looking for methamphetamine , the Defendant volunteered that he was in possession of " ... a .little bit of cocai ne." N.T. 

### 9/14/16) pp. 32, 72-73, 74, 124, 130-32. The police 

### officers found 

### in this same clos e t only a few moments later a jacket which contained in a pocket a large, clear bag which held sixteen (16) smaller ba g s that contained the Schedule lJ control1ed substance, cocaine, the same illicit drug Defendant Phillips just told investigators he possessed. N.T. 9/14/16, pp. 36, 37-38, 43-46, 74 1 

### 100.2 5 34 35 Pa.C .S . § 780

- l 1 3 ( a ) ( 3 0 ) . n 35 P a. C .S . § 780

- 1'1 3(a)( 16 ). 3 6 3 5 Pa.C. S. § 78 0· 1 l 3( a)(32) . 

### ge n e rally Comm o nw e alth v. Patterson s up r a 940 

### A. 1 d at 

### 500 and 

### Comm o nw ea l t h v . 

### K rie g / e r supra 127 A.3d at 847 

### q uo ting Co mmon we alth v . Hartl e supra 8 94 A .2 d at 90 3- 04 qu o ting 

### Co mmon w~ alth v. Thom as s t!J)ra 8 6 7 A.2d at 

### 5 97. s ub s tanc e , 35 and po ss e ss ion o f dru g paraph e malia 36 conviction s are each l e gall y s ound. 

### Se e P h illips' p oss ession of a co n troll ed s ubst anc e with i nten t to delive r;" po s session of a con tro ll e d Co mmon weal th , together with th e ration al in fe re n c es s uch reas on abl y allow s, D e fen dant Ba se d on the foreg o ing tri al eviden c e , when view e d in th e light mo st favo rable to th e p araphern ali a (bag g ie s) . Comm on w ea lth 

### v. Cruz supra 21 AJd at 1253 

### qu o ting Co mmo nwe alth v . 

### Parker su

pra 

### 847 A.2d at 

### 750 qu o ting Commonw e alth v , 

### Thomps o n. supra 

### 779 A.2d at 11 99. of law th at D efe nd an t Phillip s con s tru c ti vel y posse sse d th e c ontr o lled s ub st anc e cocain e and acknowledged to th e . offic e r s · that he was th e n in pos s essi o n of coc aine, 

### it was proven as 

### a matter s econds before hiding prior to being remov e d by the police, and h e as w ell verb ally p ar aphernali a (b agg i e s) w ere foun d in a coat in th e clo se t w he re D e fendant Phillip s w a s o nly the p resen c e and nature of the sub s t anc e ." Pa. SSJI (C ri m) 16 . 02(b)A. As th e cocai n e and A. 2 d at 134. Th e trial evi de nce mu s t also s how in i ts tot ali ty the D e fend ant was " ... aware of 

### K i rkland s upra 8 3 1 A . 2d at 61 0 

### c i ti n g Co mm o nw e alth v . Maco li n o s upra 503 P a. at 206 , 4 69 A. 2 d at 

### 75 . 0; and 

### Co mmonw e alth v . Jon es 

### s up r a- 8 74 A.2d at 1.21 quot i n g Co mmonw e a lt h 

### v . Co mmonwealth v. Brown s upra 48 A.3 d at 430 

### q uo ting Co mm o n we alth v . 

### Par ke r s upra 847 

### P e tte way s upra 847 A . 2d at 716 and 

### Co mm o nw e alth v. Par ke r supr a 847 A. 2 d at 7 5 0 ; A . 2d at 5 0 3, 504 ; Commo n w e alth v . B ri c ker s up ra 8 8 2 A.2 d at 1014 c iti ng Comm on w ea lth v. Co mmonw e alth v. H

u tchin son s upr

a 9 47 A . 2 d at 80 6 

### c itin g Co mm o nwealth v. D arg an supra 8 97

### 26

s hould be 

### affirme d . F o r all th e above r eas on s, 

### D efe n dan t Phillip s ' c o nvicti on s 

### and j udg m e n t 

### o f se nt ence 

### Ill Co11clusio11 Co mmo n w e alt

h 

### v. Mudrick sup r

a 510 Pa . at 3 08 , 507 A. 2d at 121 3 . 861 

### A.2d at 

### 323-24 citing Co mmonw e alth 

### v. Marks s upr a 7 04 A . 2 d at 10 98 cit ing convictions , " the deci s ion must re main as th e jury co n c lud e d . Commo n w ea lt h v. D av i s sup ra 

### B u/lick s upra 830 A. 2 d at 1000 . 

### If th e 

### court fi nd s " ; .. th e rec o rd cont ains s up p o rt for th e 

### 416 qu o t i ng Co m m o nw e alt h v. 

### J on e s su p ra 874 A. 2 d at 1

- 2 0- 2 1 quo ting Commo nw e al t h v. 

### Commonw e alt

h v . Orr s upr

a 38 A.3 d at 872 citing Co m m o n w e alth v . Ha n s l ey s up r a 2 4 A. 3d at m ay not wei g h the ev iden ce and s ub sti tu te [th e court 's ] judg m ent fo r th e fac t-find er. " 1 . , 

### A.2d at 1276- 77. Co mmonwealth v . Patter

s on supra 

### 940 A.2 d at 500 q u otin g Co mm o nw e alth v; E mler s up r a 

### 9 0 3

1n revi e win g Defend ant Ph illip s' s uffi c iency challen g es to his c o n v icti o n s , th e c ourt " fr ee 

### to belie ve all , part 

### o r n o n e of the e videnc e." P a . SSJI ( C rim) 

### 2 . 0 4 . See a ls o The ju ry a s th e " . . . so le jud ge[] of the credib i lity and w eig h t of all te s ti m o n y" wa s