J-S53003-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WYOKIN COOK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 797 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 23, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-23-CR-0003163-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2019

Appellant, Wyokin Cook, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

on January 23, 2018, following his non-jury trial convictions for possession 

with intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”),

1 possession of a 

controlled substance,2 and use or possession of drug paraphernalia.3 We 

affirm. 

On March 10, 2017, the Delaware County Narcotics Task Force executed 

a search warrant at Appellant’s residence. Police Criminal Complaint, 3/10/17, 

at 4. At that time, Appellant was asleep on the couch with a marijuana blunt 

on his chest. N.T. Trial, 1/23/18, at 23-24. Subsequently, the police 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30). 

2 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(16). 

3 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(32). 
J-S53003-19

- 2 -

conducted a “cursory search of the entire interior of [the] property,” and 

discovered the following: 15 individual sandwich bags containing a total of 

51.13 grams of marijuana, additional sandwich bags, two digital scales, and 

approximately $140.00 in cash. Police Criminal Complaint, 3/10/17, at 4; N.T. 

Trial, 1/23/18, at 9-24. 

A non-jury trial was conducted on January 23, 2018. Trial Court 

Opinion, 6/20/19, at 1. At trial, Detective Steven Banner testified as the 

Commonwealth’s expert witness. N.T. Trial, 1/23/18, at 9-24. During his 

testimony, Detective Banner opined that Appellant possessed the 51.13 grams 

of marijuana with the intent to deliver. Id. at 23-24. In contrast, Appellant 

testified that he merely possessed the marijuana for personal use. Id. at 41. 

Upon hearing the evidence presented at trial, the court found Appellant guilty 

of the above-mentioned charges and sentenced him to “time served to 23 

months” for PWID and “one[-]year probation concurrent” for use or possession 

of drug paraphernalia. Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/19, at 1. This timely appeal 

followed.4 

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

Whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain [Appellant’s] 

conviction for [PWID] since the Commonwealth failed to prove, 

____________________________________________

4 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 21, 2018. On March 14, 2018, 

the trial court entered an order directing Appellant to file a concise statement 

of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). 

Appellant timely complied. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on June 20, 2019.
J-S53003-19

- 3 -

beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant possessed the 

marijuana at issue with the intent to distribute it?

Appellant’s Brief at 5. 

Our standard of review regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is as 

follows:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence is 

whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light 

most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence 

to enable the fact[-]finder to find every element of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may 

not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of 

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

circumstances established by the Commonwealth may not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

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

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

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of 

proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by 

means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying 

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

evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier 

of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the 

weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none 

of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 1014–1015 (Pa. Super. 2002) 

(citations omitted).

In this case, Appellant does not dispute that he possessed the marijuana 

in question. N.T. Trial, 1/23/18, at 41. Instead, Appellant argues that the 

Commonwealth failed to prove that he intended to distribute the marijuana. 

Id. at 11. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth’s failure to 

show that he “was in an area known for drug-related activity, or that he 
J-S53003-19

- 4 -

actually possessed materials or exhibited behavior indicative [of] drug 

dealing” renders the evidence presented at trial insufficient to support his 

conviction. Id., citing Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 831 A.2d 607 (Pa. 

Super. 2003). We disagree. 

The offense of PWID under 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30) provides, in 

relevant part: 

(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the 

Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:

***

(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 licensed by the appropriate State 

board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent 

to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance.

35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30). Thus, to sustain a conviction for PWID, “the 

Commonwealth must prove that [the] appellant ‘both possessed the controlled 

substance and had an intent to deliver that substance.’” Commonwealth v. 

Torres, 617 A.2d 812, 814 (Pa. Super. 1992), quoting Commonwealth v. 

Parsons, 570 A.2d 1328, 1334 (Pa. Super. 1990). 

To determine “whether a controlled substance was possessed with intent 

to deliver, the court must consider all of the facts and circumstances 

surrounding the possession of the substance.” Torres, 617 A.2d at 814. In 

cases involving “a large quantity of controlled substances,” the “intent to 

deliver may be inferred from [mere] possession.” Commonwealth v. 
J-S53003-19

- 5 -

Jackson, 645 A.2d 1366, 1368 (Pa. Super. 1994). If, however, there is only 

a small amount of a controlled substance, such that “it is not clear whether 

the substance is being used for personal consumption or distribution, it then 

becomes necessary to analyze other factors.” Id. In such a case, a key factor 

is expert testimony. See Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233, 1236 

(Pa. 2007); Kirkland, 831 A.2d at 612 (holding that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction of PWID because the 

Commonwealth failed to present expert testimony to prove that he possessed 

the controlled substance with the intent to distribute). Additional factors 

include “the manner in which the controlled substance was packaged, the 

behavior of the defendant, the presence of drug paraphernalia, and large sums 

of cash found in possession of the defendant.” Jackson, 645 A.2d at 1368. 

Herein, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, establishes that Appellant intended to distribute the 

marijuana. Indeed, unlike in Kirkland, the Commonwealth utilized the expert 

testimony of Detective Banner to demonstrate that Appellant intended to 

distribute the marijuana in question. N.T. Trial, 1/23/18, at 9-24. 

At trial, Detective Banner opined that Appellant did, in fact, possess the 

marijuana with the intent to deliver. Id. at 17. He based this opinion on a 

variety of factors. First, he explained that, while the quantity of drugs 

appeared small, 51.13 grams of marijuana is “above the personal use 
J-S53003-19

- 6 -

standard.”

5

 Id. at 17. Thus, in contrast to Appellant’s assertion that he 

bought the drugs “in bulk,” Banner opined that Appellant’s possession of a 

“month-and-a-half supply of weed” was typical of a drug seller, not a drug 

user. Id. at 20 and 43. Secondly, Detective Banner explained that the 

marijuana’s packaging proved Appellant’s intent to deliver. Id. at 17. Per 

Detective Banner, just like a consumer would not “go to Wa-[W]a and buy a 

gallon of milk by eight pints,” an individual drug user would not “buy individual 

bags of marijuana.” Id. Lastly, Detective Banner opined that the discovery 

of the digital scale supported his conclusion that Appellant possessed the 

requisite intent. According to Detective Banner, only an “actual seller” would 

“weigh their marijuana.” Id. at 20. Users simply “eyeball [it].” Id. 

Therefore, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the 

evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Appellant intended to deliver 

the marijuana and, as such, there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

5 Per Detective Banner, “the Commonwealth looks at 30 grams [of marijuana] 

as personal use.” N.T. Trial, 1/23/18, at 17. 
J-S53003-19

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/13/2019