J-A29014-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JASON PAUL STASKO 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 228 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 3, 2020

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

No(s): CP-26-CR-0002853-2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: February 9, 2024

Jason Paul Stasko appeals the judgment of sentence of nine to eighteen 

years of imprisonment following his convictions for drug delivery resulting in 

death (“DDRD”) and related offenses. We affirm.

We glean the following background from the certified record. The victim 

in this matter was Carrie Mingrino (“Victim”). On November 14, 2018, Victim 

spent the night with her best friend, Lauren Greenlee, at a residence Ms. 

Greenlee shared with her mother and then-boyfriend, Travis Porterfield. Ms.

Greenlee testified that she invited Victim to stay overnight because she knew 

Victim was recovering from a heroin addiction and was afraid Victim would 

relapse. Ms. Greenlee drank beers with Victim and stayed up with her until 

approximately 3:15 a.m. on November 15, 2018. She did not observe Victim 

using drugs at any point, nor did she believe that Victim possessed any 

controlled substances. Mr. Porterfield also stayed up with Victim until 
J-A29014-23

- 2 -

approximately 3:30 a.m. and similarly denied observing her with any illegal 

substances. At the time Mr. Porterfield went to bed, Victim was on the 

telephone, asking someone “Are you coming?” several times. 

At approximately 4:45 or 5:00 a.m. the same morning, Ms. Greenlee 

was awoken by her mother, who indicated that she could not find Victim and 

that a man she did not know, later identified as Appellant, was asleep on the 

couch in the living room. Victim was found in the kitchen, not breathing and 

unresponsive. Ms. Greenlee began administering CPR while her mother called 

911. 

Corporal Andrew Hominsky and Patrolman Jacob Cavanaugh of the 

Connellsville Police Department were the first to respond to the residence, 

shortly after 6:00 a.m. Corporal Hominsky testified that when he arrived 

Appellant was sleeping on the couch with a blanket partially covering his head, 

despite the fact that Ms. Greenlee and her mother were crying hysterically. 

The corporal roused Appellant awake, but Appellant fell back asleep. He then 

instructed Ms. Greenlee to wait outside for ambulances to arrive and directed

Patrolman Cavanaugh to continue administering CPR. At some point while 

Ms. Greenlee was waiting on the sidewalk for the paramedics, Appellant woke 

up and left the residence, telling Ms. Greenlee, “I can’t be here. I’ve got 

warrants.” N.T. Trial, 7/20-22/20, at 107. 

Victim was subsequently pronounced dead at the scene. Medical 

personnel found a hypodermic needle, still partially filled with fluid, under her 

body. The police recovered Appellant’s cell phone, which was left on the 
J-A29014-23

- 3 -

couch. Victim’s cell phone was also located and secured. At the time it was 

collected, Victim’s phone was displaying an active call with Appellant’s phone 

number and had been going for about two hours and forty-five minutes. 

Appellant’s number was saved in Victim’s phone as “Jason.” 

Victim’s blood tested positive for both ethanol and fentanyl. The forensic 

pathologist introduced by the Commonwealth at trial opined that the level of 

fentanyl constituted a lethal dose, and that based on the fast metabolization 

of fentanyl, Victim would have died almost immediately after the drug was 

administered. It was determined that the manner of death was an accident 

and that the cause was combined drug toxicity as a result of fentanyl and 

added ethanol. 

During their investigation, police analyzed the cellular phones of 

Appellant and Victim. Appellant’s text message history showed extensive 

contact with numerous individuals the day before Victim’s death, asking for 

“breezy” and “tickets,” both of which are slang terms for heroin. Additionally, 

there were numerous telephone calls and text messages between Appellant 

and Victim made the day prior to, and the morning of, her death. Notably, at 

11:15 p.m. on November 14, Appellant texted Victim that “I just found the 

stuff you wanted.” Victim thereafter called Appellant thirty-two times without 

success. Eventually, Appellant and Victim had a four-minute call at 3:07 a.m. 

on November 15, and then a final call that began at 3:15 a.m. and lasted until 

Victim’s cell phone was located by police after her death. 
J-A29014-23

- 4 -

The Commonwealth ultimately charged Appellant with DDRD, delivery 

of a controlled substance, and related drug offenses. Following trial, a jury 

convicted Appellant of all charges. He was sentenced as indicated 

hereinabove. This timely appeal followed, and Appellant complied with the 

trial court’s order to file a concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b).

Appellant advances a single issue for our consideration: “Whether the 

Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdicts 

as it failed to present sufficient evidence that [Appellant] delivered any 

controlled substances to the victim?” Appellant’s brief at 5 (unnecessary 

capitalization omitted).

We consider Appellant’s claim mindful of the following well-settled 

standard of review:

When reviewing a [sufficiency] claim, we face a question of law. 

Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. We view the 

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

verdict winner, and we draw all reasonable inferences therefrom 

in the Commonwealth’s favor. Through this lens, we must 

ascertain whether the Commonwealth proved all of the elements 

of the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of 

wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, we may not weigh the 

evidence and substitute our judgment for the factfinder. Any 

doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the 

factfinder, 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.
J-A29014-23

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Roberts, 293 A.3d 1221, 1223 (Pa.Super. 2023)

(cleaned up). 

Appellant challenges his convictions for both DDRD and delivery of a 

controlled substance. Concerning DDRD,

A person commits a felony of the first degree if the person 

intentionally administers, dispenses, delivers, gives, prescribes, 

sells or distributes any controlled substance or counterfeit 

controlled substance in violation of [§] 13(a)(14) or (30) of the 

act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled 

Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and another person 

dies as a result of using the substance.

 

18 Pa.C.S. § 2506(a). Delivery of a controlled substance is defined as “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.” 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

On appeal, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth “did not present 

any evidence that he delivered, intentional[ly] or otherwise, any controlled 

substance to [Victim]” on the date of her death. Appellant’s brief at 11. 

Similarly, he notes that there was no testimony that connected Appellant to 

the syringe found under Victim or that he had any drugs on his person when 

he came to the residence. Id. at 11-12. Appellant highlights that there were 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant does not contest that fentanyl is a controlled substance pursuant 

to The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
J-A29014-23

- 6 -

other individuals present in the home at the time of Victim’s death, and none 

of the text communications introduced by the Commonwealth conclusively 

showed that Appellant secured fentanyl. Id. at 12. He likewise asserts that 

there was a lack of evidence demonstrating any relationship between Victim

and Appellant at all. Id. at 13. Appellant concludes that overall, the 

circumstantial evidence supplied by the Commonwealth was not adequate to 

prove the delivery element of his convictions. Id. at 14-15.

In rejecting this claim, the trial court determined that the 

Commonwealth provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that 

Appellant delivered the fentanyl that killed Victim. It noted as follows:

The call and text message logs reveal significant history in the day 

before her death from [Victim] to [Appellant] with [Appellant] 

responding that he ‘found the stuff’ that [she] wanted. The 

telephone data is replete the entire day before [Victim]’s death 

with [Appellant] attempting to locate controlled substances from 

others. The last activity on [Victim]’s cell phone was a telephone 

call with [Appellant] that ran continuously from 3:15 a.m. on 

November 15, 2018, for two hours and forty-five minutes lasting 

until after her death.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/23, at 14. The court concluded that the 

Commonwealth established that “[Appellant] was the only person present at 

the time of [Victim]’s death, that he was the last person to text message and 

call her, that one text message stated he found ‘the stuff,’ and that he fled 

the scene.” Id.

Upon review, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth 

provided sufficient testimony to support Appellant’s convictions for DDRD and 
J-A29014-23

- 7 -

delivery of a controlled substance. In considering the circumstantial evidence 

and all reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, we conclude that the Commonwealth 

proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant delivered the fentanyl that 

resulted in Victim’s death. No witnesses observed Victim in possession of or 

using any controlled substance as late as approximately 3:15 a.m. the 

morning of her death. The testimony bore out that around that time, Victim 

engaged in a telephone call with Appellant, who arrived at Ms. Greenlee’s 

house shortly thereafter. Victim was found unresponsive by Ms. Greenlee and 

her mother approximately seventy-five minutes later, while the other 

residents of the house and Appellant slept. 

Based on this testimony, the jury was able to logically infer that, 

although there may have been people other than Appellant in the residence, 

Appellant was the one who provided Victim with fentanyl. We will not reweigh 

the evidence to reach a different conclusion. See Roberts, supra at 1223; 

see also Commonwealth v. Ovales, 144 A.3d 957, 969 (Pa.Super. 2016) 

(noting “that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth 

need not preclude every possibility of innocence”). 

The evidence further showed that before the ambulances arrived, 

Appellant ran past Ms. Greenlee, indicating that he could not stay because he 

had active warrants. Coupling this flight with the extensive text messages 

showing that Appellant obtained drugs for Victim, the factfinder could 
J-A29014-23

- 8 -

reasonably find that he delivered fentanyl to Victim when he came to the 

residence shortly after 3:15 a.m. Appellant’s claim that there was no 

relationship between him and Victim is wholly belied by the record, which 

showed dozens of phone calls and text messages made between them in the 

twenty-four hours leading up to her death. In short, the evidence collectively 

demonstrated that Victim died as a result of using fentanyl delivered to her 

by Appellant, and thus Appellant’s sufficiency challenge must fail. 

Since Appellant’s sole issue on appeal entitles him to no relief, we do 

not have cause to disturb his conviction.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DATE: 02/09/2024