J-S58042-17 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DEREK MATTHEW MCELLIGOTT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 613 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 23, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0002729-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

Appellant, Derek Matthew McElligott, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas, following his 

jury trial convictions of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under the influence of 

alcohol—third offense, and his bench trial summary offense convictions of 

periods for requiring lighted lamps, duties at stop sign, and failure to stop at 

a red signal.1 We affirm. 

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32); 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

3802(a)(1), 4302(a)(1), 3323(b), 3112(a)(3)(i), respectively. 
J-S58042-17

- 2 -

restate them. We clarify only that the court sentenced Appellant on January 

23, 2017, to an aggregate term of one hundred nineteen (119) days to two 

(2) years’ imprisonment, followed by twelve (12) months’ probation. 

Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on January 26, 2017, which 

the court denied on March 8, 2017. On April 6, 2017, Appellant timely filed 

a notice of appeal, and the court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 

Appellant timely complied on April 26, 2017. 

Appellant raises two issues for our review:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW 

THAT [APPELLANT] WAS THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN 

QUESTION BECAUSE THE COMMONWEALTH NEVER 

IDENTIFIED THE DRIVER, DID NOT DETERMINE IF THERE 

WAS A PASSENGER IN THE SEDAN, AND LEFT SEVERAL 

QUESTIONS UNRESOLVED?

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN 

[APPELLANT’S] CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF DRUG 

PARAPHERNALIA BECAUSE THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED 

TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT 

[APPELLANT] EVER USED OR INTENDED TO USE 

PARAPHERNALIA—A SINGLE WAX PAPER PACKET—WHERE 

THE PACKET WAS EMPTY, IT WAS NEVER TESTED FOR 

RESIDUE, AND NO DRUGS WERE FOUND ON [APPELLANT] 

OR ON THE SCENE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Christy H. 

Fawcett, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 
J-S58042-17

- 3 -

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 23, 2017, at 7-13) (finding: 

(1) Commonwealth presented dashboard video footage at trial of person 

driving gray Nissan without headlights illuminated; driver did not comply 

with police call to stop; instead, driver ran multiple stop signs and stop lights 

at high speed; Officer Woodring pursued vehicle and saw only one occupant 

inside; Officer Wooding discontinued pursuit for safety reasons; police 

located vehicle two minutes later and observed it had crashed; police found 

Appellant with his hands up, standing next to open driver-side door of 

wrecked vehicle; Appellant was alone and no other doors were open; crash 

occurred late at night in industrial area; police saw no other civilians in area; 

Appellant was covered in dust with bleeding cut on his face, consistent with 

being involved in car accident; there was sufficient circumstantial evidence 

for jury to conclude Appellant was driver of vehicle; (2) Officer Kling is 

experienced drug investigator who testified about characteristics of wax 

paper packet found on Appellant’s person; Officer Kling stated he had not 

ever seen that type of bag “used for any other purpose but to contain 

heroin”; evidence was sufficient to sustain verdict2). Accordingly, we affirm 

on the basis of the trial court opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

2 Officer Kling further testified that the wax paper found on Appellant had 

“specific folds” that were indicative of heroin packaging. (See N.T., 

11/10/17, at 107-109).
J-S58042-17

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/26/2017