J
- A08027

- 18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant

v. WILLIE A. WILLIAMS,

Appellee : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 71 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order November 29, 2016 I n the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- 0009535

- 2015 BEFORE: PANELLA, J. LAZARUS , J., and STRASSBURGER,* J. DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: I find that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at Williams’s bench trial to sustain his convictions for possession with intent to deliver and conspiracy. Because the trial court erroneously re

- evaluated that

ev idence when it granted Williams’s motion for arrest of judgment, I would reverse the trial court’s order. Furthermore, I find that the Majority failed to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner. According ly, I respectfully dissent. In affirming the trial court’s order, t he Majority concludes that the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession because the Commonwealth did not prove “either defendant’s participation in the drug

related a ctivity, or evidence connecting defendant to the specific room or areaJ
- A08027

- 18

- 2

-

where the contraband was kept.” Majority at 7, citing Commonwealth v. Bricker , 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005). However, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth , I find that the Commonwealth proved both participation in the controlled buy, and a connection to the specific area where the crack cocaine was kept. Thus, I agree with the Commonwealth that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish that Williams “helped his co

- conspirator Daniel Simons sell crack coca ine to a confidential informant[,] ” Commonwealth’s Brief at 8, and would reverse the trial court’s order. The evidence presented at trial established that a confidential informant conducted three controlled buys of crack cocaine at the home of Daniel Simons, and following the third controlled buy, officers executed a search
warrant on the hom e , finding Williams inside

. Specifically, t he second controlled buy occurred on September 1, 2015. The confidential informant spoke with Simons outside the home, and handed Simons pre - recorded buy money. Simons made a phone call, and shortly thereafter , a Buick parked in front of the house. Simons and the confidential informant walked over to the Buick

. At the same time , Williams exited the home and entered the Buick . After a few moments, Williams exited the vehicle. Then, Williams, Simons, and the confidential informant walked into the home together

. Within minutes the confidential informant left the home alone , and turned over a chunk of crack cocaine to the surveillance team. SeeJ
- A08027

- 18

- 3

-

Trial Court Opinion, 2/27/2017, at 2; N.T. , 4/29/2016, at 17

- 18. This evidence was sufficient to establish that Williams participated in the second controlled buy. The next day, o n September 2, 2015, the confidential informant conducted a t hird controlled buy. On this occasion, the confidential informant knocked on the door of Simons’s home, and Simons invited him inside. After a few moments, the confidential informant left the home and turned over two purple packets of crack cocaine. Within minutes, the surveillance team executed a search warrant on the home. N.T., 4/29/2016, at 20

- 21. Immediately prior to entering the home, Officer Weaver observed a white substance falling from the Styrofoam around the air conditioning unit in the window of the second floor rear bedroom, and observed a hole suddenly
appear in the S tyrofoam. Recognizing that someone was trying to hide something in the Styrofoam casing, Officer Weaver proceeded straight to that second floor rear bedroom , where Williams was found. Officer Weaver recovered a stash of 16 purple packets of crack cocain e from the Styrofoam casing

. The confidential informant had turned over similar purple packets of crack cocaine following the first and third controlled buy s . During the search,

o fficers also recovered pre

- recorded buy money and Williams’s identification cards underneath the mattress in the second floor rear bedroom. N.T., 4/29/2016, at 16, 20

- 22, 24, 30

- 31, 37, 42

- 43. I find that this circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove that Williams was exerting control over theJ
- A08027

- 18

- 4
-

purple packets of cocaine a t the time of the search warrant, and that Williams participated in the third controlled buy which occurred moments before he hid the same purple packets of cocaine. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s order.