Court Opinion

ID: 9351772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-03 17:06:36.964533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:43.629000
License: Public Domain

J-S40021-22 & J-S40022-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
                                                          OF
                                                     PENNSYLVANIA
                         Appellee

                    v.

JOSHUA JOHN SPAAR

                         Appellant                   No. 94 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 20, 2021
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
             Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-0005053-2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
                                                          OF
                                                     PENNSYLVANIA
                         Appellee

                    v.

JOSHUA JOHN SPAAR

                         Appellant                   No. 95 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 20, 2021
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
             Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-0002029-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                        FILED JANUARY 3, 2023

     In these appeals, which we consolidate under Pa.R.A.P. 513, Appellant,

Joshua John Spaar, argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his

conviction in each case for criminal use of a communication facility under 18
J-S40021-22 & J-S40022-22

Pa.C.S.A. § 7512. We hold that the evidence was sufficient in each case to

sustain Appellant’s convictions, and therefore, affirm.

      Appellant’s   first   case,   CP-39-CR-0005053-2019,     arises   from   a

confidential informant’s (“CI”) controlled purchase of methamphetamine from

Appellant on March 28, 2019. The second case, CP-39-CR-0002029-2019,

arises from the same CI’s controlled purchase of methamphetamine from

Appellant on April 17, 2019.

      The evidence in both cases is virtually identical. Detective Hauser, a

detective on the Lehigh County Drug Task Force, testified that he arranged

with the CI to purchase methamphetamine from the Appellant on two separate

occasions, March 28, 2019 and April 17, 2019. The CI testified he had known

Appellant prior to participating in the drug investigation. The CI initially met

Appellant through his landlord, both by performing maintenance tasks for the

landlord and thereafter through social interactions.      The CI used the same

number for Appellant’s cell phone to coordinate drug transactions that he used

to communicate with Appellant prior to the drug investigation.

      Each call that the CI made to arrange drug transactions was audio- and

video-recorded and entered into evidence at trial.          Prior to each drug

transaction, the CI met with Detective Hauser at a predetermined location.

The CI was then searched, given pre-recorded “buy” money and had his

vehicle outfitted with an electronic recording device.       In the detective’s

presence, the CI contacted Appellant, and through text messages, the CI and

Appellant agreed to both a quantity and price for the drug transaction. The

                                       -2-
J-S40021-22 & J-S40022-22

detective observed the text messages on the CI’s cell phone during each

conversation.    After coordinating each transaction, the CI traveled to an

agreed     meeting   location   and   exchanged   the   buy   money   for   the

methamphetamine. During the March 28, 2019 videotaped transaction that

was entered into evidence, Appellant approached the CI’s vehicle with his head

down gazing into a cell phone that he was holding and manipulating. Appellant

entered the vehicle and stated, “I touched my phone and fucked something

up again.”

      Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged in two separate

criminal complaints with possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine

(graded as a felony), criminal use of a communication facility, and related

offenses. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of all charges. On

August 20, 2021, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of six

to seventeen years’ imprisonment. On August 30, 2021, Appellant filed timely

post-sentence motions.      On December 22, 2021, the court denied these

motions.     This timely appeal followed.   Both Appellant and the trial court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      In both appeals, Appellant raises precisely the same issue:

      Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain [Appellant’s]
      conviction for criminal use of a communication facility when the
      Commonwealth failed to establish that [Appellant] ever used or
      possessed the communication device during the actual
      commission of the felony offense?

Appellant’s Briefs at 7.

                                      -3-
J-S40021-22 & J-S40022-22

       Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge presents a

question of law. Commonwealth v. Toritto, 67 A.3d 29 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(en banc). Our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is

plenary. Commonwealth v. Walls, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016). In

conducting our inquiry, we examine:

       whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences
       derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
       Commonwealth as verdict-winner, [is] sufficient to establish all
       elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not
       weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
       finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude every
       possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is free to resolve any
       doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt 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. When
       evaluating the credibility and weight of the evidence, the fact-
       finder is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. For
       purposes of our review under these principles, we must review the
       entire record and consider all of the evidence introduced.

Commonwealth v. Rojas-Rolon, 256 A.3d 432, 436 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Evidence may be entirely circumstantial so long as it links the accused to the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996,

1001 (Pa. Super. 2011).

       Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his

conviction for criminal use of a communication facility under 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 7512.1 We disagree.

____________________________________________

1 Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying any
of his other convictions.

                                           -4-
J-S40021-22 & J-S40022-22

      The Crimes Code defines this offense as “us[ing] a communication

facility to commit, cause or facilitate the commission or the attempt thereof

of any crime which constitutes a felony under this title or under ... the

Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.”             18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 7512(a). A communication facility is “a public or private instrumentality

used or useful in the transmission of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds,

data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part, including,

but not limited to, telephone, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or

photooptical systems or the mail.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(c).

      To support a conviction for criminal use of a communication facility, “the

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) [defendant]

knowingly and intentionally used a communication facility; (2) [defendant]

knowingly, intentionally or recklessly facilitated an underlying felony; and (3)

the underlying felony occurred.” Commonwealth v. Moss, 852 A.2d 374,

382 (Pa. Super. 2004). “Facilitation” is “any use of a communication facility

that makes easier the commission of the underlying felony.” Id.

      Appellant’s argument is the same in both of these appeals:

      The question is whether the evidence and testimony sufficiently
      proved that it was [Appellant] who used his phone to text with the
      [CI]. The testimony at trial is filled with information regarding the
      officers setting up the [CI] for the purchases, the requirements to
      show the [CI] was not possessing any drugs or improper materials
      on him prior to meeting the dealer, and the surveillance of the
      actual exchanges on both occasions. The texting messages were
      done solely by the [CI] and there was no voice or video
      communication between the parties during either of the drug
      deals. There was brief testimony that [Appellant] did show up

                                      -5-
J-S40021-22 & J-S40022-22

      with the phone in his possession and at one point commented that
      his phone was messed up[,] but that phone was never placed into
      evidence nor was his call log or texting logs ever placed in the
      evidence to show its use in the arrangement of the drug deals.
      Further, the [CI] during his testimony never fleshed out or made
      clear the connection he may have with [Appellant] or gave such
      testimony that sufficiently linked [Appellant] and his phone to the
      communications used to set up the drug deals.

Appellant’s Briefs at 13-14.

      Appellant overlooks important evidence that supports his convictions

under Section 7512.     The evidence shows that the CI arranged the drug

transactions by communicating with the same cell phone number that the CI

previously used to communicate socially with Appellant prior to the CI’s

involvement with the Commonwealth’s drug investigation. During each drug

transaction, Detective Hauser observed text messages exchanged between

the CI’s cell phone and Appellant’s cell phone. When the CI and Appellant met

on March 28, 2019, Appellant was in physical possession of a cell phone.

Appellant admitted during this meeting, “I touched my phone and fucked

something up again.” During both meetings, Appellant gave the CI a packet

of methamphetamine in return for U.S. currency.

      Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this evidence

is sufficient to prove each element of Section 7512 in both cases. In each

case, the evidence demonstrates that Appellant used a communication facility,

a cell phone, to arrange each drug transaction with the CI.       During each

transaction, the cell phone facilitated a felony, possession of a controlled

substance with intent to deliver, by making the commission of this felony

                                     -6-
J-S40021-22 & J-S40022-22

easier. Moss, 852 A.2d at 382. Finally, the underlying felony, possession

with intent to deliver, took place in each case, a fact confirmed not only by

the evidence but by the jury’s verdict.

      For these reasons, Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence is devoid of merit. We affirm his judgments of sentence.

      Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/3/2023

                                     -7-