Court Opinion

ID: 9409262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 16:08:24.497824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.760843
License: Public Domain

J-A11013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
                                                :
    SEAN C. SMITH                               :
                                                :
                       Appellant                :     No. 768 WDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 3, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
               Criminal Division at No: CP-65-CR-0001168-2020

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                                   FILED: JULY 17, 2023

        Appellant, Sean C. Smith, appeals from his judgment of sentence of five

to ten years’ imprisonment for manufacturing a controlled substance

(methamphetamine), 35 P.S. § 780-113(30), and other offenses. Appellant

contends, inter alia, that the court violated his constitutional rights by failing

to have the jury determine the weight of the methamphetamine that he

manufactured. We disagree, and we affirm.

        Appellant was charged with operating a methamphetamine lab,

possessing     a     precursor    chemical     with   the   intent    to   manufacture

methamphetamine, manufacturing a controlled substance with intent to

deliver (“manufacturing”), possession of a controlled substance, possession of

drug paraphernalia, and recklessly endangering his parents as occupants of

the dwelling where the drug-related offenses occurred.               During Appellant’s
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11013-23

trial, New Kensington detective Sam Long testified that when he entered

Appellant’s residence, he found Appellant and his parents inside the residence.

The detective discovered the methamphetamine lab in the basement and

evacuated Appellant’s parents from the residence.

      Detective Long also testified as to the danger posed by the drug-related

items he found in the basement. Corporal Ronald Jarvie, an expert in the

illegal production of methamphetamine, testified about the extremely

dangerous nature of methamphetamine production. A forensic chemist, Jason

Harner, testified that the substances containing methamphetamine found in

the basement weighed 389 grams. Following a two-day trial, the jury found

Appellant guilty on all charges except operating a methamphetamine lab.

      Due to his extensive criminal history, the court found that Appellant’s

prior record score was nine and that his offense gravity score was eleven. 204

Pa. Code. § 303.15 (listing offense gravity score as eleven for manufacturing

with intent to deliver an amount of methamphetamine between 100 and 1000

grams). The Commonwealth requested a sentence of seven to fourteen years’

imprisonment. On January 3, 2022, the court sentenced Appellant to five to

ten years’ imprisonment for manufacturing, a sentence at the bottom of the

standard range. 204 Pa. Code § 303.16(a) (standard minimum sentence for

offense gravity score of eleven and prior record score of nine is 60-72 months’

imprisonment). The court imposed concurrent sentences on the other counts

of conviction.   On January 13, 2022, Appellant filed timely post-sentence

motions. In an order docketed on June 15, 2022, the court denied Appellant’s

                                     -2-
J-A11013-23

post-sentence motions. On June 30, 2022, Appellant filed a timely notice of

appeal.1    Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.    In response, the court

____________________________________________

1 On May 9, 2022, Appellant filed a request for an extension of time for the
trial court to decide the post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(b)
(“Upon motion of the defendant within the 120-day disposition period, for
good cause shown, the judge may grant one 30-day extension for decision on
the motion. If the judge fails to decide the motion within the 30-day extension
period, the motion shall be deemed denied by operation of law”). The trial
court did not grant the request for an extension of time to decide the post-
sentence motion. Nor did the court decide the motion within 30 days after
May 13, 2022, which would have been Monday, June 13, 2022. Instead, the
court denied the post-sentence motion by order docketed on June 15, 2022.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 30, 2022.

Because the trial court did not grant the request for an extension of time to
decide the post-sentence motion, the motion should have been considered
denied by operation of law after May 13, 2022. When a post-sentence motion
is denied by operation of law, the clerk of courts must enter an order on behalf
of the court stating that the post-sentence motion is deemed denied.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(c).

This Court has held that a breakdown in the operations of the court occurs
when the clerk of courts fails to enter an order deeming a post-sentence
motion denied by operation of law and notifying the defendant of the same.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). When a
trial court denies a post-sentence motion after the 120-day period and the
appellant appeals within thirty days of the date of that decision, we have held
that the notice of appeal is timely. Perry; see also Commonwealth v.
Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995) (notice of appeal was timely
because it was filed within thirty days of untimely order denying post-sentence
motion).

Pursuant to Perry and Braykovich, we hold that a breakdown in the
operations of the court occurred due to the court’s failure to enter a timely
order denying Appellant’s post-sentence motions by operation of law. We
further hold that Appellant’s appeal is timely because he filed his notice of
appeal within thirty days after the court’s untimely order denying post-
sentence motions.

                                           -3-
J-A11013-23

entered an order incorporating by reference its June 22, 2022 opinion in

support of its order denying post-sentence motions.

      Appellant raises the following issues in this appeal:

      1. WHETHER THE COURT’S FAILURE TO HAVE THE JURY
      DETERMINE THE WEIGHT OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOR
      WHICH [APPELLANT] WAS CONVICTED OF MANUFACTURING A
      CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS A VIOLATION OF HIS 5TH AND
      14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE?

      2. WHETHER [APPELLANT] SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN
      ACQUITTAL   ON    THE   CONVICTIONS    OF   RECKLESSLY
      ENDANGERING      ANOTHER    PERSON      BECAUSE    THE
      COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
      PROVING ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THAT CRIME?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

      In his first argument, citing Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99

(2013), Appellant argues that his sentence is unconstitutional, because the

court determined the weight of the methamphetamine found in his basement

at sentencing instead of directing the jury to determine the weight of the

methamphetamine during trial. We disagree.

      In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the United States

Supreme Court held that any fact, other than that of a prior conviction, that

increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum

must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., 530

U.S. at 490. Several years later, the Court held in Alleyne that any fact that

increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime “is an element that

must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.,

                                     -4-
J-A11013-23

570 U.S. at 102. The Court reasoned that the principle applied in Apprendi

applies with equal force to facts increasing the mandatory minimum sentence.

Id.

      Appellant contends that Alleyne applies to the calculation of his offense

gravity score in the present case. He observes that the determination of the

weight of the methamphetamine found in his basement affects his offense

gravity score, which in turn affects his minimum sentence.      Therefore, he

argues, Alleyne requires the jury to determine the weight question during

trial and find the weight of the amphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt. This

argument fails for three reasons.   First, Alleyne only applies to facts that

increase the mandatory minimum or mandatory maximum sentence. There

is no mandatory minimum sentence in this case, because 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508,

the statute requiring mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases, has been

held unconstitutional. See Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 177 A.3d 182 (Pa.

2018). Second, weight is not an element of 35 P.S. § 780-113(30), the statute

proscribing manufacture of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414, 420 (Pa. Super. 2016)

(“Nothing in [Section 780-113(a)(30)] requires the Commonwealth to prove

any amount of weight. . . . Weight is simply not an element of the crime

itself”). Thus, Section 780-113(a)(30) did not require the jury to determine

weight during trial. Third, although the weight of the controlled substance

                                     -5-
J-A11013-23

affects Appellant’s offense gravity score,2 the offense gravity score is merely

one component of the sentencing guidelines, none of which are binding on the

trial court. Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 190 (Pa. Super. 2008)

(“the sentencing court is required to consider the sentence ranges set forth in

the sentencing guidelines, but it [is] not bound by the sentencing guidelines.

The court may deviate from the recommended guidelines; they are merely

one factor among many that the court must consider in imposing a sentence”).

As a non-binding sentencing factor, the offense gravity score falls outside the

scope of Alleyne.         Accordingly, we reject Appellant’s challenge to the

constitutionality of his sentence.

       Next, Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain

his conviction for reckless endangerment, because the Commonwealth failed

to prove that the methamphetamine lab was operational and, therefore, it did

not place Appellant’s parents in danger of death or serious bodily injury. We

disagree.

       When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we

determine “whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the

____________________________________________

2 In drug cases, the offense gravity score depends on the weight of the
controlled substance.     For example, the offense gravity score for
manufacturing 50 to 100 grams of methamphetamine is ten, while the offense
gravity score for manufacturing 100 to 1000 grams of methamphetamine is
11. 204 Pa. Code § 303.15.

                                           -6-
J-A11013-23

verdict winner, are sufficient to support all the elements of the offense.”

Commonwealth v. Cline, 177 A.3d 922, 925 (Pa. Super. 2017).                 “This

standard is equally applicable to cases where the evidence is circumstantial

rather than direct so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused

to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 78

A.3d 644, 649 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      The Crimes Code defines reckless endangerment as “conduct which

places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily

injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705. An individual is guilty of this offense if he “(1)

possessed a mens rea [of] recklessness, (2) committed a wrongful deed or

guilty act (actus rea), and (3) created by such a wrongful deed the danger of

death or serious bodily injury to another person.”          Commonwealth v.

Brockington, 230 A.3d 1209, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2020). The mental state of

recklessness is “a conscious disregard for a known risk of death or great bodily

harm to another person.” Id. The crime “requires the creation of danger, so

the Commonwealth must prove the existence of an actual present ability to

inflict harm to another.” Id. Reckless endangerment “does not require any

particular person to be actually placed in danger, but deals with potential risks,

as well as cases where a specific person actually is within the zone of danger.”

Commonwealth v. Lawton, 414 A.2d 658, 662 (Pa. Super. 1979).

      Detective Long of the City of New Kensington Police Department testified

that on March 10, 2020, he entered the premises where Appellant lived with

                                      -7-
J-A11013-23

his parents, Jeannie and Richard Smith.     Tr., 10/7/21, at 54-55. As Long

entered the basement, he “immediately recognized the precursors of a

possible one-pot methamphetamine lab.” Id. at 59. Forensic scientist Harner,

the Commonwealth’s expert in methamphetamine production, opined that

Appellant manufactured methamphetamine using the “one-pot” method. Id.

at 185-201. Detective Long immediately evacuated Appellant and his parents

from the premises once he suspected one-pot production. Id. at 59. When

asked why, he responded:

      With one-pot methamphetamine production, the substance that’s
      inside of that bottle, just merely taking the lid off and dumping
      some of it out, it can burst into flames. The gases, the chemicals,
      react very poorly with each other whenever they’re mixed in a
      certain way if you don’t really know what you’re doing, and they
      immediately burst into flames, and it’ll cause a very catastrophic
      fire.

Id. at 60. Pennsylvania State Trooper and Clan Lab Response Team Member

David Williams testified that “once [he] entered the basement, [he] started

seeing factors of criminal activity that are associated with the manufacture of

methamphetamine.” Id. at 88. He started retrieving relevant articles but

made sure to keep them apart to prevent them from touching and possibly

igniting. Id. at 95. One of the recovered items, an AA lithium battery, had

its internal components removed. Williams explained that removal of these

components is necessary for the production of methamphetamine, but they

are “highly volatile” and “very explosive when handled incorrectly.” Id. at

                                     -8-
J-A11013-23

102. The materials in a methamphetamine lab are so dangerous to remove

that a forensic scientist must be on scene to tell the officers how to proceed:

         The forensic scientist ultimately tells us what to pick up. We make
         sure that we’re keeping these items separated. A lot of these
         different items . . . if they would get close to one another, touch,
         or be added could ignite or start, for lack of better terms,
         movement again. So the collection process is usually we take it
         outside at first, lay everything out, and keep things separated . .
         . in properly liquid-tight containers and stuff like that . . .

Id. at 95.

         This evidence demonstrates that Appellant operated                 a one-pot

methamphetamine lab in the basement of the home in which he and his

parents resided.       Appellant’s parents were present when Detective Long

entered      the     premises    on   March     10,    2020    and     discovered   the

methamphetamine lab. Although the lab was not in operation at the time of

discovery,     the    evidence   shows   that    it   is   extremely    dangerous   for

methamphetamine lab components to be in proximity to each other due to the

risk of fire or explosion. Thus, the mere existence of a methamphetamine lab

in the basement placed Appellant’s parents in danger of death or serious bodily

injury. Accordingly, Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

fails.

         For these reasons, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

         Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                         -9-
J-A11013-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/17/2023

                          - 10 -