Court Opinion

ID: 9956271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 17:11:04.977437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:08.966610
License: Public Domain

J-S37021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JOSE SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 26 EDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0001347-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                               FILED APRIL 1, 2024

       Jose Sanchez-Rodriguez (“Sanchez-Rodriguez”) appeals from the

judgment of sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of drug delivery

resulting in death, multiple counts of conspiracy and possession with intent to

deliver a controlled substance, and related offenses.1 We affirm.

       Sanchez-Rodriguez’s convictions arise from the investigation into the

August 2019 overdose death of Edward Blew (“Blew”) at his home in Monroe

County. An autopsy determined that Blew overdosed on methamphetamines,

heroin, and fentanyl. See N.T., 8/29/22, at 58; N.T., 8/30/22, at 23. The

investigation initially focused on Blew’s housemate, Brittany Vanhouwe

(“Vanhouwe”), who had been arrested and charged previously for a different

overdose death, and in whose room troopers found logs of drug transactions

and other paraphernalia, including yellow baggies, which were also found in
____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2506, 903(a); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S37021-23

Blew’s room. See N.T., 8/25/22, at 178-92. From a review of the logs, the

lead investigator, Trooper Nicholas De La Iglesia (“Trooper De La Iglesia”),

suspected that Vanhouwe’s suppliers were individuals known as “Smoke” and

“Harry,” and that Vanhouwe had given Blew methamphetamines on the day

of his death. See id. at 185-87. Trooper De La Iglesia noted there were used

yellow baggies in a trash can in Vanhouwe’s room, but troopers did not recover

or preserve the used baggies as evidence. See id. at 178. He added that he

had not seen yellow baggies before this investigation. See N.T., 8/30/22, at

106.2 In September 2019, troopers arrested Vanhouwe on a bench warrant.

See N.T., 8/25/22, at 193-94.

       In October 2019, approximately seven weeks after Blew’s death, police

in Salisbury Township, Lehigh County, stopped Sanchez-Rodriguez for a traffic

violation and arrested him after observing marijuana and yellow baggies in

the car (the “October 2019 arrest”). See N.T., 8/26/22, at 57-59. Salisbury

Township      police     searched       the    car   and   recovered:   suspected

methamphetamines and suboxone; digital scales; approximately $3,000 in

cash; over 200 additional yellow baggies, some bundled in a black rubber

band; and several cellphones, including two phones with a phone number

ending -8448 (“the -8448 phones”). See id. at 58-70; N.T., 8/29/22, at 116,

____________________________________________

2 We note that the witnesses, the attorneys, and the trial court used different

terms, at different times, for the small yellow bags at issue in this appeal.
Because the parties and the trial court have not established any meaningful
distinction between terms such as wax or glassine, we use the term yellow
baggies for the purpose of consistency in this decision.

                                           -2-
J-S37021-23

143; N.T., 8/30/22, at 36-37, 39, 66.      Testing confirmed that Sanchez-

Rodriguez was in possession of methamphetamines and revealed that some

of the yellow baggies contained a mixture of heroin and fentanyl. See N.T.,

8/29/22, at 115-16.

     Meanwhile, during his continuing investigation of Blew’s death, Trooper

De La Iglesia obtained a search warrant for Vanhouwe’s phone, and the search

revealed she had contact information for “Smoke,” or “JajoSmoke” at a

number ending in -8448. See N.T., 8/25/22, at 195; N.T., 8/29/22, at 9.

Vanhouwe became a cooperating witness in exchange for a plea offer from the

Commonwealth. See N.T., 8/29/22, at 6. During a proffer session, Vanhouwe

gave a physical description of “Smoke” and stated she believed his name was

Joseph or Jose Ramirez and he was a Latin King; however, she did not mention

that “Smoke” had tattoos. See id. at 28-29; N.T., 8/30/22, at 57-58, 60-61.

Trooper De La Iglesia used the information provided by Vanhouwe to contact

other law enforcement agencies, and he received a tip concerning Sanchez-

Rodriguez’s October 2019 arrest.    See N.T., 8/30/22, at 61.    The trooper

requested from Salisbury Township the evidence from the October 2019 arrest

and obtained a search warrant for the phones taken after that arrest. See id.

at 61-62. Investigators recovered information that the -8448 phones were

among those phones, Sanchez-Rodriguez used the -8448 phones, and

information about an email account using the username “slmbli0nheart.” See

id. at 37-38. Messages and location data obtained from the -8448 phones

and the “slmbli0nheart” user account corroborated Vanhouwe’s accounts of

                                    -3-
J-S37021-23

specific drug transactions she had with “Smoke.” See id. at 37-39, 50-53,

134-52; see also Commonwealth’s Exhibit 66 (mapping, inter alia,

movements of the “slmbli0nheart” account).

      In April 2021, the Commonwealth charged Sanchez-Rodriguez with the

above-stated offenses. The Commonwealth alleged that Sanchez-Rodriguez,

Vanhouwe, another individual identified as Harry Read, and others, had

engaged in conspiracies to deliver methamphetamines, heroin, and fentanyl

between August and September 2019, and Sanchez-Rodriguez was a

principal, accomplice, or coconspirator in delivering the drugs that killed Blew.

See Information, 7/21/21, unnumbered at 1-2.               The Commonwealth

subsequently filed a notice of its intent to introduce evidence of other bad

acts, including the evidence of drug trafficking and gang-related memorabilia

recovered from Sanchez-Rodriguez’s October 2019 arrest.          See Notice of

Commonwealth’s Intention to Introduce Evidence of Crimes, Wrongs, or Other

Acts, 7/27/22, unnumbered at 1. Sanchez-Rodriguez filed a motion in limine

to preclude any evidence from the October 2019 arrest and his membership

in a gang. See Sanchez-Rodriguez’s Motion in Limine, 8/16/22, at 2-3. The

trial court deferred ruling on the motion in limine. See Order, 8/23/22, at 1.

      Of significance to this appeal, at trial, the court overruled Sanchez-

Rodriguez’s objections to the admission of evidence from the October 2019

arrest. See N.T., 8/26/22 at 45-48. The trial court did not expressly rule on

the admissibility of gang-related evidence, and the Commonwealth did not

present such evidence. However, after Sanchez-Rodriguez cross-examined

                                      -4-
J-S37021-23

Vanhouwe about her descriptions of “Smoke” during her proffer, the court

agreed with the Commonwealth that the defense opened the door to

testimony that Vanhouwe told Trooper De La Iglesia that “Smoke” was a Latin

King. See N.T., 8/29/22, at 31-37. Subsequently, the trial court overruled

Sanchez-Rodriguez’s objection to the Commonwealth’s presentation of expert

evidence, through the testimony of Special Agent Christopher Orozco (“Agent

Orozco”), concerning the history and organization of the Latin Kings; the

gang’s use of gold/yellow and black colors; and how Sanchez-Rodriguez’s use

of those same colors, the crown tattoo on his hand, and the term “lion” in the

“slmbli0nheart” email address linked him to the gang. See N.T., 8/30/22, at

113-18, 122-26.

     The jury found Sanchez-Rodriguez guilty of all charges, and the trial

court sentenced him to an aggregate term of thirty-seven to seventy-four

years of imprisonment.     Sanchez-Rodriguez filed a timely post-sentence

motion, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed, and both

Sanchez-Rodriguez and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

     Sanchez-Rodriguez presents the following issues for our review:

     [1.] Did the trial court err in allowing testimony relating to . . .
     Sanchez-Rodriguez’s subsequent narcotics arrest in another
     county during the trial?

     [2.] Did the trial court err in allowing testimony relating to . . .
     Sanchez-Rodriguez’s gang affiliations during the trial?

Sanchez-Rodriguez’s Brief at 2-3 (some capitalization omitted).

                                    -5-
J-S37021-23

      Both of Sanchez-Rodriguez’s issues implicate the trial court’s evidentiary

rulings, and more specifically, the trial court’s determinations that the

evidence from the October 2019 arrest, as well as the evidence concerning

Sanchez-Rodriguez’s gang affiliation, was relevant and not unduly prejudicial.

      “It is well settled that evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion

of trial courts. Accordingly, when a party adverse to a trial court’s evidentiary

ruling seeks appellate review of that determination, that party carries a heavy

burden   to   demonstrate       that   the   trial   court   abused   its   discretion.”

Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 265 A.3d 290, 297 (Pa. 2021) (internal

citations omitted).    “An appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion

based on a mere error of judgment, but rather . . . where the trial court has

reached a conclusion which overrides or misapplies the law, or where the

judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,

prejudice, bias or ill-will.”     Id. at 298 (internal citation, brackets, and

quotations omitted).

      “The threshold inquiry with admission of evidence is whether the

evidence is relevant. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a

fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the

evidence.”    Commonwealth v. Yale, 249 A.3d 1001, 1022 (Pa. 2021)

(internal citations and quotations omitted).

      Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404 generally provides that other bad

acts evidence is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in conformity

with those other acts or to show criminal propensity. See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1).

                                         -6-
J-S37021-23

However, other bad acts evidence may be admissible to prove a relevant fact,

such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,

and absence of mistake or accident. See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).3 Rule 404(b)(2)’s

list of potentially relevant facts is not exhaustive. See Pa.R.E. 404, Comment.

       In a criminal case, other bad acts evidence is admissible only if the

probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).         “Unfair prejudice means a tendency to suggest

decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its

duty of weighing the evidence impartially.” Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119

A.3d 353, 360 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (internal citation and quotations

omitted).    When examining the potential for unfair or undue prejudice, a

cautionary jury instruction may ameliorate the prejudicial effect of the

proffered evidence. See id.

       Sanchez-Rodriguez first argues that the trial court abused its discretion

in admitting evidence concerning his October 2019 arrest.        See Sanchez-

Rodriguez’s Brief at 12-14. He asserts the evidence obtained from his October

2019 arrest was improper propensity evidence, i.e., that because he

possessed controlled substances in October 2019, he must have possessed

them in August 2019. See id. at 13. He acknowledges that the evidence

from his October 2019 arrest included yellow baggies similar to the baggies

____________________________________________

3 Rule 404(b)(2) does not distinguish between prior bad acts and subsequent

bad acts, such as the October 2019 arrest at issue in this appeal.         See
Commonwealth v. Wattley, 880 A.2d 682, 685 (Pa. Super. 2005).

                                           -7-
J-S37021-23

found at Blew’s home after Blew’s overdose. See id. However, he contends

that the prejudicial effect of that evidence outweighed its probative value

because troopers failed to preserve all of the yellow baggies from Blew’s home

and the Commonwealth relied solely on Trooper De La Iglesia’s testimony that

the baggies found in Sanchez-Rodriguez’s car in October 2019 were similar to

the ones he observed in Blew’s home in August 2019. See id.

      The trial court explained that it admitted the evidence from Sanchez-

Rodriguez’s October 2019 arrest because it was relevant to identity. See Trial

Court Opinion, 2/17/23, at 4-5. The court reasoned that the yellow baggies

found in October 2019 “matched the bag[gies] found at the scene of [Blew’s]

death.” Id. at 5. The court added it considered the potential prejudicial effect

of admitting the evidence from the October 2019 arrest and instructed the

jury on the proper uses of the evidence pursuant to its ruling. See id.; see

also N.T., 8/31/22, at 68 (indicating, inter alia, the court charged the jury

that it “must not regard this evidence as showing that [Sanchez-Rodriguez] is

a person of bad character or criminal tendencies for which you might be

inclined to infer guilt”).

      Following our review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial

court’s decision that the evidence from the October 2019 arrest was

admissible. Police witnesses testified that they had not seen yellow baggies

before investigating Blew’s death, but such baggies were found at Blew’s home

in August 2019, when Blew overdosed, and in the car Sanchez-Rodriguez was

driving at the time of his October 2019 arrest. See N.T., 8/30/22, at 106

                                     -8-
J-S37021-23

(noting Trooper De La Iglesia’s testimony he had never seen yellow baggies

before); see also N.T., 8/29/22, at 143 (indicating testimony from a

Commonwealth’s expert witness that this case was the first time he saw yellow

baggies to package drugs because most baggies for heroin or fentanyl were

white). Vanhouwe further testified that the heroin she received from “Smoke”

was packaged in yellow baggies, and she sold those baggies to others. See

N.T., 8/29/22, at 18, 22.    Therefore, the evidence of the yellow baggies

connected Sanchez-Rodriguez to the conspiracies with Vanhouwe and others

to possess drugs with the intent to deliver, and his specific role in supplying

the drugs that contributed to Blew’s death. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/17/23,

at 4-5.   To the extent Sanchez-Rodriguez argues that troopers did not

preserve all of the yellow baggies from Blew’s home for comparison to those

from the October 2019 arrest, that assertion goes to the weight, not the

admissibility, of the evidence from the October 2019 arrest under Rule 404.

Moreover, the court clearly considered the probative value of the evidence

from the October 2019 arrest against its potential prejudice and specifically

instructed the jury not to use the evidence from the October 2019 stop to infer

guilt based on bad character or propensity. See N.T., 8/31/22, at 68. Thus,

we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the evidence from

the October 2019 arrest had a proper evidentiary purpose and the probative

value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.

      Although not discussed by the trial court, we add that the quantity of

paraphernalia, cash, and the types of drugs found as a result of the October

                                     -9-
J-S37021-23

2019 arrest had probative value in determining whether Sanchez-Rodriguez

had access to sufficient quantities of heroin and fentanyl, as well as access to

methamphetamines, and to corroborate that he was the same “Smoke”

Vanhouwe identified as her primary supplier of heroin between August and

September 2019.      Salisbury Township officers, moreover, seized phones,

including the -8448 phone, as a result of the October 2019 arrest, and those

phones yielded additional evidence connecting Sanchez-Rodriguez to specific

sales to Vanhouwe. Based on this record, we conclude Sanchez-Rodriguez’s

claim that the probative value of the evidence from his October 2019 arrest

did not outweigh its unfair prejudice lacks merit. See Tyson, 119 A.3d at

360; see also N.T., 8/26/22, at 58-70, 148, 153, 156-57, ; N.T., 8/29/22, at

26, 115-116; N.T., 8/30/22, at 36-37, 39, 66, 134-52. Accordingly, no relief

is due.

      In his next issue, Sanchez-Rodriguez argues that the trial court abused

its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to present evidence concerning

his gang affiliation to the Latin Kings. See Sanchez-Rodriguez’s Brief at 14-

17.

      A review of the record provides the following context to this issue. After

the Commonwealth filed its pretrial notice of intent to present evidence of

Sanchez-Rodriguez’s gang affiliation, and Sanchez-Rodriguez opposed such

evidence, the trial court deferred ruling on the admissibility of the evidence.

See Notice of Commonwealth’s Intention to Introduce Evidence of Crimes,

Wrongs, or Other Acts, 7/27/22, unnumbered at 1; Sanchez-Rodriguez’s

                                     - 10 -
J-S37021-23

Motion in Limine, 8/16/22, at 2-3; Order, 8/23/22, at 1; N.T., 8/25/22, at 6-

7; see also N.T., 8/26/22, at 76-78. The Commonwealth, therefore, initially

proceeded without presenting gang-related evidence.

       The Commonwealth then presented testimony from Vanhouwe, and she

detailed how she initially met “Smoke” to supply her with heroin and described

actual meetings with Smoke to purchase heroin. See N.T., 8/26/22, at 147-

55; N.T., 8/29/22, at 11-12, 16-18. Vanhouwe identified Sanchez-Rodriguez

at trial as the person she knew as “Smoke.” See N.T., 8/29/22, at 23. During

cross-examination, Sanchez-Rodriguez, through counsel, challenged the

reliability of Vanhouwe’s identification of Sanchez-Rodriguez as “Smoke.” See

id.   at   27-29.      Referring     to   Vanhouwe’s   proffer   session   with   the

Commonwealth, counsel elicited her testimony that she believed “Smoke’s”

actual name was Joseph Ramirez and that she did not mention that “Smoke”

had any tattoos.      See id.4     Before beginning its redirect examination, the

Commonwealth informed the court that during Vanhouwe’s proffer session,

she identified Smoke as a Latin King, and it argued Sanchez-Rodriguez opened

the door to the evidence of his gang affiliation by challenging the reliability of

her identification and emphasizing her failure to mention that “Smoke” had

tattoos. See id. at 31-35. The trial court agreed, and the Commonwealth

elicited Vanhouwe’s testimony that, during her proffer session, she stated

____________________________________________

4 It was apparent that Sanchez-Rodriguez had visible tattoos on his arm and

hand. See N.T., 8/29/22, at 34-35 (indicating counsel’s and the trial court’s
observations during trial that Sanchez-Rodriguez had obvious tattoos).

                                          - 11 -
J-S37021-23

Smoke was a Latin King. See id. at 35-37. Later, the court permitted Trooper

De La Iglesia to testify that Vanhouwe had told him “Smoke” was a Latin King.

See N.T., 8/30/22, at 61. Trooper De La Iglesia used that information, along

with other information Vanhouwe provided about “Smoke,” to locate

information about the October 2019 arrest. See id.

      Next, the Commonwealth proffered that it would present testimony from

Agent Orozco regarding the Latin Kings and Sanchez-Rodriguez’s uses of the

gang’s colors and symbols. See id. at 113-16. Sanchez-Rodriguez objected,

arguing that the testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, and the

Commonwealth was offering the testimony to paint him as a bad person. See

id. The trial court overruled Sanchez-Rodriguez’s objection, noting that the

testimony was relevant to connect him to the yellow baggies, the drugs found

at Blew’s home, and the ““slmbli0nheart” email address, which investigators

used to link Sanchez-Rodriguez to sales to Vanhouwe. See id. at 117. The

court gave the jury a cautionary instruction, and Agent Orozco thereafter

testified concerning the history and structure of the Latin Kings, the local

chapters of the gang being known as “tribes,” the use of gold/yellow and black

colors, and other symbols related to the gang. See N.T., 8/30/22, at 118-19,

122-26.   Agent Orozco identified a picture of a crown tattoo on Sanchez-

Rodriguez’s hand as Latin King symbol, testified the use of “li0n” in the email

“slmbli0nheart” username was consistent with the local “lion tribe” of the Latin

Kings, and opined that the yellow baggies, in conjunction with black rubber

bands, was consistent with the colors of the Latin Kings. See id. at 125-26.

                                     - 12 -
J-S37021-23

      On appeal, Sanchez-Rodriguez asserts that the trial court abused its

discretion in allowing Vanhouwe’s testimony that he was affiliated with the

Latin Kings and Agent Orozco’s testimony about the history, organization,

colors, and symbols of the Latin Kings. See Sanchez-Rodriguez’s Brief at 14-

15. He asserts that unlike other cases where gang affiliation was relevant for

purposes such as motive or to explain a witness’s delay in reporting a crime,

his affiliation with the Latin Kings had no relevant purposes to the charges.

See id. at 14.    Sanchez-Rodriguez claims that the sole purpose of this

evidence was to establish he was a member of a gang and show his propensity

to commit the charged crimes. See id. at 16. The charged conspiracies, he

notes, involved Vanhouwe and other individuals, none of whom were alleged

to be affiliated with the Latin Kings. See id. at 15. He contends that nothing

about the history or organization of the Latin Kings had probative value to

determine whether he committed the charged crimes. See id. at 15-16. The

fact that Vanhouwe stated he was a Latin King during her proffer session, he

argues, did not further Vanhouwe’s identification of him as her supplier. See

id. at 16.

      The trial court concluded that Sanchez-Rodriguez opened the door to his

gang affiliation by cross-examining Vanhouwe concerning the reliability of her

identification and her failure, during her proffer session, to mention that

Smoke had tattoos. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/17/23, at 6. The court further

noted that it gave a cautionary instruction to the jury that the evidence

concerning Sanchez-Rodriguez gang affiliation was to be used for the limited

                                    - 13 -
J-S37021-23

purpose identifying Sanchez-Rodriguez. See id.; see also N.T., 3/19/22, at

118-19 (indicating that the trial court instructed the jury that the purpose of

Agent Orozco’s testimony was for identification and may not be considered to

establish Sanchez-Rodriguez was guilty because he may or not be affiliated

with a gang).

      Following our review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial

court’s conclusion that Sanchez-Rodriguez opened the door to Vanhouwe’s

testimony that she had identified him as a Latin King during her proffer.

Throughout trial, Sanchez-Rodriguez pursued a theory that Vanhouwe and

investigators misidentified him as “Smoke.” See N.T., 8/25/22, at 38-39. His

counsel’s cross-examination concerning the fact that Vanhouwe failed to

mention tattoos during her proffer went to reliability of her identification, as

well as the investigative measures subsequently taken by Trooper De La

Iglesia.   Although the trial court had previously deferred ruling on the

admissibility of references to gang affiliation, further preclusion of the fact that

Vanhouwe stated “Smoke” was a Latin King would have misled the jury and

unduly limited its consideration of Vanhouwe’s identification and the reliability

of Trooper De La Iglesia’s investigation. Thus, we discern no error in the trial

court’s conclusion that Sanchez-Rodriguez opened the door to Vanhouwe’s

testimony that she told investigators that “Smoke” was a Latin King.           See

Commonwealth v. Murphy, 182 A.3d 1002, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2018) (noting

that “[a] litigant opens the door to inadmissible evidence by presenting proof

                                      - 14 -
J-S37021-23

that creates a false impression refuted by the otherwise prohibited evidence”)

(internal citations and quotations omitted).

      We also agree with the trial court’s determination that Agent Orozco’s

testimony linking Sanchez-Rodriguez to the Latin Kings had probative value

to connect Sanchez-Rodriguez to the yellow baggies found at Blew’s home and

the heroin and fentanyl ingested by Blew.          Specifically, the evidence

established that Sanchez-Rodriguez’s possession and use of yellow baggies

was not a mere happenstance but was consistent with his branding of himself

as a Latin King. Moreover, the trial court clearly recognized and balanced the

potential prejudice attendant the admission of the evidence, and we discern

no basis to conclude that the court abused its discretion in finding its

cautionary instruction was sufficient to balance the legitimate purposes of the

evidence against its potential for prejudice.   Cf. Tyson, 119 A.3d at 360.

Thus, no relief is due.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 4/1/2024

                                    - 15 -