Court Opinion

ID: 9385391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 16:07:22.917752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:01.279357
License: Public Domain

J-S33020-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    MUTATIE JOHNSON                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 598 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 5, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002682-2020

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                 FILED APRIL 06, 2023

       Appellant, Mutatie Johnson, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury

trial convictions for possession of a controlled substance, possession of a

controlled substance with intent to deliver (“PWID”), possession of drug

paraphernalia, carrying a firearm without a license, and persons not to possess

a firearm.1 We affirm.

       The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

          On May 29, 2019, Mr. Steve McWilliams, a private
          individual, called 911 to report a domestic dispute at 831
          Rose Avenue in Morton, Delaware County. [Mr. McWilliams
          testified that a black male drove into the driveway in a
____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30), (32); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1),
6105(a)(1), respectively.
J-S33020-22

       vehicle, hit the horn for several minutes and went into the
       house. Mr. McWilliams heard a loud bang, similar to a
       gunshot, coming from the house and saw the driver walk
       back to the vehicle shortly thereafter.]

       Officer Joseph Spence … was dispatched to 831 Rose Avenue
       in Morton, Delaware County, for the report of a domestic
       dispute and possible shot fired. Upon arrival, he observed
       a black car in the driveway that was running. He also
       observed [Appellant] sitting in the front passenger seat of
       the car. Officer Spence made an in-court identification of
       [Appellant].    [Appellant] was looking back in Officer
       Spence’s direction. When [Appellant] saw Officer Spence,
       he started making movements towards the floor of the car
       in between the seat and the passenger side door. As Officer
       Spence approached the vehicle the window was down, and
       he could smell an odor of raw marijuana emanating from
       inside the vehicle. At that time, [Appellant]’s wife came out
       of the house. She became extremely irate. She was yelling
       and screaming at Officer Spence. Officer Spence was trying
       to separate them to take control of the scene and
       investigate the incident.        Officer Spence observed
       [Appellant]’s wife had a swollen left eye, indicating that she
       had just been in a physical altercation.

       Officer Spence explained to them why the police were there
       and asked if there was a gun in the car or house. Both were
       uncooperative and didn’t want to answer any questions.
       [Appellant]’s wife continued to scream and tried to get to
       the car. At that point, she was restrained. Officer Spence
       then walked to the car and looked down into the open
       window. On the floor of the car, he saw four glassine Ziploc
       bags with a white powdery substance that he believed to be
       cocaine.    During the commotion of trying to restrain
       [Appellant]’s wife and with neighbors coming out of their
       houses to see what was going on, [Appellant ran away from
       the scene. Appellant was apprehended ten months later in
       March 2020].

       … Officer Spence then searched the vehicle. After he
       initially saw the four bags of cocaine in plain view, he
       opened the door and saw a man’s Gucci watch in between
       the seat and the door on the floor where the defendant was
       sitting. Officer Spence also located a THC vape pen and a

                                   -2-
J-S33020-22

         bag of suspected marijuana under the seat. He also found
         two zipper pouch bags, one blue and one red. In the blue
         zipper pouch there was suspected marijuana with a rolled
         up $5 bill. In the red zipper pouch there was a chunky white
         substance. Officer Spence also found dozens of unused
         bags underneath the seat. In the cupholder, directly next
         to where [Appellant] was sitting, Officer Spence located an
         iPhone and the keys to the vehicle. Officer Spence used the
         key to unlock the glove compartment.           In the glove
         compartment he located a Smith & Wesson handgun with
         10 live rounds of ammunition in the clip and one round in
         the chamber.

         [Appellant]’s certified driving record was admitted into
         evidence which listed his address as 813 5th Avenue,
         Altoona, Pennsylvania. [Appellant] did not have a license to
         carry a firearm. A certified record from the Pennsylvania
         State Police stating that [Appellant] does not have a license
         to carry a firearm was admitted into evidence.            The
         registered owner of the firearm that was recovered from the
         car was a man who lived in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
         Detective David Taylor testified the gun belonged to Steven
         Patrick O'Connor, 2028 12th Avenue in Altoona,
         Pennsylvania and that the owner did not give anyone else
         permission to possess it.

                                  *    *    *

         Detective Michael Skahill is currently employed with the
         Delaware County District Attorney’s Office in the Criminal
         Investigation Division assigned to the Narcotics Unit. He
         was qualified as an expert in the field of illegal drugs and
         drug distribution. He opined that the drugs found in the
         vehicle near [Appellant] were possessed with the intent to
         deliver.

         Detective Louis Grandizio is employed by the Delaware
         County Criminal Investigation Division as a firearms
         examiner. He was qualified as an expert in the field of
         firearms and ballistics. He examined the firearm recovered
         in this case and opined the firearm was fully functional and
         capable of firing.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/21/22, at 1-5).

                                      -3-
J-S33020-22

      On July 28, 2021, a jury convicted Appellant of possession of a

controlled substance, PWID, possession of drug paraphernalia, and carrying a

firearm without a license. In a bifurcated trial, the trial court found Appellant

guilty of persons not to possess a firearm. On January 5, 2022, the court

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of eight to twenty years of incarceration,

followed by two years of probation. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence

motion on January 18, 2022, which the court denied on January 31, 2022.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 25, 2022. On March 2,

2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, and Appellant complied on March

16, 2022.

      Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

         Whether the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient as
         a matter of law to convict [Appellant] of the charges of
         possession of a controlled substance, [PWID], possession of
         drug paraphernalia, and firearms not to be carried without
         a license, persons not to possess firearms, in which the
         firearm and controlled substances were found, did not
         belong to Appellant, the firearm was found inside a locked
         glovebox within the vehicle and no evidence was introduced
         to demonstrate that Appellant placed the firearm in the
         glovebox or that he was even aware of its presence; where
         the heroin and methamphetamine were not found on
         Appellant’s person, and evidence failed to demonstrate that
         Appellant knew that said controlled substances were within
         the vehicle, or that Appellant exercised conscious dominion
         or control over the said drugs, necessary to find constructive
         possession on the part of Appellant.

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

      On appeal, Appellant asserts that police did not recover the drugs,

                                      -4-
J-S33020-22

paraphernalia, or firearm from Appellant’s person, and the Commonwealth

presented no evidence to demonstrate that Appellant owned the vehicle where

they were discovered. Appellant contends that Ms. Jackie Grueler, who was

identified by Officer Spence as Appellant’s wife, had equal, if not greater,

access to the vehicle and the items located inside. Appellant argues that his

mere presence in the passenger seat of the vehicle is insufficient to

demonstrate that Appellant had a connection to the drugs that were found

under the seat. Additionally, Appellant asserts that the firearm was found in

the locked glovebox, and the Commonwealth presented no evidence to

demonstrate that Appellant accessed the glovebox or its contents. Appellant

concludes that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to

demonstrate that he constructively possessed the drugs or firearm found in

the vehicle, and this Court should vacate the judgment of sentence.      We

disagree.

     Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is as follows:

        The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
        evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at
        trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there
        is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
        element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
        applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence
        and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition,
        we note that the facts and circumstances established by the
        Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
        innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may
        be resolved by the fact-finder 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. The
        Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every

                                    -5-
J-S33020-22

        element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means
        of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the
        above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all
        evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the
        [trier] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses
        and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe
        all, part or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955, 964 (Pa.Super. 2016), appeal

denied, 641 Pa. 63, 165 A.3d 895 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011)).

     The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act defines the

offenses of possession of a controlled substance, PWID, and possession of

drug paraphernalia as follows:

        § 780-113. Prohibited acts; penalties

           (a) The following acts and the causing thereof within
        the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:

                                 *    *    *

                  (16) Knowingly or intentionally possessing a
           controlled or counterfeit substance by a person not
           registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered
           or licensed by the appropriate State board, unless the
           substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a
           valid prescription order or order of a practitioner, or
           except as otherwise authorized by this act.

                                 *    *    *

                  (30) Except as authorized by this act, the
           manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to
           manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a
           person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not
           registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, or
           knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent
           to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance.

                                     -6-
J-S33020-22

                                *       *   *

                 (32) The use of, or possession with intent to use,
           drug paraphernalia for the purpose of planting,
           propagating,     cultivating,  growing,      harvesting,
           manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing,
           processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packing,
           repacking, storing, containing, concealing, injecting,
           ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the
           human body a controlled substance in violation of this
           act.

35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30), (32).

     The Uniform Firearms Act provides, in relevant part:

        § 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture,
             control, sell or transfer firearms

           (a)   Offense defined.—

                 (1) A person who has been convicted of an
           offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without
           this Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence
           or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c)
           shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or
           manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control,
           sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this
           Commonwealth.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).

        § 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license

           (a)   Offense defined.—

                (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
           person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person
           who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person,
           except in his place of abode or fixed place of business,
           without a valid and lawfully issued license under this
           chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

                                    -7-
J-S33020-22

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).

      “When contraband is not found on the defendant’s person, the

Commonwealth must establish constructive possession….” Commonwealth

v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 121 (Pa.Super. 2005). “Constructive possession is

the ability to exercise conscious control or dominion over the illegal substance

and the intent to exercise that control.” Id.

         Dominion and control means the defendant had the ability
         to reduce the item to actual possession immediately, … or
         was otherwise able to govern its use or disposition as if in
         physical possession. … Mere presence or proximity to the
         contraband is not enough. Constructive possession can be
         established by inferences derived from the totality of the
         circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Peters, 655 Pa. 601, 606, 218 A.3d 1206, 1209 (2019)

(internal citations omitted). Further, “knowledge of the existence and location

of the contraband is a necessary prerequisite to proving the defendant’s intent

to control, and, thus, his constructive possession.”      Commonwealth v.

Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 37 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal denied, 651 Pa. 10, 202

A.3d 42 (2019).

      Instantly, the trial court determined that the Commonwealth presented

sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Appellant constructively possessed

the drugs, paraphernalia, and firearm recovered from the vehicle. Appellant

was the sole occupant in the car when Officer Spence approached the vehicle.

Additionally, Mr. McWilliams testified that he saw a black male operating the

vehicle and sounding the horn for several minutes prior to Officer Spence’s

                                     -8-
J-S33020-22

arrival. Regarding the recovered narcotics and paraphernalia, Officer Spence

testified that when he approached the car, he saw Appellant making

movements toward the floor of the car. Officer Spence stated that some of

the recovered drugs were in plain view and the remaining drugs and

paraphernalia were found directly under where Appellant was sitting and

making movement towards.         Taken in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as the verdict-winner, we agree with the trial court that the

evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Appellant constructively

possessed the drugs and paraphernalia.      See Tucker, supra.       See also

Commonwealth v. Cruz Ortega, 539 A.2d 849 (Pa.Super. 1988) (holding

evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession when appellant,

who was in passenger’s side seat of a car that he did not own, was observed

leaning over in his seat and drugs were found under passenger’s side seat of

car).

        Regarding the firearm, the police recovered the handgun from a locked

glovebox located directly in front of the seat where Appellant was sitting. The

keys to the glovebox were found in the center console cup-holder which was

within reach of where Appellant was seated. Beyond Appellant’s proximity

and ability to access the gun, the jury also heard testimony from Mr.

McWilliams about the events that prompted him to call the police.          Mr.

McWilliams testified that he saw the male driver of the vehicle enter the house

and heard a loud bang resembling a gunshot coming from the residence. Mr.

                                     -9-
J-S33020-22

McWilliams then saw the male leave the house, loudly arguing with a female

resident of the house, and get into the passenger seat of the car, where he

remained until Officer Spence arrived. Taking these facts together in the light

most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict-winner, the evidence was

sufficient for the fact-finder to decide that Appellant constructively possessed

the gun to sustain his firearms convictions. See Tucker, supra. Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/6/2023

                                     - 10 -