Court Opinion

ID: 9395789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:11:36.786151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.196883
License: Public Domain

J-S14042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                    :
                v.                                  :
                                                    :
                                                    :
    CHRISTOPHER JOHN DONAFRIO                       :
                                                    :
                       Appellant                    :   No. 1279 WDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 24, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-37-CR-0000758-2020

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

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                                 FILED: May 18, 2023

        Christopher John Donafrio (Donafrio) appeals from the judgment of

sentence of 6½ to 15 years’ imprisonment imposed by the Court of Common

Pleas of Lawrence County (trial court) after a jury convicted him of possession

with intent to deliver (PWID), simple possession and drug paraphernalia.1 On

appeal, he challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence for his

convictions and the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

                                               I.

        On September 26, 2020, at around 12:30 p.m., two officers from the

Shenango Township Police Department were dispatched for a reported

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (16) and (32).
J-S14042-23

domestic disturbance at Room 111 of the El Dorado Motel in New Castle.

According to the hotel manager who called 911, a man and a woman were

going in and out of the room multiple times and arguing with each other. The

hotel manager also reported that the room was registered to a female named

Heather Fullwood (Fullwood).

      When they arrived at the motel, the officers saw Donafrio walk out of

Room 111. The officers walked over to him and explained why they were

there. Donafrio gave the officers his identification and told them that he had

been in the room with Fullwood, his longtime girlfriend. Donafrio also told

them that they had been fighting and that there was drug paraphernalia in

the room and that he wanted to leave. The officers then went and talked to

Fullwood in the room’s doorway. She told the officers that she and Donafrio

were arguing because he constantly cheats on her. She also told them that

she wanted to leave but Donafrio had her car keys and cell phone. The officers

went back and told Donafrio what Fullwood wanted. He responded that he

wanted his items out of the room. The officers returned and told Fullwood

what Donafrio wanted. Fullwood told them that she did not know where the

items were but that they could come in and search for them.

      Upon entering the room, the officers saw that the room was in disarray.

While searching for Donafrio’s items, the officers saw several items of drug

paraphernalia—hypodermic needles, glass vials with residue, clear plastic

baggies and a scale. When the officers found a clear plastic baggie containing

                                    -2-
J-S14042-23

a large amount of suspected cocaine, the officers stopped the search so that

they could get a search warrant. After obtaining the warrant, police searched

the room and found, among other things, a baggie containing .94 grams of

heroin, fentanyl and tramadol. The police also found multiple units of Narcan,

as well as male and female clothing and a prescription pill bottle with the name

partially written as “Christopher J.”2

       Donafrio and Fullwood were placed under arrest and searched, as

Donafrio was found to have had on him two cell phones and Fullwood’s wallet.

Donafrio and Fullwood were then taken to the police station. While Fullwood

was waiting in an interview room, an officer saw her unbutton her pants and

reach into her crotch area. As a result, the officer called for a female officer

to conduct a strip search of Fullwood. During that search, the officer saw a

baggie in Fullwood’s underwear. Fullwood removed the baggie and gave it to

the officer, at which point the officer stopped searching Fullwood. Drug testing

later revealed that the baggie contained 3.86 grams of heroin, fentanyl and

tramadol.

       While at the station, Donafrio complained that he was having a panic

attack. EMS personnel responded and determined that he needed to go to

____________________________________________

2The officers also towed Donafrio and Fullwood’s car and searched it after
obtaining a search warrant based on a canine search. Inside the car, the
police found a digital scale, a locked safe and clear plastic baggies containing
smaller amounts of suspected drugs.

                                           -3-
J-S14042-23

the hospital along with Fullwood, who appeared under the influence of drugs.

Both Donafrio and Fullwood were taken to the hospital and evaluated before

being discharged a few hours later. Once they were done, two officers drove

them back in a police cruiser. Fullwood was seated behind the driver while

Donafrio was in the rear passenger seat, and both had their hands cuffed in

front of them. As soon as they left, the officer driving noticed in the rearview

mirror that Fullwood was leaning toward Donafrio with their heads almost

touching and that they were seated very close to each other. The officer also

saw that there was a lot of movement. When they arrived back at the police

station, the officer in the passenger seat took Donafrio into the station while

the officer driving took Fullwood. As he opened the rear driver door, the officer

saw two bags of suspected drugs—one on the floor at Fullwood’s feet and the

other between her and the door. The officer also saw that Fullwood’s pants

were completely open with her button undone and the zipper all the way down.

The two bags of suspected narcotics were determined to contain 26.92 and

9.8 grams of heroin, fentanyl and tramadol.

       That same day, Detective Richard Ryhal was called to the police station

to interview Donafrio, who waived his Miranda rights.3        At first, Donafrio

stated that he did not know what the substances were that the police found.

____________________________________________

3 See generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (an accused
subject to custodial interrogation must be advised of the constitutional right
to remain silent and the right to a lawyer).

                                           -4-
J-S14042-23

An hour later, however, Donafrio told the detective that he had been “fronted”

the drugs and that he owed $2,400 for the controlled substances that had

been found.

      Before trial, Donafrio filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming

that the Commonwealth lacked sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie

case for its charges. After his petition was denied, Donafrio filed a motion to

suppress the controlled substances seized and his statements to the police,

asserting that the police illegally arrested him when they first arrived at the

motel and questioned him without giving him his Miranda rights. The trial

court held a hearing on the suppression motion in June 2021 and denied the

motion a few months later in September 2021.

      Donafrio eventually proceeded to trial in March 2022.          At trial, the

Commonwealth      qualified   Detective   Ryhal   as   an   expert   in   narcotics

investigations. As the trial court summarized his testimony:

             Detective Ryhal explained daily usage for heroin or fentanyl
      would be approximately half of a gram to a gram and a half. He
      indicated individuals frequently both sell and use drugs on a daily
      basis to help maintain their addiction. Individuals who are in
      possession of drugs as a user typically have smaller amounts, low
      amounts of cash and items used to ingest the drugs. Items like
      syringes, straws, spoons, lighters, Q-tips and cotton balls are used
      to ingest heroin and fentanyl. Detective Ryhal then explained law
      enforcement look to the totality of the circumstances to determine
      whether to charge an individual with possession with intent to
      deliver and they consider the following factors: “where the
      individuals may be located at, the amount, obviously, other things
      as far as what type of currency they have, the denominations of
      the currency, multiple cellular phones, things of that such.” They
      also factor in whether there are weighing scales and packaging
      materials such as baggies or paper folds.

                                      -5-
J-S14042-23

           Detective Ryhal explained cutting agents are substances
     added to controlled substances used to add weight or to dilute the
     potency of those drugs. On many occasions, powder substances
     are used as cutting agents such as over the counter medications,
     sleeping medications and sugar. According to Detective Ryhal, a
     cutting agent is a sign of possession with intent to deliver as drug
     users will often just ingest a smaller dosage as opposed to adding
     a cutting agent to the controlled substances. He also explained
     the presence of Narcan may indicate possession with intent to
     deliver as heroin and fentanyl can be absorbed through the skin
     and those trafficking substances of that nature keep Narcan
     present in case they accidentally overdose during the packaging
     process. In some instances, drug dealers will allow the person
     purchasing the drugs to sample them to determine the potency of
     the substance, so they keep Narcan present in the event that
     person overdoses.

                                    ***

           Moreover, Detective Ryhal opined those substances
     recovered during the investigation, which did not test positive for
     the presence of controlled substances, were cutting agents due to
     the manner in which they were packaged. Resultantly, it was
     Detective Ryhal’s opinion the amount of controlled substances
     present along with the presence of cutting agents indicated the
     controlled substances were being packaged for selling.
     Additionally, there were a large number of plastic baggies
     throughout Room 111, there were five cell phones present with
     two cell phones discovered in Donafrio's possession, there were a
     large number of syringes, spoons and straws, multiple scales,
     multiple units of Narcan, which, according to Detective Ryhal,
     indicated Donafrio possessed controlled substances with the intent
     to deliver. Detective Ryhal also considered that Room 111 was
     registered to Ms. Fullwood and the controlled substances
     discovered on the floor of Corporal Lough’s vehicle were located
     where she was seated when making his determination. However,
     he explained drug dealers commonly have females transport
     controlled substances as there are fewer female police officers to
     search them, the male is commonly the subject of the
     investigation by law enforcement and females are more readily
     able to conceal the controlled substances.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 7-9 (footnote omitted; cleaned up).

                                    -6-
J-S14042-23

        At the end of trial, the jury trial found Donafrio guilty of the above

offenses.    In finding him guilty of PWID, the jury determined that (1) the

controlled substances possessed were heroin, fentanyl and tramadol, and (2)

the total weight of the controlled substances was 41 grams. At sentencing,

Donafrio’s standard range guidelines for PWID were 72 – 90 months based on

him having a prior record score of five and the offense gravity score (OGS)

being 11 because he possessed over ten but less than 50 grams of a controlled

substance containing fentanyl.4          Based on this calculation, the trial court

imposed a standard range guideline sentence of 6½ to 15 years’ imprisonment

for PWID.5     After his post-sentence motion was denied, Donafrio filed this

timely appeal.

                                               II.

        In his first issue, Donafrio challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for

his PWID and drug paraphernalia convictions.6           The offenses of PWID and

possession of drug paraphernalia are defined by statute as follows:

____________________________________________

4   See 204 Pa. Code § 303.15 (offense listing; 7th ed., amend. 5).

5As for Donafrio’s other convictions, the trial court merged simple possession
with PWID and imposed a concurrent sentence for drug paraphernalia.

6   Our standard of review for a sufficiency challenge is well-settled.

        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

                                           -7-
J-S14042-23

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

                                          ***

              (30) Except as authorized by this act, the manufacture,
       delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a
       controlled substance 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.

                                          ***

              (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.

____________________________________________

       a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
       the evidence and substitute our judgment for a 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 [Donafrio’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 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 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. Williams, 255 A.3d 565, 578-79 (Pa. Super. 2021)
(citation omitted).

                                           -8-
J-S14042-23

35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (32).

     To establish the offense of PWID, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the Donafrio possessed a controlled substance

with intent to deliver. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 121

(Pa. Super. 2005).   “[A]ll of the facts and circumstances surrounding the

possession are relevant and the elements of the crime may be established by

circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Little, 879 A.2d 293, 297 (Pa.

Super. 2005).

     Possession   can   be   established   “by   proving   actual   possession,

constructive possession, or joint constructive possession.” Commonwealth

v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

“Constructive possession is an inference arising from a set of facts that

possession of the contraband was more likely than not.” Commonwealth v.

McClellan, 178 A.3d 874, 878 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

     This Court has explained:

     Where a defendant is not in actual possession of the prohibited
     items, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant had
     constructive possession to support the conviction. Constructive
     possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to deal with the
     realities of criminal law enforcement.           We have defined
     constructive possession as conscious dominion, meaning that the
     defendant has the power to control the contraband and the intent
     to exercise that control. To aid application, we have held that
     constructive possession may be established by the totality of the
     circumstances.

     It is well established that, as with any other element of a crime,
     constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial
     evidence. In other words, the Commonwealth must establish

                                     -9-
J-S14042-23

      facts from which the trier of fact can reasonably infer that the
      defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband at
      issue.

Parrish, 191 A.3d at 36-37 (citations omitted and formatting altered).

      “[T]he power and intent to control the contraband does not need to be

exclusive to the defendant.      Our Supreme Court has recognized that

‘constructive possession may be found in one or more actors where the item

in issue is in an area of joint control and equal access.’ ” Commonwealth v.

Rojas-Rolon, 256 A.3d 432, 438 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). This

Court, however, has stated that “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.

Wright, 255 A.3d 542, 553 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations omitted).

      Under the trial court’s special interrogatories for PWID, the jury

convicted Donafrio of PWID of 41 total grams of heroin, fentanyl and tramadol.

The 41 grams were found in three locations: (1) inside the motel room (.94

grams), (2) on Fullwood (3.86 grams), or (3) in the backseat of the police

cruiser (two baggies totaling 36.76 grams). As discussed, the OGS for PWID

was calculated based on Donafrio possessing at least ten grams of “fentanyl

and its derivatives and analogues.”     Thus, even if we found there was

insufficient evidence that he constructively possessed the drugs found in the

motel room or on Fullwood, we would not disturb his PWID conviction unless

                                    - 10 -
J-S14042-23

there was insufficient evidence that he constructively possessed the 36.76

grams found in the backseat of the police cruiser.7

       Addressing the drugs in the backseat, Donafrio asserts that the only

reasonable inference is that Fullwood had the bags on her the entire time she

was at the hospital and then tried to remove them when she was in the

backseat of the cruiser. Even if he knew about the drugs, Donafrio argues,

he had no ability to exercise any control over those items because he was

handcuffed and strapped into the rear passenger side of the police cruiser.

He, thus, contends that the Commonwealth’s theory of joint or constructive

possession was based solely on his relationship with Fullwood.

       At trial, the Commonwealth called both the officer who drove the cruiser,

Corporal David Lough, and the officer in the passenger seat, Officer Vincent

Buonpane. First, Corporal Lough testified that he checked the backseat when

he first got to the station and did not find anything in it before he went to go

pick up Donafrio and Fullwood at the hospital. See Notes of Jury Trial (N.T.),

3/15/22, at 125.        When asked what he saw while driving Donofrio and

Fullwood back to the police station, Corpora Lough answered that he

“observed Miss Fullwood leaning way over toward Mr. Donafrio. Their heads

____________________________________________

7 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Risoldi, 238 A.3d 434, 456 (Pa. Super.
2020) (affirming defendant’s conviction for theft by deception in a 2.75 million
dollar insurance fraud scheme where there was insufficient evidence for part
of the conviction but the jury’s verdict encompassed other items not
challenged by defendant).

                                          - 11 -
J-S14042-23

were almost touching. That’s how close they were.” Id. at 126. Corporal

Lough continued:

     Well, I mean, she was leaning way over like into his part of the
     seat area. Like I said, it’s not a big back-seat area. There’s not
     a lot of room, but, I mean, she was like leaning way over that
     their heads were almost touching, and there was a lot of
     movement that I was able to witness that. That’s what caught my
     attention was her moving around a lot.

Id. at 127. Officer Buonpane gave a similar account, testifying that when he

turned around in the cruiser to see what was going on, he saw that Donafrio

and Fullwood were “within a few inches of each other at that point, maybe had

even been in contact with each other.” Id. at 116.

     Second, at trial, the Commonwealth qualified Detective Ryhal as an

expert in narcotics investigations. See N.T., 3/16/22, at 25. As part of its

examination, the Commonwealth asked Detective Ryhal the following:

     Q: Now, you’re familiar with the evidence in this case and where
     the narcotics were located?

     A: Yes.

     Q: The hotel room, Miss Fullwood, and the back of the cruiser on
     Miss Fullwood’s side of the vehicle?

     A: Yes.

     Q: What else are you taking into account between the parties?

     A: It was my understanding that Mr. Donafrio and Miss Fullwood
     were a couple at the time, and what will usually be done as well
     with trafficking or transporting illegal narcotics or concealing
     them, they will -- a drug dealer will most likely have a female
     carry it because a female is less likely to be searched. There’s
     less female police officers and the male is usually the subject of
     the investigation. And also, females can more readily or easily

                                   - 12 -
J-S14042-23

      conceal items than     a male could, and all -- and the items that
      were located in the    vehicle all tie back to the motel room based
      on the digital weigh   scales, the packaging materials, the usage of
      the syringes and all   that.

      Q: And in conjunction with the statements made by Mr. Donafrio
      himself?

      A: Yes, absolutely.

Id. 51-52.

      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as verdict winner, we find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to

find that Donofrio constructively possessed the two bags of drugs found in the

backseat after he and Fullwood were brought back to the police station. First,

as Detective Ryhal’s testimony highlights, the jury was not required to view

the evidence recovered in the backseat in a vacuum. Instead, the jury was

free to consider the totality of the circumstances through all the evidence of

the investigation leading to that point.       As the trial court summarized this

evidence as it relates to Donafrio’s challenge:

      It is apparent the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence
      for the jury to determine Donafrio was in constructive possession
      of the controlled substances. First, he was observed exiting Room
      111 and was seen frequently entering and exiting that room
      leading up to the domestic disturbance. In fact, Donafrio had
      possessions still inside of Room 111 when Officer Tressler and
      Officer Hill arrived.    Donafrio was also aware of the drug
      paraphernalia present in Room 111 based upon his statement to
      the police officers. In addition, the execution of the search
      warrant revealed the presence of male and female clothing in
      Room 111 and a prescription pill bottle for “Christopher J.” In
      regards to the controlled substances discovered in Corporal
      Lough’s vehicle, Ms. Fullwood was strip searched prior to being
      transported to the hospital and controlled substances were seized

                                      - 13 -
J-S14042-23

      from her person at that time. When Donafrio and Ms. Fullwood
      were being transported in Corporal Lough’s vehicle, they moved
      closer to each other with their heads almost touching. Ms.
      Fullwood was observed with her pants unbuttoned and there were
      two baggies of controlled substances discovered on the floor
      where she was seated. Both individuals were handcuffed in front
      of them, so they would have been able to pass items back and
      forth to each other and Donafrio also as not strip searched prior
      to being transported to the hospital. Donafrio also admitted to
      Detective Ryhal he owed $2,400.00 for the controlled substances
      seized by police officers. The Commonwealth presented ample
      evidence Donafrio could have exercised dominion or control over
      the controlled substances and drug paraphernalia seized during
      this investigation.

TCO at 18-19 (cleaned up).

      We agree with the analysis but would add that whether Donafrio or

Fullwood had the drugs on them when they entered the police cruiser is not

determinative of our inquiry.      Based on all the evidence, the jury could

conclude either that Donafrio had the drugs and tried to pass them to Fullwood

or that Fullwood had the drugs and Donafrio moved closer to help her discard

them or pass them to him. Under either scenario, the jury did not need to

ignore the officers’ testimony that Donafrio and Fullwood moved closer

together and that there was a lot of movement while they were seated next

to each other. From this evidence, the jury could infer that Donafrio—who

later admitted that all the drugs were fronted to him—constructively

possessed the drugs found on the floor, that is, he had conscious dominion

over the baggies because he had the power to control the contraband and the

intent to exercise that control.    See Parrish, supra.    Thus, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we find there was

                                     - 14 -
J-S14042-23

sufficient evidence that Donafrio constructively possessed the 36.76 grams of

heroin, fentanyl and tramadol found in the backseat of the police cruiser. In

so finding, we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence for the

remaining drugs seized.

      Finally, we also find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to

convict Donafrio of constructively possessing the drug paraphernalia found in

the motel room. Multiple persons may constructively possess contraband if it

is found in an area of joint control and equal access. Id. In Commonwealth

v. Murdick, 507 A.2d 1212 (Pa. 1986), the defendant was convicted of PWID

for drugs found in the bedroom he shared with his wife. After we reversed his

convictions, our Supreme Court found that this type of possession could be

established if multiple actors exercise dominion over the area. Id. at 1214.

The Court reinstated his convictions for possession and PWID, concluding that

“even absent a marital relationship[,] constructive possession may be found

in either or both actors if contraband is found in an area of joint control and

equal access.” Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132,

134-35 (Pa. 1983).

      Like Murdick, the jury could conclude that Donafrio and Fullwood had

equal access to the motel room and the drug paraphernalia found in it. The

hotel manager reported that a man and a woman—presumably Donafrio and

Fullwood—were going in and out of the room.         When the police arrived,

Donafrio admitted to the police that he was just in the motel room and that

                                    - 15 -
J-S14042-23

there was drug paraphernalia in it.            The Commonwealth also presented

evidence that Donafrio’s belongings—including a pill bottle with his name on

it—were inside the room, thus raising the inference that he was staying in the

room with Fullwood even though it was registered in her name. Under these

circumstances, which included Donafrio’s eventual admission to being fronted

the drugs, the jury had sufficient evidence to convict for possession of drug

paraphernalia.

                                           III.

       Donafrio next challenges the weight of the evidence for the jury’s

verdict.8   In his argument, Donafrio notes that the Commonwealth never

checked if the cell phones and digital scales seized were operational. Donafrio

also notes that Detective Ryhal admitted that there were several items found—

such as lighters, spoons and syringes—indicating personal use over a period

of time. Donafrio further faults Detective Ryhal for assuming that he jointly

possessed the controlled substances even though he never actually possessed

them. Indeed, Donafrio contends, there was no evidence that he delivered a

controlled substance to anyone or discussed doing so with Fullwood.

Accordingly, he asserts the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence

and that he should receive a new trial.

____________________________________________

8Donafrio preserved this challenge by including it in his post-sentence motion.
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(3).

                                          - 16 -
J-S14042-23

        After review, we find no relief due.9 As the trial court summarized in

rejecting this claim,

        Donafrio conceded he was in Room 111 and was viewed leaving
        the same. He also acknowledged to Detective Ryhal he owed
        $2,400.00 for the controlled substances seized by the police
        officers. The police officers provided credible testimony as it
        pertains to their observations previously set forth in this Opinion
        and Detective Ryhal’s expert testimony credibly explained his
        rationale for opining Donafrio was guilty of possessing the
        controlled substances with the intent to deliver. There is nothing
        in the testimony and evidence presented at trial which would
        entitle Donafrio to a new trial. Hence, the jury’s verdict was not
        against the weight of the evidence and there are no adequate
        grounds to disturb the jury’s verdict in this case.

Id. at 20-21 (cleaned up).

        We agree with this analysis and find that Donafrio cannot overcome the

high standard for overturning a jury’s verdict based on the weight of the

evidence. To recap, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Donafrio had

____________________________________________

9   Our standard of review for a weight of the evidence claim is as follows:

        Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of
        discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict
        is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has
        had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an
        appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings
        and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial
        court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the
        evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or
        denying a new trial is the [trial] court’s conviction that the verdict
        was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new
        trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

Commonwealth v. Horne, 89 A.3d 277, 285 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).

                                          - 17 -
J-S14042-23

been in and out of a motel room registered to his longtime girlfriend and

containing his belongings. Inside that motel room, the police found not only

all kinds of drug paraphernalia, but also .97 grams of heroin, fentanyl and

tramadol. Later, when his girlfriend was searched, the police found another

3.86 grams of heroin, fentanyl and tramadol, along with expert testimony

explaining that drug dealers often have female companions conceal drugs

because they are less likely to be searched. Then, when Donafrio was being

transported with his girlfriend, police saw them close together and moving,

following which the police found 36.76 grams of heroin, fentanyl and tramadol

in the backseat.    Finally, after all the evidence had been seized, Donafrio

admitted to police that he had been fronted the drugs for an amount that,

according to the Commonwealth’s expert, was within the range for the street

value of the weight of the drugs. See N.T., 3/16/22, at 50 (Detective Ryhal

testifying that 41 grams for the controlled substances found could be between

$2,000-$4,500). Taken all together, we find no error in the trial court, which

heard all the evidence, denying Donafrio’s motion for a new trial based on the

weight of the evidence.

                                      IV.

      For his final two claims, Donafrio contends that the trial court erred in

denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized and his statements to the

police.   While the trial court issued an opinion explaining its reasoning for

denying suppression, Donafrio never requested a transcript of the suppression

                                     - 18 -
J-S14042-23

hearing, nor has one been filed in the certified record. As a result, in his brief,

he attempts to rely on the testimony from the pretrial hearing on the habeas

petition for the facts supporting his suppression argument. However,

       well-settled Pennsylvania law makes clear an appellate court is
       limited to considering only the materials in the certified record
       when resolving an issue. Where the appellant has not made the
       transcript of the proceedings at issue a part of the certified record,
       we have said:

         With regard to missing transcripts, the Rules of Appellate
         Procedure require an appellant to order and pay for any
         transcript necessary to permit resolution of the issues raised
         on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a).... When the appellant ... fails
         to conform to the requirements of Rule 1911, any claims that
         cannot be resolved in the absence of the necessary transcript
         or transcripts must be deemed waived for the purpose of
         appellate review.

Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443, 456 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal

citations omitted).

       Under these circumstances, we are unable to review Donafrio’s claims

without the transcript, particularly his second claim in which claims that his

statement to Detective Ryhal was involuntary.10 In that claim, he faults the

trial judge who heard the motion for not making factual findings on the issue

____________________________________________

10 Donafrio’s first suppression claim is meritless on its face. In his claim, he
contends that the police illegally seized the evidence because there was
insufficient justification for his detainment when the police first arrived at the
motel. However, as discussed, the police found the drugs and paraphernalia
in the motel room after Fullwood, the room’s registered guest, gave consent
to the police search for items that Donafrio requested. See Commonwealth
v. Reid, 811 A.2d 530, 542 (Pa. 2002). (“A search warrant is not required,
however, where a person with the proper authority unequivocally and
specifically consents to the search.”).

                                          - 19 -
J-S14042-23

at the time that he issued his denial of the suppression motion. However, in

the absence of a transcript of the hearing, we are unable to evaluate whether

the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence showing that Donafrio

voluntarily waived Miranda rights in electing to give a statement to Detective

Ryhal.    As explained, “[w]hen the appellant ... fails to conform to the

requirements of Rule 1911, any claims that cannot be resolved in the absence

of the necessary transcript or transcripts must be deemed waived for the

purpose of appellate review.” Id. “We are limited to considering only those

facts    which   have   been   duly   certified   in   the   record   on   appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Osellanie, 597 A.2d 130, 131 (Pa. Super. 1991). “[I]t

is not the responsibility of this [C]ourt to obtain a copy of [a] transcript for

the purposes of reviewing the client’s claims.” Id. at 132. For these reasons,

since we cannot review this issue without reference to the transcript of the

suppression hearing, our review is hampered and we must deem the issue

waived.

        Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      - 20 -
J-S14042-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/2023

                          - 21 -