Court Opinion

ID: 9953681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 16:13:26.383183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:44.196478
License: Public Domain

J-A07042-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DAVID ALONZO DESOUSA                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 910 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 30, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-14-CR-0000888-2020

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                 FILED: MARCH 22, 2024

       Appellant, David Alonzo Desousa, appeals nunc pro tunc from the

judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County

following his open guilty plea to the charge of possession with the intent to

deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).1 After a

careful review, we affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On September

9, 2020, the Commonwealth filed an Information charging Appellant with

numerous drug offenses, and on August 4, 2021, Appellant, who was

represented by counsel, proceeded to a guilty plea hearing.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 As discussed infra, Appellant’s direct appeal rights were reinstated via the

Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46.
J-A07042-24

       At the hearing, the Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) advised the trial

court of the following:

             [T]he facts of this case would be that on July 1 st of 2020
       [Appellant] was here in Centre County. He had a probation
       warrant at that time. He was detained by Centre County Drug
       Task Force Detectives Chris Federinko and Donald Paul and was
       found to be in possession of a number of controlled substances,
       including    fentanyl,     methamphetamine,     acetaminophen,
       hydrocodone. The information does also include heroin but
       ultimately that did test as being fentanyl.
             The amount involved is either over or under one gram of
       fentanyl….[T]hat is to be decided by Your Honor at the time of the
       sentencing but in any event he did possess those substances with
       the intent to deliver them.

N.T., 8/4/21, at 7.

       The Commonwealth noted that it agreed to nol pros numerous charges

in exchange for Appellant pleading guilty to one count of PWID.        The ADA

relevantly indicated:

             [T]he lead count, [to which Appellant is pleading guilty], is
       possession with intent to deliver a number of substances,
       including fentanyl, methamphetamine, and a prescription pill…;
       however, the OGS[2] for that offense is very much set then by the
       fentanyl which is the highest graded substance there.
              There has been some dispute throughout the course of us
       negotiating [t]his case over the quantity of that substance
       involved in this case. There is a lab report that puts the quantity
       of that substance very near to one gram. We have decided that
       will be for Your Honor to decide at the time of sentencing whether
       this case was more than one gram of fentanyl or less than one
       gram of fentanyl and that will largely determine the outcome
       penalty wise for this case, Your Honor.
             He has a prior record score of 5. If the fentanyl is more
       than one gram, it’s an OGS 10 offense with a standard range of
____________________________________________

2 We recognize “OGS” stands for “offense gravity score.”

                                           -2-
J-A07042-24

      60 to 72 months. If it is under one gram of fentanyl, it is an OGS
      8 offense with a standard range of 27 to 33 months.

Id. at 4 (footnote added).

      The ADA informed the trial court that, as part of the plea agreement, if

the trial court determines the fentanyl is more than one gram, the

Commonwealth “would be arguing within the narrow band of…4 to 8 years

versus 5 to 10 years;” however, sentencing would be within the trial court’s

discretion. Id. at 5.

      The trial court conducted a colloquy to ensure Appellant’s guilty plea

was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Id. at 9-11. The trial

court then deferred sentencing so that it could obtain a pre-sentence

investigation report.

      On September 28, 2021, and September 30, 2021, Appellant proceeded

to sentencing hearings. The trial court noted that, pursuant to the parties’

plea agreement, it had the discretion to determine whether the weight of the

fentanyl was over or under one gram, which in turn would determine the

proper offense gravity score. N.T., 9/30/21, at 19. The trial court also noted

that, pursuant to the parties’ plea agreement, the trial court had discretion in

considering the sentencing guidelines based on the applicable offense gravity

score. Id. at 17.

      While Appellant argued throughout the sentencing proceedings that the

weight of the fentanyl was less than one gram, the Commonwealth argued

the fentanyl weighed more than one gram. The trial court found that, based

                                     -3-
J-A07042-24

on   the   evidence   presented    during   the   sentencing    hearings,    the

Commonwealth proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the weight

of the fentanyl possessed by Appellant with the intent to distribute was “in

excess of 1.0 grams.” Id. at 25. Accordingly, the trial court found the offense

gravity score to be 10, and applying the sentencing guidelines, the trial court

sentenced Appellant to four years to ten years in prison with credit for time

served. The trial court noted that, in imposing sentence, it considered the

“protection of the public, the gravity of the offense,…and the rehabilitative

needs of [Appellant].” Id. at 40. The trial court noted it spent a great deal

of time reviewing the case, including the pre-sentence investigation report,

prior to imposing the sentence. Id. at 40-41. The trial court then provided

Appellant with his post-sentence and appellate rights. Id. at 42.

      Thereafter, Appellant filed neither timely post-sentence motions nor a

direct appeal to this Court; however, on August 30, 2022, Appellant filed a

timely, pro se PCRA petition seeking the restoration of his direct appeal rights

nunc pro tunc due to the ineffective assistance of counsel.         Specifically,

Appellant averred he asked trial counsel to file a direct appeal; however, trial

counsel failed to do so.   The PCRA court appointed new counsel to assist

Appellant, and following evidentiary hearings on April 27, 2023, and May 26,

2023, the PCRA court granted Appellant’s PCRA petition to reinstate his direct

appeal rights. On June 23, 2023, Appellant filed a timely, counseled notice of

appeal, and all Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements have been met.

                                     -4-
J-A07042-24

      On appeal, Appellant sets forth the following issue in his “Statement of

the Question Involved” (verbatim):

      I.    Did the lower court err in finding that the Commonwealth
            had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the
            weight of the drug alleged to be possessed by Appellant was
            in excess of 1.0 gram and in sentencing Appellant in
            accordance with that finding?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (answer omitted).

      On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in

determining the weight of the fentanyl possessed by Appellant was more than

one gram, which in turn led the trial court to abuse its discretion in utilizing

an incorrect offense gravity score. Specifically, Appellant contends there was

no evidence that the weight of 1.203 grams, to which the Commonwealth’s

expert, Dana Blake, testified, did not include the packaging of the fentanyl.

As a result, Appellant contends the trial court’s sentence was unduly

excessive, and he seeks resentencing with a lower offense gravity score.

      Initially, we note:

      [W]hile a guilty plea which includes sentence negotiation
      ordinarily precludes a defendant from contesting the validity of
      his…sentence other than to argue that the sentence is illegal or
      that the sentencing court did not have jurisdiction, open plea
      agreements are an exception in which a defendant will not be
      precluded from appealing the discretionary aspects of the
      sentence.

Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 n.5 (Pa.Super. 2005)

(emphasis omitted). “An ‘open’ plea agreement is one in which there is no

negotiated sentence.” Id. at 363 n.1. Here, Appellant’s guilty plea was open

                                     -5-
J-A07042-24

with the parties agreeing that the trial court had the discretion to determine

the weight of the fentanyl possessed with the intent to distribute by Appellant,

which in turn would determine the applicable offense gravity score and

sentencing guidelines.

       It is well-settled that a claim the sentencing court used an incorrect

offense gravity score is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of one’s

sentence.3     See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621 (Pa.Super.

2016); Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en

banc).

       “[C]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle

an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987,

991 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Rather, before reaching the merits

of such claims, we must determine:

       (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved
       his issues; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise
       statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with
       respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether

____________________________________________

3 PWID is an ungraded felony, and sentencing is based, in part, on the amount

of fentanyl possessed. See 240 Pa. Code § 303.15. The more fentanyl
possessed with the intent to deliver, the higher the possible sentence. See
id. This fact is reflected in the sentencing guidelines, specifically in the offense
gravity score. The offense gravity score for PWID of less than one gram of
fentanyl is 8 with a standard range minimum of 27 to 33 months while the
offense gravity score for PWID of more than one gram of fentanyl is 10 with
a standard range minimum of 60 to 72 months. This sentencing scheme is
the recommendation of the sentencing guidelines and does not reflect a
mandatory minimum sentence.

                                           -6-
J-A07042-24

       the concise statement raises a substantial question that the
       sentence is inappropriate under the sentencing code.

Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation

omitted). Here, assuming, arguendo, all of these requirements have been

met, we conclude Appellant’s sentencing issue is meritless.4

       Our standard of review concerning the discretionary aspects of

sentencing is as follows:

       Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
       sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
       absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
       of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
       the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
       sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
       judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or
       arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1184 (Pa.Super. 2005).

       To establish the weight of the fentanyl, the Commonwealth offered the

testimony of Dana Blake, a forensic scientist employed by the Pennsylvania

State Police in the Harrisburg Regional Crime Laboratory. N.T., 9/28/21, at

18. Ms. Blake specifically testified she is a “head scientist” and has “worked

____________________________________________

4 Although Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion, we note the
sentencing transcripts reveal Appellant argued in favor of the fentanyl
weighing less than one gram, and throughout the sentencing proceedings, he
continued to object to the trial court using an offense gravity score of 10.
Further, Appellant’s counsel asked the trial court to preserve for appeal
Appellant’s challenges to the weight of the fentanyl, and, in response, the
Commonwealth indicated Ms. Blake’s testimony established the weight of the
fentanyl. N.T., 9/30/21, at 23-25.

                                           -7-
J-A07042-24

for the state police for about 13 years.” Id. at 20-21. Ms. Blake confirmed

she weighed and analyzed the fentanyl in the instant matter. Id. at 21-24.

      Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Ms. Blake specifically testified the

fentanyl powder had “a net weight of 1.2 grams plus or minus 0.2 grams.”

Id. at 24. She also specifically testified as follows on direct examination by

the ADA regarding the weight of the fentanyl minus the packaging:

            Q: All right. Could you please go through again your analysis
      then of how you would weigh the controlled substance relating to
      [your] conclusion?
             A.     Yes, so in concluding one the item one 72 white paper
      packets with a handicap stamp contained powder. I took those
      72 paper packets containing the powder and I weighed all 72 on
      the balance. The figure that I looked at in my notes was 12.8
      something grams for the gross weight. The total gross weight of
      the 72 packets then I emptied 24 of those packets due to the
      statistical sampling and mentioned in conclusion one. I—emptied
      24 of those packets. I took the empty weight of those 24 packets
      and got three point something.
                                     ***
            Yes, so I emptied 24 packets. I took the empty packets and
      weighed the empty packets and got 3.88 grams. I then did a
      calculation to get the extrapolated net weight of the substance,
      which is the 3.888 grams the empty weight of the packet divided
      by the 24 empty packets to get the average weight of an empty
      pack—of a single empty packet. I then multiplied that weight by
      72 which was the total amount of packets present to get an
      average empty weight of the whole 72 packets. I then subtracted
      that number from the gross weight which I explained to before
      was 12.867 grams and subtracted to get 1.203 grams.
            Q. All right. So, if I am understanding this correctly, and I
      hope you’re following Judge. There are only two components that
      go into the total weight; right? It’s the packaging and the
      controlled substance; correct?
            A. Into the gross weight?
            Q. Correct.

                                     -8-
J-A07042-24

            A. Yes.
            Q. And if you can subtract the weight of all the packaging
      from it you know what the weight of your controlled substance is.
            A. That’s correct.
            Q. And you found out the average empty weight of one
      packet based on reviewing 24 packets, and then applied that to
      the entire 72 subtracted that to your overall weight.
            A. That’s correct, yes.
            Q. And that gives you the weight of just the controlled
      substance plus the packaging.
            A. Yes.
            Q. And that was the 1.203 grams?
            A. Yes.

Id. at 28-29, 31-33.

      Here, the trial court was free to believe Ms. Blake’s testimony. See

Commonwealth v. Myers, 554 Pa 569, 722 A.2d 649 (1998) (holding the

appellate court will accept the factual findings of the sentencing court unless

they are clearly erroneous).      Given Ms. Blake’s testimony established

Appellant possessed more than one gram of fentanyl, absent the packaging,

the trial court properly determined the offense gravity score was 10.

Accordingly, the trial court properly sentenced Appellant under the applicable

sentencing guideline ranges. Thus, we find no merit to Appellant’s

discretionary aspect of sentencing claim.

                                      -9-
J-A07042-24

     For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

     Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/22/2024

                                   - 10 -