Court Opinion

ID: 9382732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 16:11:33.662193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.231670
License: Public Domain

J-S02029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 EBBIN TRAMANE DEVOSE                    :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 727 MDA 2022

      Appeal From the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 29, 2020
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-40-CR-0002334-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                         FILED: MARCH 28, 2023

     Appellant, Ebbin Tramane Devose, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on April 29, 2020. We affirm.

     The trial court thoroughly summarized the underlying facts of this case:

        The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Trooper
        Michael Wienckoski (Trooper). The witness testified he was
        employed by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) in the
        vice/narcotics unit at Troop P in Wyoming. He has been
        employed in this capacity since 2017. In his current role, he
        testified he is engaged in drug investigations. Notably, the
        Trooper underwent training with the PSP, Pennsylvania
        Narcotics Association, and Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
        At the time of his testimony the Trooper stated he
        participated in nearly 500 drug investigations.

        On June 21, 2019, the Trooper was engaged in this drug
        investigation accomplished through a controlled buy, which
        culminated in the arrest of [Appellant]. The Trooper provided
        background information as it related to the use of the
        confidential informant[] (CI) to contact [Appellant] herein.
        The CI's role involved setting up a controlled purchase of
        heroin on the date in question. The Trooper identified the CI
J-S02029-23

       in this case as Shawn Parker (Parker). Parker made a
       telephone call in the Trooper's presence and spoke to an
       individual known to Parker as "T" (hereinafter identified as
       [Appellant]). Parker and T agreed to meet in a location in the
       city of Wilkes-Barre more commonly known as "Save-A-Lot."

       The Trooper specifically testified to searching both Parker and
       his paramour for money, drugs or any type of contraband
       prior to the controlled purchase. . . . The Trooper also
       testified that a search of Parker's motor vehicle, a four-door
       white Lincoln Continental, was completed prior to the
       controlled buy. The Trooper verified Parker, his paramour,
       and the vehicle did not contain contraband or money.
       Thereafter, Parker was provided recorded money from a PSP
       account in order to purchase the drugs. The Trooper stated
       the money was photocopied prior thereto to record the serial
       numbers. Commonwealth Exhibit No. 1 was identified as the
       document containing a photocopy of five $20 bills utilized to
       purchase the narcotics.

       The Trooper's testimony reflects Parker was under constant
       surveillance by him and/or other law enforcement officers
       throughout the transaction. [Appellant] was observed in the
       area of the Save-A-Lot as agreed to in the telephone call
       Parker made in the presence of the Trooper. At this location,
       [Appellant] was observed entering the back seat of Parker's
       vehicle. [Appellant] was identified in court by the Trooper at
       the time of his testimony. Parker and [Appellant] drove to an
       area identified as Metcalf and Hudson Streets in Wilkes-Barre
       [] - approximately a quarter to one-half of a mile from the
       Save-A-Lot location. [Appellant] was observed exiting the
       vehicle at this location and, after a brief period, [Appellant]
       returned and re-entered the vehicle. The record reflects law
       enforcement did not observe any other individual[s]
       approached Parker's vehicle on the date, time and location of
       the transaction. Shortly thereafter, the vehicle seizure was
       initiated and [Appellant] was arrested.

       A search of Parker's vehicle after the seizure resulted in the
       discovery of the contraband in the center console.
       Commonwealth Exhibit No. 2 was identified as the packets of
       purported heroin - later by testing determined to be fentanyl
       as set forth in the stipulation entered of record. The Trooper
       testified the packaging was typical for heroin and/or fentanyl.

                                    -2-
J-S02029-23

       In addition, two cell phones were recovered on the person of
       [Appellant]. Notably, the recorded buy money was not found,
       nor any other contraband.

       The Trooper verified Parker was compensated for his work as
       a CI in the amount of $280. The funds were obtained from
       the PSP confidential informant account.

       Parker testified for the Commonwealth and stated he was 55
       years of age and originally from Reading but then resid[ed in
       Wilkes-Barre]. He acknowledged working as a CI for the PSP
       on the date in question. Additionally, he corroborated his role
       in making a drug purchase from [Appellant], known to him
       as "T". Parker testified he and his paramour, Jessica Brew
       (Brew), met [Appellant] at a time prior to this incident at a
       location near a [Wilkes-Barre] business establishment known
       as Crown Chicken. Apparently, [Appellant] provided a
       telephone number to Brew so they could contact him.

       Parker, consistent with the Trooper, testified he contacted
       [Appellant] on the date of the controlled buy and told him he
       was looking to purchase rock cocaine. Thereafter, he stated
       the substance was heroin. Parker identified [Appellant] in
       court at the time of his testimony. He stated he picked
       [Appellant] up at Save-A-Lot, talked about what he wanted
       to buy, and thereafter gave him a ride to obtain the drugs.
       Parker testified he gave [Appellant] the recorded money and
       that [Appellant] obtained the drugs and handed them to
       Brew. He stated Brew put the drugs in an ashtray. Parker
       testified [Appellant] spoke to an unidentified individual prior
       to returning to the vehicle with the contraband.

       Parker testified that he, Brew and the vehicle were searched
       prior to the controlled buy. Parker also identified
       Commonwealth Exhibit No. 2 as the contraband purchased
       on the date in question and he further testified to receiving a
       cash payment for his participation in the controlled purchase.

       Cross-examination revealed Parker was scheduled to be in
       Reading on the 12th of March to answer for what he described
       as a retail theft charge. Reference was also made to a case
       pending in Schuylkill County from 2018, which Parker stated
       was dismissed. Cross-examination also revealed the ashtray
       where Brew placed the drugs was in fact located in the

                                    -3-
J-S02029-23

       console of the vehicle where the Trooper stated [the] drugs
       were found.

       Parker's paramour, Jessica Brew, testified she was [30] years
       of age and from [Wilkes-Barre]. On or about June 21, 2019,
       she acknowledged being with Parker at the time of the
       controlled buy. Brew corroborated the fact that the police
       searched them and the vehicle before the controlled buy.

       Brew testified Parker made the call to the individual then
       known and referred to as "T". She corroborated the historical
       events insofar as [Appellant] approached her previously while
       Parker was purchasing a pack of cigarettes in a store located
       next to Crown Chicken to inquire as to whether she needed
       anything, noting he could obtain it. At that point, [Appellant]
       provided a telephone number. Brew identified [Appellant] in
       court at trial. Brew verified they went to the area of Hudson
       Street to obtain the drugs. Brew testified [Appellant] got out
       of the vehicle in that location and went into a house. When
       he returned to the vehicle, he provided the contraband to her.
       Brew stated she thought the contraband was heroin but later
       learned it was fentanyl. She identified the packets of
       contraband at trial. Brew acknowledged working for the
       police due to criminal charges in Berks County.

       On cross-examination, Brew stated she didn't know exactly
       what house [Appellant] went into but recalled it was located
       on Hudson Street. She testified she could identify the house
       at the location because she watched him. Brew testified there
       was a black individual on the porch known as "Taz." Re-direct
       examination revealed Brew, upon initially meeting
       [Appellant] prior to this transaction, was asked by him if she
       needed crack, dope or anything.

       The next witness was Sergeant Joe Sinavage (Sergeant) who
       testified he was employed by the [Wilkes-Barre] Police
       Department for 13 years. Prior to that he was in the military
       and received training in narcotics and detainee transfer.
       Sergeant's testimony reveals he is a certified expert with the
       Luzerne County District Attorney's office and has participated
       in no fewer than 100 narcotics arrests. On June 21, 2019, he
       was assisting the PSP in a buy-bust operation. Upon
       completion of the surveilled transaction, he initiated the
       vehicle seizure. He corroborated the location in the area of

                                    -4-
J-S02029-23

       Hudson Street. The Lincoln Town car operated by Parker was
       stopped on Park Avenue, south of Lehigh Street in
       [Wilkes-Barre] after the controlled buy. The occupants were
       taken into custody at that point. Sergeant identified
       [Appellant] in court at the time of his testimony.

       The Commonwealth rested and [Appellant] testified on his
       own behalf. He is 38 years old and resides . . . in the city of
       [Wilkes-Barre,] although he occasionally stays with his wife.
       . . . [Appellant declared] that June 21, 2019, was a Friday
       and an obligatory prayer day for his Muslim faith. He stated
       the location for prayer is on the corner of Academy and
       Franklin Streets in [Wilkes-Barre].

       [Appellant] testified he spoke to Parker in the morning prior
       to prayer. He agreed Parker referred to him as "T".
       [Appellant] testified Parker contacted him for the purpose of
       procuring [marijuana], noting he and Parker would smoke
       weed together. [Appellant] acknowledged he went to the
       Save-A-Lot about 2 p.m.; however, he maintained the trip
       was to procure corned beef hash for breakfast at his wife's
       behest. He was unable to obtain corned beef hash at the
       Save-A-Lot. While the record of his testimony is somewhat
       convoluted, [Appellant] nonetheless agreed he met Parker
       and Brew at the Save-A-Lot location.

       [Appellant’s] testimony demonstrates he entered the rear
       seat of Parker's vehicle at the Save-A-Lot. He contends he
       sought a ride to another supermarket in the city of
       [Wilkes-Barre] identified as Shield's or, in the alternative, a
       ride to his wife's residence. He also acknowledged Brew was
       in the right front passenger seat and Parker was driving.
       [Appellant] denied the history of meeting Brew prior in time
       and the offer to sell her drugs. Notwithstanding, he
       acknowledged he was with Parker and Brew at the relevant
       time and that he, Parker and Brew traveled to Metcalf and
       Hudson Streets in [Wilkes-Barre].

       [Appellant] testified he was in possession of two cell phones
       on the day of his arrest. The items were identified and
       admitted as Commonwealth Exhibit No. 4. [Appellant]
       identified one cell phone obtained through public assistance .
       . . and he stated the phone worked well. Notwithstanding,
       [Appellant] testified he and his wife went half on the cost of

                                    -5-
J-S02029-23

       an additional phone[]. The record reflects [Appellant]
       acknowledged the calls placed to him by Parker on the date
       in question were indeed to one of the phones in his
       possession.

       [Appellant] testified he attempted to call an individual
       identified as "Fat Boy" at Parker's request. [Appellant]
       testified he knows the individual as "Dutch." [Appellant]
       agreed he is familiar with individuals identified by Brew, to
       include Taz, who he acknowledged purchasing weed from and
       an individual by the name of " Grip." [Appellant] testified Grip
       and Taz are allegedly uncle and nephew and a source of weed
       for him. Coincidentally, [Appellant] testified Taz apparently
       lived on the corner of Metcalf and Hudson.

       On the day in question, [Appellant] testified he attempted to
       reach Fat Boy a/k/a Dutch at the behest of Parker.
       [Appellant] stated he told the individual via text that Parker
       wanted two little eighths of weed and [Appellant] further
       stated the individual indicated he would come over in five
       minutes. [Appellant] testified this individual came to the
       vehicle and passed "whatever" to Parker and Parker passed
       it off to Brew.

       Notably, [Appellant] acknowledged getting out of the Lincoln
       at the Metcalf and Hudson location consistent with the
       witness testimony for the Commonwealth. However,
       [Appellant] testified he simply yelled to Taz through the
       window of the house, but stated the house was empty so he
       returned to Parker's car. While [Appellant] acknowledged
       speaking to someone while out of the car at Metcalf and
       Hudson, he stated it was just an individual walking by and he
       simply acknowledged him by saying "Hey".

       [Appellant] denied any knowledge of what Fat Boy a/k/a
       Dutch handed to Parker. [Appellant] testified that after
       Parker received the item from Fat Boy he gave it to Brew and
       she placed it in her waistband. [Appellant] also specifically
       denied handing fentanyl to Brew and he denied receiving
       money from Parker. [Appellant] testified he had $123 on him
       at the time he was taken into custody; however, he was not
       found in possession of the recorded buy money or
       contraband.

                                    -6-
J-S02029-23

       [Appellant] testified police stopped Parker after the
       transaction and removed them from the car. He stated he
       observed Brew reach inside her pants and give the
       contraband to police. [Appellant] testified no contraband was
       found by police inside the car.

       At the conclusion of the first day of trial, [Appellant]
       consented to the extraction of a text exchange from his cell
       phone (notably, this was done with his assistance). He
       thereafter identified Joint Exhibit No. 1, and acknowledged
       that "OG FRN SM" reflects the designated name for Parker in
       the cell phone. The images of the text messages
       authenticated by [Appellant] corroborate the fact that Parker
       contacted [Appellant] and stated his desire to obtain two
       "bundles" as well as weed. [Appellant] communicated he was
       going to prayer and he would call Parker when done. The
       exchange thereafter demonstrates that, when asked by
       Parker when [Appellant] would be out of his prayer,
       [Appellant] replied, "I'm out" and texted, "Save-A-Lot", to
       which Parker replied, "On my way". [Appellant] initially
       contended that when Parker requested dog food he was
       referring to weed. [When] questioned as to a portion of the
       text message wherein Parker requested two "bundles,"
       [Appellant] testified he believed Parker wanted heroin.
       [Appellant] also defined "hard" to mean crack. [Appellant]
       understood Parker to have a need for the hard or crack
       because he had some sales.

       The aforementioned text exchange corroborates the
       Trooper's testimony as it relates to the communication to set
       up the controlled buy. Notwithstanding [Appellant’s]
       testimony that he believed he was only assisting Parker in
       obtaining weed, the record demonstrates [Appellant]
       understood dog food and the reference to two bundles to
       mean heroin.

       The Trooper was recalled by the Commonwealth and
       identified "Fat Boy" as Tahji Swinney. He stated there are
       open investigations related to Fat Boy and active warrants for
       his arrest. The Trooper's testimony reflects they utilized
       Parker and Brew to make controlled buys from Fat Boy. The
       Trooper stated Parker and Brew completed approximately 50
       buys from Fat Boy in the two to three months prior to June
       21, 2019.

                                   -7-
J-S02029-23

         The Trooper testified that the telephone number found in
         [Appellant’s] phone, . . . was the telephone number
         belonging to Parker. The Trooper confirmed that "dog food"
         – or for that matter anything that starts with the letter D —
         relates to a request for dope which is heroin or fentanyl. The
         Trooper stated he never heard “D” or "dog food" used to refer
         to marijuana.

         On cross-examination, the Trooper testified he did not see
         Fat Boy at the location of Hudson and Metcalf on the day of
         this controlled buy.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/22, at 2-10 (footnotes and citations omitted).

       Following trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of two counts of

possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver (“PWID”) and

one count each of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug

paraphernalia, and criminal use of a communication facility.1     On April 29,

2020, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of five

to ten years in prison for his convictions.      Following the nunc pro tunc

reinstatement of Appellant’s direct appellate rights, Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal. Appellant raises one claim to this Court:

         Whether the Commonwealth failed to prove by sufficient
         evidence that [] Appellant was guilty of the crimes charged[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 1.

       We review Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge under the

following standard:

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), (16), and (32) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a),
respectively.

                                           -8-
J-S02029-23

        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 [that of] 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
        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. Callen, 198 A.3d 1149, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

      Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions because:     “there is no proof that the confidential informants,

Shawn Parker [] or Jessica Brew [], were ever searched prior to the incident,

or that even the vehicle was searched;” “the $100 pre-recorded buy money

was never found on [Appellant] or in the subject vehicle;” “the only drugs

found were located in the center console where both the confidential informant

and his girlfriend were located, and that [Appellant] was in the back seat;”

and, “both Parker and Brew were looking to seek consideration for pending

criminal charges in exchange for cooperation in this matter thus severely

challenging their credibility.” Appellant’s Brief at 9.

                                      -9-
J-S02029-23

      Appellant’s specific claims on appeal fail, as they challenge the weight,

not the sufficiency, of the evidence. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Widmer,

744 A.2d 745, 751-752 (Pa. 2000) (explaining the differences between a

weight and a sufficiency of the evidence challenge).      Further, Appellant’s

general claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his PWID conviction

fails because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s determination

that Appellant sold Parker and Brew fentanyl. To be sure, both Parker and

Brew testified that, on the day in question, Appellant sold them the fentanyl.

See, e.g., N.T. Jury Trial, 3/10/20, at 113 (Parker testified: “[Appellant and

I] talked about what I wanted to buy. And he said, okay. I had to give him

a ride over to get it. He went and got it – I gave him the money. He went

and got it, came back, gave the drugs to [Brew]; and she put it in the

ashtray”); and 137 (Brew testified: “[Appellant] got out [of the car]. He went

into the house. [Parker] gave him the money. When [Appellant] came back

to the car, he gave [the drugs] to me. I put it in the ashtray”). Appellant’s

claim on appeal thus fails.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                    - 10 -
J-S02029-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/28/2023

                          - 11 -