Court Opinion

ID: 9394505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 17:07:21.869106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.525871
License: Public Domain

J-A11043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                    :
                v.                                  :
                                                    :
                                                    :
    ZACHARY ALLEN SMITH                             :
                                                    :
                       Appellant                    :   No. 993 WDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 17, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-62-CR-0000300-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                                 FILED: May 15, 2023

        Zachary Allen Smith (Smith) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County (trial court) following

his jury conviction of criminal conspiracy (contraband), two counts of

possession with intent to deliver (PWID), and criminal use of a communication

facility.1   On appeal, Smith challenges the sufficiency and weight of the

evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.

                                               I.

        This case arises from Smith’s involvement in planning to obtain

Suboxone to distribute to fellow inmates at the Warren County Prison in June

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512.
J-A11043-23

2021.     Smith used the inmate messaging and recorded telephone calling

system on several occasions to arrange for delivery of the drug with his

cellmate Bruce Campbell (Campbell) and Campbell’s then-girlfriend, Amanda

Brown (Brown).

        At Smith’s May 24, 2022 jury trial, Warren County Prison Warden Jon

Collins explained that the prison maintains a call log of inmate phone calls

stating the date, time, length of the call and the phone number of the person

listed on the inmate’s call list. Phone calls are screened and recorded, as are

emails sent through jail tablets. Warden Collins explained that inmates are

permitted to have family or friends drop off new articles of clothing during the

first 14 days of their incarceration. This clothing must be new, in the original

packaging, white in color, and are commonly referred to as “Whites.” (See

N.T. Trial, 5/24/22, at 57).

        Regarding medications in the prison, Warden Collins stated that

although inmates are typically administered drugs they have already been

prescribed upon assessment, certain medications are not allowed, including

opioids and Suboxone.      Warden Collins recounted that in June 2021, he

received reliable information from an inmate that drugs were being smuggled

in through Whites and he began investigating Smith and Campbell by

monitoring their phone calls, text messages and emails.         Warden Collins

testified that on June 21, 2021, a female brought in Whites for Campbell and

Officer Sarah Eckman refused to accept them because Campbell had exceeded

                                     -2-
J-A11043-23

his 14-day allowance for Whites. The female left the facility but returned a

short time later and indicated that the Whites were for a different inmate,

David Smiley. Warden Collins and Officer Eckman searched the items while

wearing a bodycam and found Suboxone sewn into the underwear.

     Brown testified that she first brought Suboxone into the jail for Campbell

on or around June 5, 2021, by sewing it into underwear. She relayed that in

a June 10, 2021 email, Campbell told her, “I got my whites . . . thank you so

much babe, my bunky also needs whites . . . smittys name is zachary allen

smith, don’t worry about money for now because I have everything I need if

you know what I mean.” (Id. at 69). Brown explained that in this email,

Campbell was referring to the shirts and underwear she had brought in

containing Suboxone.    In a subsequent email, Campbell asked Brown for

“more today . . . because I got rid of my whites [for] 50.00 in food” and that

he “NEED 4 times WHAT U JUST GAVE ME,” which Brown interpreted to mean

that she was to put additional Suboxone in the Whites. (Id. at 71-72).

     The jury listened to phone calls between Brown and Campbell recorded

that same day, and Brown testified that Campbell’s reference to “Smitty” was

to Smith, that they were talking “about me going and getting the Whites and

bringing in some more of the Suboxone” and “picking up a backpack at

[Smith’s] dad’s house that had some Suboxone in it.” (Id. at 74). Campbell

and Brown again spoke about the backpack in a phone conversation on June

13, 2021.

                                    -3-
J-A11043-23

        Brown testified that she and Smith then began to email each another

directly and in a June 15, 2021 message, Smith indicated that he was “trying

to get ahold of my dad right now” and was “looking for loyalty, especially

because of the game I’m in, I need someone to be there by my side no matter

what.” (Id. at 81). In a June 16, 2021 phone call, Campbell gave Brown the

home address of Smith’s father and indicated that the drugs would be in the

front part of the backpack. In a June 19, 2012 email exchange, Smith asked

Brown if she went “up there” and she responded, “Yes I been wanting to talk

to you I took the whole bag . . . there was 9 and two halves.” (Id. at 100-

01). Brown testified that although she told Smith that there were nine and

two-halve pills, there were actually 15 pills in the backpack and she kept the

rest.   Smith thanked her and asked her when she was coming to the jail.

Campbell told her to drop the items off for inmate Daniel Smiley.

        On June 20, 2021, multiple communications between Brown, Campbell

and Smith were exchanged expressing frustration that Brown could not find

transportation to the jail to bring the Whites. Smith tried to arrange a ride for

her and told her if Smiley “doesn’t come thru, we have someone that will[.]”

(Id. at 109). On June 21, 2021, Brown and her sister, Julie Arnold, took the

Whites labeled with Smiley’s name to the prison and Arnold brought them in

because Smith was on probation. Officer Eckman initially refused acceptance

of the Whites because Arnold used Campbell’s name, but she accepted them

when Arnold brought them in for Smiley.         Brown testified that she was

                                      -4-
J-A11043-23

arrested in July for her role in the incident, and that everything she testified

to at trial was truthful.

      On cross-examination, Brown acknowledged that when she was

arrested, she told authorities that Campbell had arranged for delivery of the

Whites and she did not mention Smith’s name at all. The first time Brown

advised authorities that Smith was involved in the incident was on March 2,

2022, one day before Smith was originally scheduled for trial. On that date,

Brown was put in jail for a probation violation. The Commonwealth offered

her a plea bargain to conspiracy for contraband and agreed to petition the

court to nolle pross ten felony charges that had been brought against her.

Brown also testified that she initially lied to police about her participation in

the incident because she was embarrassed and that she was telling the truth

now. Brown acknowledged that in the recorded communications she had with

Smith and Campbell, they did not expressly use the terms “Suboxone” or

“pills.” (See id. at 116, 118).

      The jury found Smith guilty of the above-stated charges and the trial

court deferred sentencing for preparation of a pre-sentence investigation

report. On June 17, 2022, the trial court sentenced Smith to an aggregate

term of 72 to 144 months of incarceration. It denied Smith’s post-sentence

motion disputing the sufficiency and weight of the evidence on August 5, 2022,

after a hearing. In doing so, the trial court found that while “some of the

evidence was circumstantial [] there was certainly direct evidence and

                                      -5-
J-A11043-23

compelling evidence that there was a conspiracy to bring the Suboxone into

the jail . . . so all of the four offenses were fully supported by the evidence

presented by the Commonwealth.”                (N.T. Hearing, 8/05/22, at 4).   Smith

timely appealed and he and the trial court complied with Rule 1925. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (a)-(b).

                                               II.

                                               A.

       Smith first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the

criminal conspiracy, PWID and criminal use of a communication facility

offenses.      (See     Smith’s    Brief,      at    10-13).2   Smith   contends   the

Commonwealth’s evidence failed show that there was an agreement between

himself, Campbell and Brown to bring Suboxone into the prison, where Brown

merely testified to “some ambiguous language that she argued established an

____________________________________________

2Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is
well-established:

       In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must
       determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all
       reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light
       most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all
       elements of the offense. Additionally, we may not reweigh the
       evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact
       finder. The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it
       links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Arias, 286 A.3d 341, 349 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations
omitted).

                                            -6-
J-A11043-23

agreement to deliver the pills.”   (Id. at 10).   Smith maintains that the

testimony evidenced only that he intended for Brown to retrieve his backpack.

(See id. at 13).

     Under the Crimes Code, “[a] person is guilty of conspiracy with another

person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or

facilitating its commission he: (1) agrees with such other person or persons

that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes

such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.

§ 903(a)(1).

     As to the sufficiency of evidence offered to prove conspiracy, this Court

has determined:

           Circumstantial evidence may provide proof of the
     conspiracy. The conduct of the parties and the circumstances
     surrounding such conduct may create a ‘web of evidence’ linking
     the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
     Additionally:

           An agreement can be inferred from a variety of
     circumstances including, but not limited to, the relation between
     the parties, knowledge of and participation in the crime, and the
     circumstances and conduct of the parties surrounding the criminal
     episode. These factors may coalesce to establish a conspiratorial
     agreement beyond a reasonable doubt where one factor alone
     might fail.

Commonwealth v. Irvin, 134 A.3d 67, 76 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations

omitted).

     “To establish the offense of PWID, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a controlled

                                    -7-
J-A11043-23

substance with the intent to deliver it.” Commonwealth v. Greenlee, 212

A.3d 1038, 1045 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted); see also 35 P.S.

§ 780-113(a)(30). Lastly, the Crimes Code defines the offense of criminal use

of a communication facility as using “a communication facility to commit,

cause or facilitate the commission or the attempt thereof of any crime which

constitutes a felony under this title or under . . . the Controlled Substance,

Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a). For a defendant to

be found guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must present evidence

establishing that he used a communication facility to complete or attempt a

felony.    See Commonwealth v. Steele, 234 A.3d 840, 847 (Pa. Super.

2020).

      In the instant case, the evidence reflects that Warden Collins began

monitoring the communications of cellmates Smith and Campbell after he

received reliable information that Suboxone was being brought into the prison

using Whites dropped off for inmates.         Brown testified to Smith’s role in

securing the Suboxone through his father, which she obtained in a backpack

at Smith’s parents’ residence at the direction of the inmates. Brown, Campbell

and Smith sent multiple email messages to one another discussing the

logistics of the Suboxone delivery during the time period immediately

preceding confiscation of the drug sewn into the Whites by prison officials.

Although    they   did   not   use   the   specific   word   “Suboxone”   in   the

communications, the jury could reasonably infer that they were referencing

                                       -8-
J-A11043-23

the drug when considering the context and the circumstances surrounding

their conversations.

       Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as verdict winner, see Arias, supra at 349, the evidence was sufficient to

establish the existence of an agreement between Brown, Campbell and Smith

to distribute Suboxone in the jail. Accordingly, Smith’s sufficiency challenges

merit no relief.

                                               B.

       Smith next challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his

conviction.    (See Smith’s Brief, at 13-15).       Smith contends the verdict is

supported only by ambiguous recorded communications, and he characterizes

Brown’s testimony explaining them as “highly suspect” and unreliable. (Id.

at 15). Smith points to Brown’s initial denial of her role in the incident and

her delay in reporting Smith’s involvement until she was incarcerated for a

probation violation and offered a plea bargain to testify against him. Given

these issues with Brown’s testimony, Smith posits that the defense’s version

of events is “far more believable.” (Id.).3

____________________________________________

3

       A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against
       the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the
       trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere
       conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts
       would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of
       the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts,

                                           -9-
J-A11043-23

       We observe that in considering and assigning weight to the evidence

presented at trial, “it is well settled that the jury is free to believe all, part, or

none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses[.]”

Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1136 (Pa. 2011), cert. denied,

565 U.S. 1247 (2012) (citation omitted). Additionally, “a new trial based on

a weight of the evidence claim is only warranted where the jury’s verdict is so

contrary to the evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice.” Id. (citation

omitted).

       Instantly, Smith’s argument on this issue is essentially a credibility

assessment of Brown’s testimony, viewed from a perspective most favorable

to himself. However, the jury was aware of the purported issues with Brown’s

testimony through defense counsel’s thorough cross-examination, and it was

free to credit her version of events and reject the defense theory of the case.

____________________________________________

       certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them
       or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.

       An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a
       weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review
       applied by the trial court. 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.

       To successfully challenge the weight of the evidence, a defendant
       must prove the evidence is so tenuous, vague and uncertain that
       the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.

Arias, supra at 352 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

                                          - 10 -
J-A11043-23

Further, Brown’s testimony was supported by recorded phone calls and emails

evidencing Smith’s involvement in obtaining Suboxone from his father.

      Although Smith asks us to accept his version of events, it was within the

province of the jury to believe all, part or none of the evidence and to

determine the credibility of Brown’s testimony in light of all of the evidence

presented.   See Houser, supra at 1136.       Because the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in finding that the verdict was not so contrary to the

evidence as to shock its conscience, Smith’s challenge to the weight of the

evidence fails.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/15/2023

                                    - 11 -