Court Opinion

ID: 9399351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 17:09:41.779315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.803741
License: Public Domain

J-A07030-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DENZELL DOUGLAS                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1601 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 31, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-CR-0003409-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                              FILED JUNE 2, 2023

        Denzell Douglas appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

following his convictions for knowing and intentional possession of a controlled

substance and possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”).1 Douglas challenges

the weight of the evidence. We affirm.

        The Commonwealth presented evidence of the following at Douglas’

bench trial. On February 1, 2019, while conducting narcotics surveillance,

Officer Erick Crawford observed Douglas on the 4200 block of Ormond Street

in Philadelphia. N.T., Trial, 11/15/21, at 20-21. During that day between the

hours of 9:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., Officer Crawford observed Douglas

approach the driver’s side of three separate vehicles. Id. at 21-24. Each time

Douglas approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, Officer Crawford saw a

____________________________________________

1   35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16) and (a)(30), respectively.
J-A07030-23

person extend their hand out of the window with money and saw Douglas take

the money. See id. at 21, 22, 24. Officer Crawford observed Douglas hand

over small items to the driver of the vehicle, after receiving money from the

individuals in the first two vehicles. Id. at 22, 23. However, after receiving

money from the driver of the third vehicle, Douglas “walked around to the

rear of the car and then sat in the front passenger seat.” Id. at 24-25. The

vehicle drove away from the area and Officer Crawford had backup units follow

the vehicle. Id. at 24, 25. Backup officers saw Douglas exit the vehicle and

start walking back to the 4200 block of Ormond Street. Id. at 25. Officers

later stopped the vehicle and recovered “six clear Ziploc packets of all blue

[glassine] inserts in addition to just three blue [glassine] inserts, no clear

packets” from the driver of the vehicle. Id. All the packets were stamped

“2019.” Id.

      On February 6, Officer Crawford called a number ending in 6134 and

placed an “order for $70 worth of heroin and $30 worth of crack cocaine.” Id.

at 26. Officer Crawford received the number from an anonymous source in the

same area where he observed Douglas on February 1. Id. at 32. When he

called the number, a male voice answered and agreed to provide the narcotics

for the price of $100. Id. at 27. The male also told Officer Crawford to drive

to the Texas Chicken and Burgers parking lot. Id. Officer Crawford drove to

the location and Douglas approached the passenger side window of the

vehicle. Id. at 28. Douglas handed Officer Crawford one bundle of heroin and

                                    -2-
J-A07030-23

one clear baggie with packets of crack cocaine. Id.2 The heroin packets “were

all clear Ziploc packets with blue [glassine] inserts, all stamped 2019[.]” Id.

Officer Crawford then left the area. Id. at 29.

        A second officer, Officer Walter Bartle, observed the transaction

between Douglas and Officer Crawford from his vehicle stationed in the same

parking lot.3 Id. at 47, 49. Officer Bartle saw Douglas approach the

passenger’s side of Officer Crawford’s vehicle and “with a hand motion went

into the passenger’s window in Officer Crawford’s vehicle.” Id. at 50. Officer

Bartle videorecorded the entire transaction. However, the Commonwealth did

not introduce the video as evidence due to its failure to timely pass the video

to defense counsel. Id. at 4, 47.

        Police did not arrest Douglas following his encounter with Officer

Crawford. Officer Crawford testified that the police arrested Douglas on

February 22, while Officer Bartle testified that the police arrested him on

February 11. Id. at 44, 51, 52-53. Upon arrest, officers did not recover

prerecorded buy money, a cell phone, or narcotics from Douglas. Id. at 44.

____________________________________________

2   A bundle of heroin amounts to 14 packets. See N.T., Trial, at 28.

3Officer Bartle testified that he observed Officer Crawford and Douglas in the
Texas Chicken and Burgers parking lot on February 26, 2019. See N.T., Trial,
at 46. However, the Criminal Complaint states that the drug transaction
occurred on February 11, similar to the testimony of Officer Crawford. See
Criminal Complaint, dated 2/22/19.

                                           -3-
J-A07030-23

      Douglas testified in his defense, claiming that on February 6 he was at

his friend’s house which was near the area of Ormond Street but that he did

not have any contact with officers or sell drugs that day. Id. at 58-61.

      At the close of trial, the court concluded that the evidence showed that

Douglas engaged in the drug transaction with Officer Crawford and found him

guilty of PWID. The court made a negative inference based on the

Commonwealth’s late passing of the video. Id. at 71. The court nonetheless

credited the officers’ identification of Douglas. Id. It stated, “I don’t have any

doubt [that is] reasonable it was you in the parking lot of that chicken burger

place.” Id. at 73-74. The court found Douglas guilty of the above-referenced

offenses and sentenced him to 11½ to 23 months’ incarceration followed by 3

years of reporting probation. Douglas filed a post-sentence motion challenging

the weight of the evidence, which the court denied. This appeal followed.

      Douglas raises a single issue: “Did the lower court err and abuse its

discretion when it denied [Douglas’] post-sentence motion for a new trial

where the verdict was so against the weight of the evidence presented at trial

as to shock the conscience?” Douglas’ Br. at 3 (answer omitted).

      Douglas claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his

weight of the evidence claim. He maintains that the court erroneously relied

on the testimony regarding the transaction with Officer Crawford that occurred

in the parking lot. Douglas argues that the testimony “was so rife with

uncertainty and contradiction that its use as the sole basis for [Douglas’]

conviction shocks one’s sense of justice.” Id. at 14-15. He claims that the

                                      -4-
J-A07030-23

evidence “supports the conclusion that [Douglas] was misidentified as the man

who sold narcotics to Officer Crawford.” Id. at 15.

      Douglas also notes that Officers Bartle and Crawford gave contradictory

testimony about the timing and circumstances of his arrest and points out that

officers did not recover anything from his person on the day of his arrest and

the Commonwealth failed to introduce the video of the drug transaction.

Douglas states that the Commonwealth’s failure to provide the video

“undercuts” the officers’ testimony that Douglas sold narcotics to Officer

Crawford. Id. at 17. Douglas argues that police could have done more to

confirm the identity of the seller but instead relied on the contradictory

memories of Officers Crawford and Bartle. Douglas also claims that his trial

testimony supports his conclusion that this is a case of misidentification.

      We review the grant or denial of a challenge to the weight of the

evidence for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d

1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013). “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the

finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence and to

determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Clemens,

242 A.3d 659, 667 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted). A trial court should

grant a new trial based on a weight challenge “when the jury’s verdict is so

contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of

a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to

prevail.” Clay, 64 A.3d at 1055 (citation omitted).

                                     -5-
J-A07030-23

     Here, the trial court concluded that the verdict was not against the

weight of the evidence. It found the testimony of Officers Crawford and Bartle

to be credible and that “[Douglas’] testimony was not credible.” See Rule

1925(a) Opinion, filed 9/20/22, at 8.

        Indeed, the Commonwealth presented more than merely
        sufficient evidence to support [Douglas’] conviction for
        possession with intent to deliver and knowingly and
        intentionally possessing a controlled substance. During the
        very detailed testimony provided by each Officer, they
        described extensive opportunity to view [Douglas] on 2
        separate occasions. First, Officers Bartle and Crawford
        observed [Douglas] in the alley engaging in multiple
        exchanges. Next, Officers Bartle and Crawford again made
        observations of [Douglas] engaging in various exchanges in
        the parking lot. Given the fact that these Officers were
        conducting surveillance and trained to do so, this [c]ourt
        found it highly unreasonable to conclude that they were both
        mistaken about having witnessed [Douglas] in several
        exchanges on January 31, 2019, as well as several more
        exchanges on February 6, 2019 after having delivered
        narcotics to Officer Crawford. These Officers are trained law
        enforcement professionals who were on an investigative
        assignment for the purpose of identifying the sale of
        narcotics. Thus, the officers had to be intentionally
        fabricating their observations if there were a shred of truth
        to the testimony offered by [Douglas].

        Consequently, this [c]ourt could not conclude fabrication on
        the part of the officers because in addition to no motive to
        fabricate, the officers corroborated each other’s testimony,
        and [Douglas] admits to being present each day described
        by the officers. Moreover, [Douglas] never denies wearing
        the clothing described by the officers as they observed the
        numerous exchanges in both the alley and the parking lot.
        It simply defies logic that someone looking like [Douglas],
        wearing the same clothing as [Douglas], and in the same
        area as [Douglas] but it was not [Douglas]. Moreover,
        Officer Crawford called the telephone number generated
        during the investigation and placed an order for narcotics
        which was in fact delivered by [Douglas]. It should be noted

                                    -6-
J-A07030-23

         that what was delivered was precisely what Officer Crawford
         ordered - $70 heroin and $30 cocaine. Thus, there was no
         doubt which was remotely reasonable that it was not
         [Douglas] who sold narcotics to Officer Crawford on
         February 6, 2019 in the parking lot of Texas Chicken and
         Burger.

Id. at 8-9 (emphasis in original).

      We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination. As

the court explained, the officers had multiple opportunities to view Douglas

and identify him as the same individual that met with Officer Crawford in the

parking lot. As factfinder, the court was “free to believe all, none or some of

the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Clemens, 242

A.3d at 667 (citation omitted). Even considering the Commonwealth’s failure

to pass the recording of Officer Crawford’s and Douglas’ interaction, the court

had the opportunity to see and hear the evidence and give it the appropriate

weight. We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/2/2023

                                     -7-