Court Opinion

ID: 9892613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 16:15:20.026065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:01.103410
License: Public Domain

J-S11037-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  EDUARDO MENDEZ                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 2568 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0001707-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                              FILED OCTOBER 24, 2023

       Appellant, Eduardo Mendez, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial

convictions for two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled

substance (“PWID”), possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug

paraphernalia, and criminal conspiracy.1 We affirm.

       In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to

restate them. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed 12/15/22, at 1-5).

       Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

          Were the verdicts of guilty not supported by sufficient
          evidence?

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (16), (32), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903, respectively.
J-S11037-23

         Did the [trial] court err in holding that Appellant’s arrest was
         supported by probable cause?

         Did the trial court err in precluding Appellant from
         presenting evidence that he was represented by the Bucks
         County Public Defender’s Office?

         Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing
         Appellant by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence at
         the high end of the aggravated range, relying on improper
         factors and the nature of the offense and failing to consider
         all relevant factors?

(Appellant’s Brief at 10) (reordered for purposes of disposition).

      Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is as follows:

         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 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. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955, 964 (Pa.Super. 2016), appeal

denied, 641 Pa. 63, 165 A.3d 895 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011)).

                                      -2-
J-S11037-23

     Additionally, the following principles govern our review of an order

denying a motion to suppress:

        An appellate court’s standard of review in addressing a
        challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to
        determining whether the suppression court’s factual
        findings are supported by the record and whether the legal
        conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because
        the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court,
        we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth
        and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains
        uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a
        whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are
        supported by the record, the appellate court is bound by
        [those] findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal
        conclusions are erroneous.       Where the appeal of the
        determination of the suppression court turns on allegations
        of legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions are
        not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to
        determine if the suppression court properly applied the law
        to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below
        are subject to plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Ford, 175 A.3d 985, 989 (Pa.Super. 2017), appeal

denied, 647 Pa. 522, 190 A.3d 580 (2018).

     Our standard of review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion of

evidence is well established and very narrow:

        Admission of evidence is a matter within the sound
        discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed absent
        a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
        Not merely an error in judgment, an abuse of discretion
        occurs when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the
        judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the
        result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by
        the evidence on record.

Commonwealth v. M. Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386, 403, 986 A.2d 84, 94 (2009),

cert. denied, 562 U.S. 857, 131 S.Ct. 127, 178 L.Ed.2d 77 (2010) (internal

                                     -3-
J-S11037-23

citations and quotation marks omitted).        When reviewing the denial of a

motion in limine, we apply the same standard as to other evidentiary rulings.

Commonwealth v. Sami, 243 A.3d 991, 997 (Pa.Super. 2020) (noting that

motion in limine is procedure for obtaining ruling on admissibility of evidence

prior to trial).

       “The threshold inquiry with the admission of evidence is whether the

evidence is relevant.”      Commonwealth v. Stokes, 78 A.3d 644, 654

(Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 625 Pa. 636, 89 A.3d 661 (2014). “Evidence

is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to

make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference

or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact.” Id. See also

Pa.R.E. 401 (defining relevant evidence).       Nevertheless, “[t]he court may

exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of

one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting

cumulative evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403.

       Further, “[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not

entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips,

946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct.

2450, 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary

aspects of sentencing issue:

          [W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether
          appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P

                                       -4-
J-S11037-23

         902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved
         at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
         sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s
         brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether
         there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed
         from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
         Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005)).                    When appealing the

discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant must invoke this Court’s

jurisdiction   by   including   in   his   brief   a   separate    concise   statement

demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of the

sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa.

419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).

      This Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the

following standard:

         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. An abuse of
         discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on
         appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its
         discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment
         exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
         partiality, bias or ill-will.

Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 55 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29, 30-31 (Pa.Super. 2000)).

      After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Brian T.

                                           -5-
J-S11037-23

McGuffin, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief.      The trial court

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions

presented.

      Regarding Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claims, the court

initially found that Appellant waived these claims by failing to specify in his

Rule 1925(b) statement the elements of each crime that he alleges was

insufficient to sustain each conviction, particularly where Appellant raised

sufficiency challenges to multiple offenses. (See Trial Court Opinion at 8).

The court further found that even if Appellant had properly preserved his

claims, Appellant’s sufficiency arguments lacked merit.       Specifically, the

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a

conspiracy between Appellant and his co-conspirator, Giovanni Rosales, where

Appellant travelled approximately 1,500 miles from Texas to Pennsylvania

with Mr. Rosales, drove Mr. Rosales to the “sample buy,” carried the black

backpack in which the drugs were found into a hotel room that Mr. Rosales

rented for the day, remained in the room with Mr. Rosales for hours while Mr.

Rosales set up a subsequent “bulk buy,” and left the room with Mr. Rosales at

approximately the time when the “bulk buy” was scheduled to occur. The

court noted that proof of a conspiracy between Appellant and Mr. Rosales

negates the need to prove that Appellant constructively possessed the

controlled substances and paraphernalia to sustain his remaining convictions.

In any event, the court found that the Commonwealth presented sufficient

                                     -6-
J-S11037-23

evidence to establish Appellant’s constructive possession of the drugs because

a surveillance video showed Appellant carrying an air compressor and the

backpack containing the drugs into the hotel room. Viewed in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, Appellant’s physical

handling of the drugs and the surrounding circumstances of Appellant’s

involvement with Mr. Rosales throughout the day was sufficient to

demonstrate that Appellant had the ability and intent to exercise control over

the contraband.2 (See id. at 9-14).

       Regarding Appellant’s claim that the court erred in denying his motion

to suppress evidence of his flight prior to arrest and the $3,300.00 found on

his person, the court found that the police officers had probable cause to arrest

Appellant. Prior to his arrest, police observed Appellant drive Mr. Rosales to

the “sample buy,” remain with him for the remainder of the day while an

additional transaction was set up, carry a bag and an air compressor into a

hotel room with Mr. Rosales, look up and down the hallway with Mr. Rosales

multiple times, and leave the room together at approximately the time of the

second sale.     Here, the circumstances clearly demonstrate that police had

____________________________________________

2 Additionally, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Detective Jarrod

Eisenhauer, who was qualified as an expert in the field of drug trafficking
investigations. Detective Eisenhauer testified that typically when there are
two individuals involved in a transaction, the higher-ranking individual will
attempt to insulate himself from exposure and the lower-ranking individual
will handle the drugs during the sale and undertake tasks such as securing
lodging.

                                           -7-
J-S11037-23

probable cause to suspect that Appellant was not merely present but

participating in the criminal activity.3 (Id. at 15-16).

       With respect to Appellant’s claim that the court erred in denying his

motion in limine seeking to present evidence that Appellant’s counsel was a

public defender, the court determined that Appellant failed to establish that

he was entitled to introduce such evidence for the purpose of suggesting to

the jury that he was indigent.         The court further found that introduction of

such evidence risked confusing the jury and increased the likelihood that the

verdict would not be based on the facts presented but rather on Appellant’s

perceived economic status. (See Trial Court Opinion at 16-17).

       The court further explained that it acted within its discretion in

____________________________________________

3 Appellant cites to United States v. Butts, 704 F.2d 701 (3rd Cir. 1983) and

Commonwealth v. Shaw, 476 Pa. 543, 383 A.2d 496 (1978) to support his
claim that the police did not have probable cause. In Butts, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that probable cause did not exist
to arrest the defendant who was merely sitting in the backseat of a car that
the individuals being surveilled were about to enter. The Court noted that at
the time of the arrest, the police officers who arrested the defendant had no
other information about him and did not know what connection he had to the
individuals who the police suspected of criminal activity. In Shaw, our
Supreme Court found that probable cause did not exist where the only
information the police had about the defendant was a general statement that
he associated with the perpetrators of the crime. Our Supreme Court noted
that police officers did not have any information to indicate that the defendant
was at the scene of the crime or involved with the criminal activity. Here,
Appellant was present at the first sale, remained with Mr. Rosales the whole
day while Mr. Rosales set up the second sale, and left with Mr. Rosales in time
for the second sale. Accordingly, the instant case is factually distinguishable
from both Butts and Shaw.

                                           -8-
J-S11037-23

sentencing Appellant.4 At the sentencing hearing, the court stated that it took

into consideration Appellant’s personal history, his rehabilitative needs, and

the letters from his mother and sister but ultimately found that Appellant’s

criminal history, his refusal to take accountability and the impact of his actions

on the community warranted a sentence in the aggravated range. (See Trial

Court Opinion at 20-22). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s

opinion.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 10/24/2023

____________________________________________

4 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his claim in a timely post-

sentence motion, and included in his brief a Rule 2119(f) statement. As
presented, Appellant’s claim concerning an excessive sentence in combination
with the court’s failure to consider certain mitigating factors and reliance on
impermissible factors arguably raises a substantial question.              See
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal
denied, 629 Pa. 636, 105 A.3d 736 (2014) (stating: ““[A]n excessive sentence
claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider
mitigating   factors—raises     a   substantial   question”).       See    also
Commonwealth v. Trimble, 615 A.2d 48 (Pa.Super. 1992) (holding
defendant’s claim that court failed to consider factors set forth under Section
9721(b) and focused solely on seriousness of defendant’s offense raised
substantial question).

                                           -9-
                                                                                         Circulated 09/26/2023 03:01 PM

                    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY
                                   CRIMINAL DIVISION
                                   CRIMINAL DIVISION

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                                            No.:
                                                                         No.: CP-09-CR-0001707-2021
                                                                              CP-.09-CR-0001707-2021

                                                                         Appellate No.:
                                                                                   No.. 2568 EDA 2022
                            V.
                                                                                                       .. .,.
 EDUARDO
 EDUARDO MENDEZ
                                                                                               i       -.,
                                                                                                          "
                                                                                                        ,.,
                                                                                                       <-,
                                                                                                                  ..
                                                                                                                  id
                                                                                                                      '

                                                                                                 .. s
                                                                                                       ¢
                                                                                                                  e
                                                                                                       cf         [

                                                     OPINION
                                                                                               ' .. ' u
                                                                                                y-
                                                                                                                  ....•
                                                                                                                  K

                                                                                               ij!
                                                                                               -
                                                                                     w p    U
         Appellant Eduardo Mendez appeals from this Court's Judgement
                                                            Judgement of Sentetibe enbered on
                                                                         Sentence  entered
                                                                                                       L-
July
July 15,
     15, 2022, following
               following this Court's September
                                      September 9, 2022
                                                   2022 Denial of Appellant's Post-Sentence
                                                                  Appellant's Post-Sentence

Motions filed July 22, 2022. Appellant filed this appeal on October 6, 2022. This Court files this

opinion in
        in accordance
           accordance with
                      with Pa.R.A.P.
                           Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
                                     1925(a).

                           PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL
                           PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL BACKGROUND
                                                BACKGROUND

         This case arises from a
                               a series of incidents that occurred on December 4,
                                                                               4, 2020,
                                                                                  2020, in

Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, Philadelphia
              Philadelphia County,
                           County, Pennsylvania and
                                                and Bensalem,
                                                    Bensalem, Bucks
                                                              Bucks County,
                                                                    County, Pennsylvania.
                                                                            Pennsylvania, On
                                                                                          On

tthe
 he morning of December 3, 2020, Appellant Eduardo Mendez, aaresident of El Paso,
                                                                            Paso, Texas, met

with Giovanni Rosales' and the pair of them drove over the course of around twenty
                                                                            twenty (20)
                                                                                   (20) hours

the approximately one-and-a-half-thousand
                  one-and-a-half-thousand (1,500) miles from El Paso to Bensalem,
                                                                        Bensalem, Pennsylvania
                                                                                  Pennsylvania

for the purpose of selling bulk ''uncut'
                                  uncut' quantities
                                         quantities of both
                                                       both heroin and methamphetamine.
                                                                       methamphetamine. N.T.

4/12/2022, p.
4/12/2022, p. 72, passim; N.T. 4/13/2022,
                  passim; N.T. 4/13/2022, passim.
                                          passim. Upon arriving at
                                                  Upon arriving at a
                                                                   a Holiday
                                                                     Holiday Inn Express in
                                                                                 Express in

Bensalem Township
Bensalem Township on
                  on December
                     December 4, 2020, Mr.
                              4, 2020, Mr. Rosales
                                           Rosales rented
                                                   rented Room
                                                          Room 348 for only
                                                               348 for      one day,
                                                                       only one day, using
                                                                                     using

his Passport
    Passport issued
             issued from Mexico, as
                    from Mexico, as identification.
                                    identification. N.T.
                                                    N.T. 4/11/2022,
                                                         4/11/2022, p. 54. Both
                                                                    p. 54. Both Appellant and Mr
                                                                                Appellant and Mr.

'While referred
While  referred to throughout the Notes
                                  Notes of Testimony C'N.T.")
                                                     (N.T.") as Appellant's
                                                                Appellant's co-defendant,
                                                                            co-defendant, Giovanni Rosales pled
                                                                                                           pled
guilty before
guilty before Appellant's
              Appellant's trial, including to
                          trial, including to one
                                              one count
                                                  count of
                                                        of Conspiracy.
                                                           Conspiracy.
                                                          I1
 Rosales
 Rosales retrieved
         retrieved items including ablack
                         including a black backpack,        compressor, and a
                                           backpack, an air compressor,     alarge
                                                                              large toolbox
                                                                                    toolbox from
                                                                                            from a
                                                                                                 %

 silver GMC pickup truck registered to Mr. Rosales and carried them up
                                                                    up to Room 348 at
                                                                               348 at

 approximately 8.24
               8:24 A.M. on December 4, 2020. N.T. 4/12/2022,
                                                   4/12/2022, pp.
                                                              pp. 129,
                                                                  129, 225.
                                                                       225. Mr.
                                                                            Mr. Rosales
                                                                                Rosales

 wheeled the
 wheeled the large tool chest
             large tool chest behind
                              behind him,
                                     him, while
                                          while Appellant
                                                Appellant transported the air
                                                          transported the air compressor
                                                                              compressor with
                                                                                         with the
                                                                                              the

 black
 black backpack on his
       backpack on his right
                       right shoulder. N.T. 4/12/2022,
                             shoulder. N.T. 4/1 2/
                                                 2022, p.
                                                       p. 225.
                                                          225.

        A short time later, both Appellant and Mr. Rosales left Room 348 and returned
        A                                                                    returned to
                                                                                      to Mr
                                                                                         Mr.

 Rosales' silver GMC pickup truck in the parking      Appellant got
                                         parking lot. Appellant got in the driver's seat
                                                                       the driver's seat and drove
                                                                                         and drove

      of them
 both of them to
              to aaDunkin'
                   Dunkin' Donuts parking lot
                           Donuts parking     located in
                                          lot located in the
                                                         the Roosevelt
                                                             Roosevelt Mall
                                                                       Mall at
                                                                            at Cottman and
                                                                               Cottman and
                                                           ,
 Roosevelt Boulevard in Northeast Philadelphia arriving
                                               arriving around noon. N.T. 4/11/2022 p.
                                                                     N.T. 4/11/2022    42; N.T.
                                                                                    p. 42; N.T,

4/1 2/
     2022, p. 97. Appellant pulled the pickup into a
4/12/2022,                                           parking space,
                                                   a parking space, whereupon
                                                                    whereupon Mr. Rosales exited
                                                                                  Rosales exited

    passenger door,
the passenger door, walked down a
                    walked down afew
                                  few parking spaces and
                                      parking spaces and past one parked
                                                         past one parked vehicle, and got
                                                                         vehicle, and got into
                                                                                          into

the passenger door
              door of aaparked vehicle.
                               vehicle. N.T. 4/12/2022, pp.
                                        N.T, 4/12/2022, pp. 104
                                                            104— 105.
                                                                 105. Unbeknownst to ye
                                                                      Unbeknownst to Mr.

Rosales, the driver of the vehicle he entered was aaConfidential Human Source ("CHS")
                                                                 Human Source (CHS")  — an
                                                                                        an

informant
informant -— for the Federal Bureau
                             Bureau of Investigation.
                                       Investigation. N.T. 4/12/2022, p.
                                                      N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 105.
                                                                         105. Mr.
                                                                              Mr. Rosales
                                                                                  Rosales spoke
                                                                                          spoke

with the CHS for approximately 90 seconds and handed them two small bundles, one containing
                                                                    bundles, one containing

heroin and
heroin and the other methamphetarnine.
           the other methamphetamine. N.T.
                                       N.T. 4/12/2022, p.
                                            4/12/2022, p. 106;
                                                          106; C-1; C-4; C-5.
                                                               C-I; C-4; C-5. The
                                                                              The CHS
                                                                                  CHS did
                                                                                      did not
                                                                                          not

provide
provide compensation for
                     for the
                         the controlled
                             controlled substances provided
                                                   provided in
                                                            in this
                                                               this `'sample
                                                                      sample transaction.'
                                                                             transaction.' Mr.
                                                                                           Mr.

Rosales then
        then exited the
                    the CHS's
                        CHS's vehicle,
                              vehicle, returned to
                                                to his pickup truck, and Appellant
                                                       pickup truck,     Appellant drove
                                                                                   drove them
                                                                                         them

both
both to aaLiberty
          Liberty Gas Station. N.T. 4/12/2022,
                                    4/12/2022, p.
                                               p. 147.
                                                  147. A
                                                       A short time
                                                               time later,
                                                                    later, Appellant
                                                                           Appellant drove
                                                                                     drove from
                                                                                           from the

gas station to a
               a Bob Evans restaurant located next to the Holiday
                                                          Holiday Inn Express    Bensalem. NT
                                                                      Express in Bensalem. N.T.

4/1 2/
     2022, p.
4/12/2022, p. 128.
              128. Afer
                   After spending
                         spending approximately
                                  approximately 30
                                                30 minutes
                                                   minutes inside
                                                           inside the
                                                                  the Bob
                                                                      Bob Evans,
                                                                          Evans, Appellant and
                                                                                 Appellant and

Mr.
Mr. Rosales exited
            exited the restaurant, returned to
                                            to Mr.           pickup truck,
                                               Mr, Rosales's pickup truck, and drove
                                                                               drove back to the
                                                                                     back to the

Holiday Inn
Holiday Inn Express
            Express parking
                    parking lot
                            lot next door. N.T.
                                next door. N.T. 4/12/2022,
                                                4/12/2022, p.
                                                           p. 149.
                                                              149

                                               22

                                                                                                      .. j
              Appellant     Mr. Rosales
              Appellant and Mr.         returned to
                                Rosales returned to Room
                                                    Room 348.
                                                         348. N.T. 4/12/2022, pp.
                                                              N,T, 4/12/2022, pp. 149
                                                                                  149 -— 150.
                                                                                         150. They
                                                                                              They

     both remained inside for the next few hours, with both Appellant
                                                            Appellant and Mr. Rosales exiting
                                                                                      exiting briefly
                                                                                              briefly

     to look up and down the hallway,
                             hallway, and
                                      and Appellant leaving
                                                    leaving to purchase
                                                               purchase an item
                                                                           item at     3rd floor
                                                                                at the 3"  floor vending
                                                                                                 vending

     machine. N.T.
     machine.      4/11/2022, p.
              N.T. 4/11/02022, p. 41;
                                  41; N.T. 4/12/2022, p.
                                      N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 244.
                                                         244. During
                                                              During this
                                                                     this time, while both
                                                                          time, while both Appellant
                                                                                           Appellant

         Mr. Rosales
     and Mr. Rosales were
                     were inside Room 348,
                          inside Room 348, Mr.
                                           Mr. Rosales
                                               Rosales was
                                                       was communicating
                                                           communicating with the CHS
                                                                         with the CHS over
                                                                                      over text
                                                                                           text

     messaging
     messaging and
               and via phone calls.
                             calls. N.T. 4/12/2022,
                                         4/12/2022, pp.
                                                    pp. 124
                                                        124-— 125. Mr. Rosales and the CHS arranged
                                                                                           arranged

     another transaction: the
                          the CHS was to
                                      to purchase two
                                                  two kilograms
                                                      kilograms of heroin
                                                                   heroin at
                                                                          at a
                                                                             a price
                                                                               price of $50,000 per
                                                                                     of $50,000 per

     kilogram
     kilogram and
              and one
                  one pound
                      pound of methamphetamine
                               methamphetamine at
                                               at aaprice
                                                    price of
                                                          of $8,500,
                                                             $ 8,500, for
                                                                      for a
                                                                          a total
                                                                            total price
                                                                                  price of $ 108,500.
                                                                                        of $108,500.

     N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 198. The deal was scheduled to occur in the parking
     NT,                                                            parking lot of the Holiday
                                                                                       Holiday Inn
                                                                                               Inn

     Express. N.T.
              N.T. 4/12/2022, pp. 126 — 127. 'The
                              pp. 126        The deal was later
                                                          later modified to occur
                                                                            occur between
                                                                                  between 5:00 and

     5:30 P.M.
     5.30 P.M. in
               in the parking lot of a
                                     a nearby
                                       nearby Texas Roadhouse
                                                    Roadhouse restaurant
                                                              restaurant in
                                                                         in Bensalem. N.T. 4/11/2022,
                                                                                      N.T, 4/11/2022,

     p. 46.
     p.46.

              From approximately 2:30 P.M. until approximately      P.M., Officer Farnan of
                                                 approximately 4:55 P.M.,                   the
                                                                                         of the

     Bensalem Police Department
     Bensalem Police            was inside
                     Department was        in Room
                                    inside in      347 with
                                              Room 347 with other
                                                            other law enforcement officers,
                                                                  law enforcement officers,

     watching the door to Room 348 through
                                   through the peephole.
                                               peephole. N.T.            pp. 200 -204.
                                                         N.T, 4/12/2022, pp.200  — 204. No one other

     than Appellant
          Appellant and Mr. Rosales entered
                                    entered or                 during that time,
                                            or exited the room during      time, and luggage
                                                                                     luggage was

     carried in or
                or out of Room
                          Room 348.
                               348. N.T. 4/12/2022 pp.     — 204. At roughly
                                                   pp. 203 --204.    roughly 4:55 P.M.
                                                                                  P.M. on December
                                                                                          December

     4, 2020,
     4, 2020, Appellant and Mr.
              Appellant and     Rosales exited
                            Mr. Rosales exited their
                                               their hotel
                                                     hotel room     exited to
                                                           room and exited to the
                                                                              the parking
                                                                                  parking lot.
                                                                                          lot. N.T.
                                                                                               N.T.

     4/12/2022, p.
                p. 204.
                   204. As
                        As they started to
                                        to walk towards
                                                towards Mr.
                                                        Mr. Rosales'
                                                            Rosales' pickup,
                                                                     pickup, members
                                                                             members of the Violent
                                                                                            Violent

     Gang Safe Streets
               Streets Task Force
                            Force of F.B.I.'s Philadelphia field
                                     FE.B.I's Philadelphia field office, Bensalem Township
                                                                                  Township Police

     officers, and Philadelphia                 attempted to
                   Philadelphia Police officers attempted to arrest Appellant and Mr.
                                                             arrest Appellant     Mr. Rosales.
                                                                                      Rosales. N.T.

     4/12/2022, p.
                p. 143.
                   I43. As law                      attempted to arrest both Appellant
                           law enforcement officers attempted                Appellant and Mr.
                                                                                           Mr. Rosales,
                                                                                               Rosales,

     Appellant turned and attempted
               turned and attempted to
                                    to run to aa wooded area
                                                        area at the
                                                                the end of the
                                                                           the parking
                                                                               parking lot.
                                                                                       lot. N.T.
                                                                                            NT,
'i
     4/12/2022, p. 65. F.B.I. Special A
                p.65.F.B.I.           Agent
                                        gent William Wickman, driving
                                                              driving an unmarked
                                                                         unmarked vehicle
                                                                                  vehicle with active

I                                                    3
                                                     l

I
 emergency lights, drove next to the fleeing Appellant and commanded him to stop
                                                                            stop from an open
                                                                                         open

 window. N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 66. Appellant kept running,
                         p. 66.                running, before tripping
                                                               tripping and was then tackled
                                                                                     tackled by
                                                                                             by

 agents on foot,
           foot, taking
                 taking him               N.T. 4/12/2022, p.
                        him into custody. N,T,            p. 67. When searched, Appellant
                                                                 When searched, Appellant had
                                                                                          had no
                                                                                              no

 controlled substances and $3,300.00 in United States currency
                                                      currency on him. N.T.
                                                                       N.T, 4/12/2022,
                                                                            4/12/2022, p.
                                                                                       p. 68.
                                                                                          68.

 Mr. Rosales had neither controlled substances nor money
                                                   money on his person. Id.
                                                                person. I

        A search warrant
        A search warrant was executed on
                         was executed on Room
                                         Room 348
                                              348 of
                                                  of the
                                                     the Holiday
                                                         Holiday Inn
                                                                 Inn Express
                                                                     Express in
                                                                             in Bensalem, and
                                                                                Bensalem, and

 aablack
   black bookbag
         bookbag was found
                     found within
                           within the locked
                                      locked large tool
                                                   tool chest. N.T.
                                                               N.T, 4/1 2/
                                                                         2022, pp.
                                                                    4/12/2022,         — 208; C-
                                                                               pp. 205 --208;C-

 12. Inside
 12.        the bookbag
     Inside the         was aaclear
                bookbag was   clear Ziploc
                                    Ziploc bag of heroin
                                           bag of        weighing approximately
                                                  heroin weighing               90 to
                                                                  approximately 90 to 100
                                                                                      100 grams
                                                                                          grams

and two half kilograms of methamphetamine. N.T. 4/12/2022,
                                                4/12/2022, p.      A large
                                                           p. 213. A large digital scale was
                                                                           digital scale was

found inside the Husky toolbox underneath the bookbag.
                                              bookbag. N.T. 4/12/2022, p.
                                                       N.T. 4/12/2022,    216; C-18.
                                                                       p. 216; C-18. Residue
                                                                                     Residue

found on the digital scale was determined to be composed
                                                composed of controlled
                                                            controlled substances. N.T.
                                                                       substances. NT

4/12/2022, p. 255. Plastic film was discovered in a
                                                  a nearby
                                                    nearby trashcan similar to what was
                                                                            to what was covering
                                                                                        covering

the controlled substances. N.T. 4/13/2022, pp. 28 -— 29; C-21. Mr. Rosales' DNA was recovered
                                                                                    recovered

from the covering
from the covering of
                  of the
                     the controlled substances. N.T.
                         controlled substances. N.T. 4/1 2/
                                                          2022, p.
                                                     4/12/2022, p. 212; C-14. No
                                                                   212; C-14.    controlled
                                                                              No controlled

substances were recovered from Mr. Rosales's vehicle when it was searched. N.T. 4/12/2022,
                                                                                4/12/2022, pp.
                                                                                           pp.

217 -
217 — 218.
      218. Notably,
           Notably, in
                    in order
                       order to
                             to fulfill
                                fulfill the quantity of
                                        the quantity of the
                                                        the controlled substances that
                                                            controlled substances that had
                                                                                       had been
                                                                                           been

negotiated in the deal with the CHS, and there was every
                                                   every indication that was their intent,
                                                                                   intent, the
                                                                                           the

Appellant and Mr. Rosales would have had to secure an additional quantity           from
                                                                 quantity of heroin from

someone or
someone or somewhere,
           somewhere, as
                      as the
                         the quantity of controlled
                             quantity of controlled substances recovered from
                                                    substances recovered from their
                                                                              their hotel
                                                                                    hotel room
                                                                                          room

would have been insufficient to meet the quantity of the controlled substances they
                                                                               they had agreed
                                                                                        agreed to
                                                                                               to

sel. Thus
sel.      the Conspiracy
     Thus the Conspiracy would
                         would have
                               have then
                                    then necessarily
                                         necessarily involved other people
                                                     involved other        or the
                                                                    people or     acquisition of
                                                                              the acquisition of

more controlled substances by the Appellant and Mr. Rosales.. N.T. 4/12/2022, pp.
                                                              N.T, 4/12/2022, pp. 241,
                                                                                  241, 294-295.

                                               4
                                               4

                                                                                                    1
         Appellant was subsequently charged with the following:       1, Possession with Intent
                                                     following: Count I,

to
to Deliver
   Deliver aaControlled Substance—Heroin,
                        Substance-Heroin, an
                                          an ungraded
                                             ungraded felony 2,
                                                      felony', Possession
                                                               Possession with
                                                                          with Intent
                                                                               Intent to Deliver

aa Controlled Substance
              Substance—Methamphetamine,
                        Methamphetamine, an ungraded
                                            ungraded felony',
                                                     felony', Criminal Conspiracy,
                                                                       Conspiracy, an

ungraded
ungraded       misdemeanor,
               misdemeanor,        Possession
                                   Possession    of
                                                 of        a
                                                           a   Controlled
                                                               Controlled   Substance—Heroin
                                                                            Substance-Heroin      and/or
                                                                                                  and/or

Methamphetamine, an ungraded misdemeanor,
                             misdemeanors, Possession of Paraphernalia,
                                                         Paraphernalia, an ungraded
                                                                           ungraded

misdemeanor6,
misdemeanor, and Criminal
             and Criminal Use of a
                          Use of aCommunication
                                   Communication Facility,
                                                 Facility, aafelony of the
                                                             felony of the third degree. Count
                                                                           third degree'. Count

6, Criminal Use of a
                   a Communication Facility,
                                   Facility, was nolle prossed
                                                       prossed at Appellant's
                                                                  Appellant's Arraignment
                                                                              Arraignment and

was
was not aacomponent
          component of the
                       the trial.

                                MATTERS
                                MATTERS COMPLAINED
                                        COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
                                                         APPEAL   OF
         Appellant
         Appellant filed
                   filed aatimely Notice
                                  Notice of Appeal
                                            Appeal to
                                                   to the Superior
                                                          Superior Court            6, 2022.
                                                                   Court on October 6, 2022, On
                                                                                             On

October 7, 2022, this Court issued an Order directing Appellant to file aaConcise Statement of

Matters Complained of on Appeal within twenty-one
                                       twenty-one (21) days of the date of the Order
                                                  (21) days                    Order. On

        18, 2022, Appellant filed a
October I8,                       a Motion for an extension of time to file his Concise Statement
                                                                                        Statement.

On October 24, 2022, this Court issued an Order granting
                                                granting Appellant's
                                                         Appellant's motion for an extension of

time to file and granted Appellant an extension until November 18, 2022, to file his Concise

Statement. Appellant
Statement.           filed a
           Appellant filed   timely Concise
                           a timely Concise Statement
                                            Statement of
                                                      of Matters Complained of
                                                         Matters Complained of on
                                                                               on Appeal on
                                                                                  Appeal on

November 17, 2022, which raises the following issues verbatim:
         17,2022,

              1.   The conviction for possession with intent to deliver aacontrolled substance,

         heroin, was not supported
                         supported by sufficient evidence.

  35 P.S. §$ 780-113()030)
35PS.
2            780-113(x)(30)
' 35 P.S. §$ 780-113(a)(30)
35P.$.       780-113()030)
4 18
  18 Pa.C.S.  § 903
     Pa.C.S. $903
' 35 P.S. §$ 780-1136a)015)
'3$P.5.      780-113(a)(15)
6 35 P.S. §
'35P.$.      780-113(a)(32)
           $ 780-113(8)032)
'18 Pa.C.S. $7512(a)
'18PCS        § 7512(a)

                                                      55
     2. The conviction for possession with intent to deliver a
                                                             a controlled
                                                               controlled substance,
                                                                          substance,

                                    by sufficient evidence.
 methamphetamine, was not supported by

    3.3. The conviction for criminal conspiracy
                                     conspiracy was not supported
                                                        supported by
                                                                  by sufficient
                                                                     sufficient

 evidence.
 evidence.

    4.4. The conviction for possession of a
                                          a controlled substance was not
                                                                     not supported
                                                                         supported
by sufficient evidence.

    5.
    5, The conviction
           conviction for
                      for possession of paraphernalia
                                        paraphernalia was not supported by
                                                          not supported by
sufficient evidence.
sufficient evidence.

    6. The
    6. The trial court erred
           trial court erred in denying the
                             in denying the Motion to Suppress
                                            Motion to Suppress the search of
                                                               the search of

Appellant because there was no probable cause to arrest Appellant.
                                                        Appellant.

    7.
    7. The trial
           trial court erred
                       erred in denying
                                denying Appellant's
                                        Appellant's motion
                                                    motion in
                                                           in limine
                                                              limine to refer to his
                                                                                 his

trial counsel as
trial counsel as a
                 a public defender.
                   public defender.

    S. The trial court erred in permitting Officer Faman
    8.                                                      testify regarding
                                                   Faran to testify regarding the
                                                                              the

contents of surveillance video whish was not preserved
                                             preserved in violation of the
                                                                       the best

evidence rule.

    9.
    9, The trial court erred in permitting
                                permitting testimony
                                           testimony of Detective Eisenhauer

because
because it went
           went beyond the
                       the scope
                           scope of expert testimony     usurped the fact-finding
                                           testimony and usurped     fact-finding

function
function of the jury.
            the jury.

    10. The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Appellant because the
                                                 sentencing Appellant

sentence exceeds what is
sentence              is necessary
                         necessary to
                                   to protect
                                      protect the public.
                                                  public.

   11.
   IL. The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
                                                sentencing Appellant
                                                           Appellant because
                                                                     because the

sentence exceeds
sentence exceeds what is necessary
                 what is           to rehabilitate
                         necessary to              Appellant.
                                      rehabilitate Appellant

   12.
   12. The
       The trial court
                 court abused its
                              its discretion in sentencing Appellant
                                             in sentencing Appellant because the

sentence fails
sentence       to take into
         fails to      into consideration
                            consideration Appellant's
                                          Appellant's Age, conduct, character,
                                                      Age, conduct, character,

                                        66
             criminal history, the impact of Appellant's actions on the
                                                                    the community,
                                                                        community, Appellate
                                                                                   Appellant's

             rehabilitative needs, and the Sentencing Guidelines.

                  13. The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
                  3.                                           sentencing Appellant
                                                                          Appellant because the trial

             court relied
                   relied on improper factors.
                                      factors.

                  14.
                  14. The trial court
                      The trial       abused its
                                court abused its discretion
                                                 discretion in
                                                            in sentencing
                                                               sentencing Appellant because the
                                                                          Appellant because the trial
                                                                                                trial

             court failed to
             court failed    adequately state
                          to adequately state the reasons for
                                              the reasons for the sentence on
                                                              the sentence on the
                                                                              the record
                                                                                  record.

                  15.
                  15. The trial
                          trial court
                                court abused
                                      abused its discretion in
                                             its discretion in sentencing
                                                               sentencing Appellant
                                                                          Appellant because
                                                                                    because the
                                                                                            the trial
                                                                                                trial

             court failed
                   failed to
                          to consider mitigating
                                      mitigating factors.
                                                 factors.

                 16. The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
                                                              sentencing Appellant
                                                                         Appellant because the trial

             court relied on factors already contemplated by the Sentencing
                                                                 Sentencing Guidelines.

                 17. The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
                 17.The                                       sentencing Appellant
                                                                         Appellant because the

             sentence was manifestly
                          manifestly excessive.

                 18. The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Appellant in the high
                 8.The                                                                    high end

             of the aggravated range of the Sentencing
                                            Sentencing Guidelines.

                                                     DISCUSSION$
                                                     DISCUSSION'

        I.       Sufficient evidence was
                                     was presented at trial to find Appellant
                                                                    Appellant guilty
                                                                              guilty beyond
                                                                                     beyond aa

                 reasonable doubt for all Counts

             Appellant first
                       first challenges the
                                        the sufficiency of the
                                                           the evidence supporting the
                                                               evidence supporting the verdict for Counts

    1
    l through
      through 5. The standard of review in assessing
                                           assessing a
                                                     achallenge
                                                       challenge to the sufficiency
                                                                        sufficiency of evidence is well

    settled in Pennsylvania. See Commonwealth v.
                                              Y. Hunzer,
                                                 Huner, 868 A.2d 498, 505
                                                                      505 (Pa. Super. 2005).
                                                                          (Pa. Super. 2005). The

    standard to
             to be applied
                   applied in reviewing the
                           in reviewing the sufficiency
                                            sufficiency of
                                                        of evidence "is whether viewing
                                                                                viewing all the

    evidence admitted at trial in the light
                                      light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient

      Due to factual and legal interrelationships, some of the grounds for appeal are responded to collectively for
    Due
    8

    efficiently explaining this Court's reasoning.
                                Court'sreasoning.
                                                              7
                                                              7

I
     evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
                                                every element of the crime
                                                                     erime beyond
                                                                           beyond aareasonable
                                                                                    reasonable doubt."
                                                                                               doubt."

     Commonwealth
     Commonwealth v.
                  v, Distefano, 782 A.24
                                    A.2d 574, 582
                                              582 (Pa. Super. 2001).
                                                  (Pa. Super. 2001).

            In reviewing this Court's determination that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to
                                                                                           sufficient to

    support aaverdict of guilty on all charges,
                                       charges, it must be noted "that the facts and circumstances
                                                                                     circumstances

    established by the
                   the Commonwealth need              every possibility
                                    need not preclude every possibility of innocence.
                                                                           innocence. Any
                                                                                      Any doubts
                                                                                          doubts

    regarding aadefendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is
                                                                                         is so weak

    and inconclusive that as a
                             a matter of law no probability of fact may
                                                                    may be drawn from the combined

    circumstances.
    circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its
                                                its burden
                                                    burden of proving every element of the crime
                                                              proving every                crime

    beyond a
           a reasonable doubt by means of wholly
                                          wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover...the
                                                                          Moreover ... the entire
                                                                                           entire

    record must
    record      be evaluated
           must be evaluated and all evidence
                             and all          actually received
                                     evidence actually received must
                                                                must be considered. Finally,
                                                                     be considered. Finally, the
                                                                                             the trier
                                                                                                 trier

    of fact while passing upon
                          upon the credibility of witnesses and
                                                            and the weight
                                                                    weight of the          produced, is
                                                                              the evidence produced, is

    free to believe all, part or none of the evidence." See Id
                                                            Id.

           However, Appellant's bare assertion that each conviction
                                                         conviction "was not supported
                                                                             supported by
                                                                                       by sufficient
                                                                                          sufficient

    evidence" fails to provide the requisite specificity for this Court to respond         speculating on
                                                                           respond without speculating on

    what
    what Appellant's claim                      v. Flores, 921 A.2d 517,
                     claim is. See Commonwealth v,                       522 (Pa.
                                                                    517, 522 (Pa. Super. 2007) ("If
                                                                                  Super, 2007) (If

    Appellant wants to preserve aaclaim that the evidence was insufficient,
                                                              insufficient, then the 1925(b)
                                                                                     1925(b) statement

    needs to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient. This Court can

    then analyze the element or elements on appeal. ").
                                            appeal.").

           A
           A non-specific statement may be sufficient in simple
                                                         simple trials where there are only
                                                                                       only few

    elements at issue.
                issue. However, each
                                each determination
                                     determination that Appellant committed
                                                   that Appellant committed the charged
                                                                                charged crimes
                                                                                        crimes

                                                               established. This Court cannot assume
    required that multiple separate elements of the offence be established.

    to know
    to know what
            what elements or factors
                 elements or factors that
                                     that Appellant
                                          Appellant believes were not
                                                    believes were not sufficiently
                                                                      sufficiently established, other
                                                                                   established, other

    than Appellant's identity
    than Appellant's identity as
                              as the
                                 the perpetrator.
                                     perpetrator. As
                                                  As such,
                                                     such, Appellant's
                                                           Appellant's claim
                                                                       claim for
                                                                             for insufficient evidence
                                                                                 insufficient evidence

    is
    is waived due to
       waived due    the inadequate
                  to the inadequate 1925(b)
                                    1925(b) statement.
                                            statement.

                                                     88

I
          In the event that these issues are not considered waived, this Court will address the issues
                                                                                                issues

and
and finds that each of Counts I1through
                                through 5S5was fully
                                               fully established
                                                     established at trial.

              a. Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to find Appellant
                                                                    Appellant guilty
                                                                              guilty beyond
                                                                                     beyond a
                                                                                            a

                  reasonable doubt of Possession with the Intent to Distribute a
                                                                               a Controlled

                 Substance

          Appellant was found guilty in Counts 1
                                               I and 2
                                                     2 of violating
                                                          violating 35 P.S.
                                                                       P,S. §$ 780-113(a)(30),
                                                                               780-113(a)(30), which

states:

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

                 (30) Except
                       Except as authorized
                                               ...
                                   authorized byby this act,
                                                          act, the   manufacture, delivery,
                                                                the manufacture,     delivery, or
                                                                                               or
                 possession
                 possession with intent  to manufacture or deliver, a
                                  intent to                           acontrolled substance by by
                 a
                 a person not
                           not registered under this
                                                  this act,
                                                       act, or
                                                            or aapractitioner
                                                                  practitioner not
                                                                                not registered
                                                                                    registered or
                 licensed by the appropriate State board, or knowingly creating,       delivering
                                                                             creating, delivering
                 or possessing with intent to deliver, aacounterfeit controlled substance.

          At trial, Appellant did not dispute that: (a) the compounds recovered by
                                                                                by the police
                                                                                       police from

Room 348 of the Holiday Inn Express in Bensalem were controlled substances pursuant
                                                                           pursuant to
                                                                                    to The

Controlled Substance,
Controlled Substance, Drug, Device,
                            Device, and Cosmetic
                                        Cosmetic Act,
                                                 Aet, 35
                                                      35 P.S. §§ 780-1
                                                         P.S. $$ 780-1 -780.144,
                                                                       — 780-144, ("the Act");
                                                                                  (the Act")y;

              was not
(b) Appellant was not aaperson
                        person entitled under the
                                              the Act to possess
                                                  Act to possess said controlled substances;
                                                                                 substances; and

(c) based
(c) based on
          on the
             the amount
                 amount of
                        of the controlled substances
                           the controlled substances and
                                                     and their
                                                         their packaging, whomever possessed
                                                               packaging, whomever possessed

them did so with the intent to deliver. In fact Appellant conceded the above in argument
                                                                                argument to the

      N.T. 4/13/2022, p.
jury. N.T             p. 43. As such, for determining
                                          determining whether
                                                      whether Appellant
                                                              Appellant committed the
                                                                                  the crimes

charged in
        in Counts 1
                  I and 2,
                        2, the                  jury was
                           the question for the jury was solely         Appellant "possessed"
                                                         solely whether Appellant "possessed" the

           substances.
controlled substances

          Actual, physical,
                  physical, possession is
                                       is not
                                          not the
                                              the only
                                                  only method
                                                       method in
                                                              in which
                                                                 which aaparty
                                                                         party can
                                                                               can "possess"
                                                                                   "possess" narcotics
                                                                                             narcotics

with the
     the intent to
                to distribute. Contraband can be actually/physically possessed by
                                                 actually/physically possessed by aa person,
                                                                                     person,

                                                     99
 constructively
 constructively possessed by a
                             a person,            constructively possessed
                               person, or jointly constructively possessed amongst
                                                                           amongst multiple
                                                                                   multiple people.
                                                                                            people
 As our Supreme Court has explained:
                          explained:

        [T]he tripartite
        [The             legal requirements
              tripartite legal requirements for
                                            for aafinding,
                                                  finding, beyond
                                                           beyond aareasonable doubt, that
                                                                    reasonable doubt, that a
                                                                                           a
        defendant constructively possessed       illegal substance[
                                   possessed an illegal  substance[ are:]   1) the
                                                                     are:] I)      defendant's
                                                                               the defendatg
        ability to
        ability to exercise
                    exercise a a conscious dominion over the      illegal substance;
                                                             the illegal   substance; 2)    the
                                                                                        2) the
        defendant's power to control the illegal substance; and 3)
                                                                 3) the  defendant's intent
                                                                                      intent to
                                                                                             to
        exercise that
                 that control.

              v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078, 1086(Pa.
 Commonwealth v,                        1086 (Pa. 2011)
                                                  2011) (citing
                                                        (citing Commonwealth
                                                                Commonwealth v.  Valette, 613
                                                                             v. Valerte,  613

     548 (Pa.
A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992)).
              1992)). A
                      A person's ability *to
                        person's ability  to have
                                             have conscious dominion over illegal
                                                                          illegal substances
                                                                                  substances and
                                                                                             and

their
their intent
      intent to
             to exercise
                exercise control
                         control over the same may
                                               may be               examining the totality
                                                   be inferred from examining              of the
                                                                                  totality of the

circumstances. Commonwealth
circumstances.                   v,
               Commonwealth v.Cash,
                               Cash, 367
                                     367 A.2d
                                         A.2d 726, 729 (Pa.
                                              726, 729      Super. 1976);
                                                       (Pa. Super. 1976); Commonwealth v,
                                                                          Commonwealth v.
Macolino, 469
Macolino, 469 A.2d
              4.24 132, 134 (Pa.
                   132, 134      1983).
                            (Pa. 1983)

       This
       This court is aware that
                           that a
                                a person's mere
                                           mere equal access
                                                      access to
                                                             to the
                                                                the area where illegal contraband
                                                                               illegal contraband

is found does not establish that person's per
                                          per se power
                                                 power or intent to control said contraband.
                                                                            said contraband.

Commonwealth v.
             v, Heidler, 741
                         741 A.2d 213, 216 (Pa.
                                  213,216  (Pa. Super.
                                                Super. 1999).
                                                       1999). However,
                                                              However, neither is
                                                                               is it irrelevant:
                                                                                     irrelevant:

       aajury need not ignore presence, proximity
                                            proximity and association when presentedpresented in
       conjunction with other evidence of guilt. Indeed, presence
       conjunction                                         presence at the                 drugs
                                                                        the scene where drugs
       are
       are being
           being processed
                  processed and
                             and packaged
                                 packaged is  amaterial
                                           is a material and
                                                          and probative
                                                              probative factor
                                                                          factor which
                                                                                 which the
                                                                                         the jury
                                                                                             jury
       may
       may consider.
             consider. Drug
                       Drug dealers of
                                     of any      and [illegal
                                        any size and  [illegal drug]
                                                               drug] manufacturers
                                                                      manufacturers probably
                                                                                        probably
       are reticent about
       are          about allowing
                          allowing the
                                   the unknowing
                                       unknowing toto take
                                                      take view
                                                            view of
                                                                  of or
                                                                     or assist
                                                                        assist in
                                                                               in the
                                                                                  the operation.
                                                                                      operation.
Commonwealth •
Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 869
                                      869 (Pa. Super. 2014)
                                          (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing United
                                                            (citing United States
                                                                           States v. Robinson,
                                                                                  v Robinson,

    F.2d 1554,
978 F24        1557-1558 ((10th
         1554, 1557-1558   10th Cir.
                                Cir. 1992)). And Appellant         merely nearby
                                                 Appellant was not merely nearby Mr. Rosales
                                                                                     Rosales

during these events. Appellant travelled approximately one-and-a-half-thousand ((1,500)
                               travelled approximately                           1,500) miles
                                                                                        miles

from Fort
     Fort Worth, Texas to Bensalem,
                          Bensalem, Pennsylvania,
                                    Pennsylvania, aatrip
                                                    trip which
                                                         which took
                                                               took roughly
                                                                    roughly twenty
                                                                            twenty (20)
                                                                                   (20) hours.
                                                                                        hours.

N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 72.
                   72. Appellant carried the black backpack
                                                   backpack in which the drugs
                                                                         drugs were found into
                                                                                          into

the hotel
    hotel room
          room Mr.
               Mr. Rosales
                   Rosales rented for
                                  for only one
                                           one day.
                                               day, N.T. 4/11/2022, p.
                                                         4/11/2022, p. 54. Appellant
                                                                           Appellant was
                                                                                     was with

    Rosales throughout
Mr. Rosales throughout the entire day. N.T.
                           entire day.      4/11/2022 passim;
                                       N.T. 4/11/2022 passim; N.T.
                                                              N.T. 4/12/2022,
                                                                   4/12/2022, passim;
                                                                              passim; N.T.
                                                                                      N.T,

4/13/2022,
4/13/2022, passim.
           passim. Appellant
                   Appellant drove Mr. Rosales to the initial "sample" transaction,
                                                      initial "sample" transaction, lasting
                                                                                    lasting only
                                                                                            only

                                                 10
         90 seconds and two of minutes, before turning
 between 0                                     turning around and driving
                                                                  driving to a
                                                                             a restaurant
                                                                               restaurant located
                                                                                          located

 adjacent to the hotel they had left. 4/12/2022, p. 97 -
                                                       — 128. Even further,
                                                                   further, Appellant
                                                                            Appellant was
                                                                                      was inside
                                                                                          inside the
                                                                                                 the

 hotel room
 hotel      while Mr.
       room while Mr. Rosales
                      Rosales spent
                              spent hours
                                    hours setting
                                          setting up the bulk
                                                  up the bulk narcotics sale, not
                                                              narcotics sale, not only via text
                                                                                  only via text

 messages, but also aloud via
                          via phone calls. N.T. 4/12/2022, pp.
                                           N.T, 4/12/2022, pp. 124 -— 125. This is
                                                                      125. This is not
                                                                                   not an
                                                                                       an instance
                                                                                          instance

 where Appellant's ability to have conscious dominion over the contraband
                                                               contraband or
                                                                          or Appellant's
                                                                             Appellant's intent
                                                                                         intent to
                                                                                                to

 exercise control over the same is merely inferred by operation of
                                                   by operation of law, but rather
                                                                   law, but rather both are
                                                                                   both are

 inextricable conclusions stemming from an examination of the circumstances.
                                                              circumstances. Further, the
                                                                             Further, the

 evidence presented showed that Appellant had the power
                                                  power to exercise control over both
                                                                    control over both the
                                                                                      the heroin
                                                                                          heroin

 and the methamphetamine recovered from
         methamphetamine recovered from the
                                        the black
                                            black book
                                                  bookbag
                                                       bag recovered from inside
                                                           recovered from inside the
                                                                                 the toolbox in
                                                                                     toolbox in

 Room 348
      348 of
          of the
             the Holiday
                 Holiday Inn
                         Inn Express in Bensalem.
                             Express in Bensalem.

       Moreover, in cases involving Possession with Intent to Distribute and related
                                                                             related Conspiracy
                                                                                     Conspiracy

charges, "successful proof
                     proof of
                           of aaconspiracy makes
                                           makes each
                                                 each co-conspirator
                                                      co-conspirator fully
                                                                     fully liable
                                                                           liable for all of
                                                                                  for all of the
                                                                                             the

drugs recovered, without
drugs recovered,             necessity of
                 without the necessity of proving
                                          proving constructive possession." Commonwealth
                                                  constructive possession." Commonwealth v.

Perez,
Perez, 931 A.2d 703,
                703, 709
                     709 (Pa.
                         (Pa. Super.       (       Commonwealth v. Holt,
                                            citing Commonwealth
                              Super. 2007) (citing                 Holt, 711 A.2d
                                                                             A.2d 1011,
                                                                                  1011, 1017
                                                                                        1017

(Pa. Super.
(Pa. Super. 1998)).
            1998)). A
                    A conspiracy
                      conspiracy can
                                 can be established
                                        established by the "web
                                                    by the "web of evidence" established
                                                                of evidence" established by
                                                                                         by the
                                                                                            the
conduct of the co-conspirators along with the circumstances surrounding
                                                            surrounding said conduct.
                                                                             conduct

Commonwealth y, Morton, 512
Commonwealth v.         512 A2d
                            A.2d 1273,
                                 1273, 1275
                                       1275 (Pa. Super. 1986).
                                            (Pa. Super. 1986). Resultingly, both of
                                                               Resultingly, both of

                                                                                 by establishing
Appellant's Possession with the Intent to Distribute convictions are established by establishing

Count 3, the Criminal Conspiracy between Appellant
                                         Appellant and Mr. Rosales,
                                                           Rosales, discussed
                                                                    discussed infra.
                                                                              infra.

       When this
            this evidence,
                 evidence, and the reasonable
                           and the            inferences drawn
                                   reasonable inferences       therefrom, is
                                                         drawn therefrom, is viewed in the
                                                                             viewed in the light
                                                                                           light

most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner,
                                                  winner, the existence of aaconspiracy
                                                                             conspiracy between
                                                                                        between

Appellant
Appellant and
          and Mr.
              Mr. Rosales
                  Rosales to distribute the
                          to distribute the drugs establishes
                                                  establishes that Appellant possessed
                                                              that Appellant possessed the is
                                                                                       the is

                                              I11I
sufficient to establish that Appellant possessed the controlled substances with the intent to

distribute them beyond a
                       a reasonable doubt.

         Therefore, sufficient evidence
                               evidence was
                                        was provided
                                            provided at
                                                     at trial
                                                        trial to establish the violations
                                                                               violations of
                                                                                          of Counts
                                                                                             Counts 1
                                                                                                    t
and
and 2.

             b. Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to find
                                                              fid Appellant  guilty beyond
                                                                   Appellant guilty beyond a
                                                                                           a

                   reasonable doubt of Criminal Conspiracy
                                                Conspiracy

         Appellant was found guilty in Count 33of violating
                                                  violating 18
                                                            I8 Pa.C.S.
                                                               Pa.C.S. §$ 903
                                                                          903 (in
                                                                              (in reference to Counts

1
l and 2), which states:

         (a) Definition
         (a)  Definition of
                          of conspiracy.
                              conspiracy. — A A person
                                                 person is   guilty of
                                                         is guilty   of conspiracy
                                                                        conspiracy with    another
                                                                                     with another
         person or persons to commit aacrime if with the intent of promoting
                                                                        promoting or facilitating
                                                                                       facilitating
         its commission he:he
              (1) agrees
              (I) agrees with  such other
                         with such   other person or persons
                                           person or persons that
                                                               that they or one
                                                                    they or one or
                                                                                 or more
                                                                                    more of
                                                                                          of them
                                                                                             them
              will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt
                                                                           attempt or solicitation
              to commit such crime;
                               crime; or
                                       or
              (2) agrees to aid such other person
                                           person or persons
                                                     persons in the planning
                                                                      planning or commission of
              such crime or of an attempt
                                   attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.
             ...   (e) Overt act.
                                                                             crime

                             act. --— No person may be convicted of conspiracy
                                                                     conspiracy to commit a  a
                                          act in
                   crime unless an overt act  in pursuance of such
                                                              such conspiracy    alleged and
                                                                   conspiracy is alleged  and
                   proved to have been done by him or by aaperson with whom he conspired.
                                                                                  conspired.

         Appellant and Mr. Rosales's long drive from Texas to Bensalem—
                                                              Bensalem-- over twenty hours --—

followed immediately by a
                        a drug sample transaction, a
                                                   a subsequent negotiation for aabulk narcotics

sale, renting
      renting a
              a hotel
                hotel room for
                           for a
                               a single
                                 single day, and
                                             and attempted
                                                 attempted flight
                                                           flight before
                                                                  before his
                                                                         his arrest create
                                                                                    create the sort
                                                                                               sort of

"web of evidence"
"web of evidence" that
                  that establishes
                       establishes Appellant
                                   Appellant and
                                             and Mr.
                                                 Mr. Rosales
                                                     Rosales conspired
                                                             conspired for
                                                                       for the purpose of
                                                                           the purpose of the
                                                                                          the

illegal sale of controlled substances in Pennsylvania. N.T. 4/13/2022, pp.     — 173. Mr. Rosales
                                                                       pp. 172 --173.

provided the CHS with sample drugs and Mr. Rosales' D.N.A. was found on the drug
                                                                            drug packaging
                                                                                 packaging

recovered from Room 348. N.T. 4/12/2022, p.
                                         p. 212; C-14. Beyond
                                                       Beyond Mr. Rosales' overt acts,

Appellant personally
Appellant personally drove
                     drove his co-conspirator
                               co-conspirator to the sample drug
                                                 the sample drug transaction.
                                                                 transaction. N.T. 4/12/2022, pp.
                                                                              N.T. 4/12/2022, pp

104 — 147. When this evidence, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, is viewed in the
104

                                                   12
 light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner,
                                                         winner, it is sufficient to establish that

both Appellant and Mr. Rosales conspired to travel to Pennsylvania
                                                      Pennsylvania for the purpose
                                                                           purpose of distributing
                                                                                      distributing

bulk narcotics and committed multiple overt acts in furtherance thereof.

        Therefore, sufficient evidence was provided at trial to establish the violation of Count 3.

           c.
           e.   Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to find Appellant
                                                                   Appellant guilty
                                                                             guilty beyond
                                                                                    beyond a
                                                                                           a

                reasonable doubt of Possession of aaControlled Substance

       Appellant was found guilty in Count 4
                                           4 of violating
                                                violating 35 P.S. $§ 780-113(a)(16),
                                                                     780-113(a)(16), which states:

       (a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are
           hereby prohibited:
                                             •••
                (16) Knowingly or intentionally possessing
                                                      possessing aa controlled or counterfeit
                substance by a a person not registered
                                              registered under this act,
                                                                    act, or aapractitioner
                                                                               practitioner not
                registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, unless the substance
                was
                was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, aavalid prescription
                                                                         prescription order or
                order of a
                         a practitioner, or except as otherwise authorized by
                                                                            by this act.
       Appellants Possession of a
                                a Controlled Substance was established supra, Discussion

Section I(a). Therefore, sufficient evidence was provided at trial to
                                                                   to establish the violation of Count

44.

           d. Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to find Appellant guilty beyond
                                                                                  beyond aa

                reasonable doubt of Possession of Paraphernalia
                                                  Paraphernalia

       Appellant was found guilty in Count 5
                                           5 of violating
                                                violating 35 P.S. $§ 780-113(a)(32),
                                                                     780-113(a)632), which states:

       (a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are
           hereby prohibited:
                  prohibited:
                                             •••
          (32) The
                The use of, or possession with intent to use, drug paraphernalia for the
          purpose
          purpose of planting,
                          planting, propagating,      cultivating, growing,
                                      propagating, cultivating,     growing, harvesting,
                                                                               harvesting,
          manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing,
                                                                    processing, preparing,
                                                                                preparing,
          testing, analyzing, packing, repacking, storing, containing,
                                                                  containing, concealing,
          injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body
                                                                                   body aa
          controlled substance in violation of this act.
"Drug
Drug paraphernalia" is defined under the Act as:

                                                   13
        "Drug paraphernalia"
                paraphernalia" means
                                 means all
                                         all equipment, products
                                                          products and materials of of any
                                                                                       any kind
                                                                                            kind
        which are used, intended for use or designed for use in planting,planting, propagating,
                                                                                   propagating,
        cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing,
                                                 manufacturing, compounding,         converting,
                                                                   compounding, converting,
        producing, processing, preparing, testing,
                                                testing, analyzing,
                                                         analyzing, packaging,
                                                                     packaging, repackaging,
                                                                                   repackaging,
        storing, containing, concealing, injecting,
                                               injecting, ingesting,
                                                           ingesting, inhaling
                                                                       inhaling   or  otherwise
                                                                                      otherwise
        introducing into
                     into the
                          the human
                              human body
                                      body a a controlled
                                               controlled substance
                                                           substance in
                                                                     in violation         act. It
                                                                        violation of this act. It
        includes, but is not limited to:
                                              ...
                (5) Scales and balances used, intended for use or designed     use in
                                                                  designed for use in
                weighing or measuring controlled substances
                                                 substances.
 35 P.S. §$ 780-102.
 35PS.      780-102

        To convict Appellant for Possession of Paraphernalia, the Commonwealth was required to
                                                                               was required to

establish that Appellant possessed drug paraphernalia and
                                                      and "the use of,
                                                                   of, or possession with intent
                                                                          possession with intent to
                                                                                                 to

use, drug paraphernalia
use, drug paraphernalia for the purpose
                        for the purpose of...  compounding, ...
                                        of ... compounding,  ... processing, preparing, ...
                                                                 processing, preparing,  . . packing,
                                                                                             packing,

repacking,
repacking,...
           ... or otherwise introducing into the human body
                                                       body aacontrolled substance in
                                                                                   in violation of
                                                                                      violation of

this act". 35P.S.
           35 P.S. $§ 780-113(a)(32). Among the items recovered from Room 348 was a
                                                                                  adigital
                                                                                    digital scale
                                                                                            scale

with residue on it that tested positive for controlled substances,                proximity to
                                                       substances, found in close proximity to the
                                                                                               the

bulk drugs. N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 255. Further, thin plastic
                 4/12/2022,                       plastic found
                                                          found inside a
                                                                       a nearby
                                                                         nearby trashcan suggested
                                                                                trashcan suggested

further
further that
        that the
             the bulk
                 bulk drugs
                      drugs had been repackaged
                                     repackaged into     samples inside the
                                                into the samples            hotel room.
                                                                        the hotel room. N.T.
                                                                                        NT

4/1 3/
     2022, pp. 28 -29;C-21.
4/13/2022,        — 29; C-21. When this evidence, and the reasonable inferences       therefrom,
                                                                     inferences drawn therefrom,

is
is viewed
   viewed in
          in the light most
                       most favorable to
                                      to the Commonwealth as the verdict
                                                                 verdict winner,
                                                                         winner, it is sufficient
                                                                                 it is sufficient

to establish that Appellant possessed paraphernalia in contravention of the Act,
                                                                            Act, and, therefore,
                                                                                 and, therefore,

sufficient evidence was
                    was produced at
                                 at trial to
                                          to find
                                             find Appellant guilty beyond
                                                  Appellant guilty beyond a
                                                                          areasonable
                                                                            reasonable doubt of
                                                                                       doubt of

committing the
           the crime as alleged in
                     as alleged in Count
                                   Count 5.
                                         5.

       Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's first five allegations
                                                                   allegations of error are without

merit and should be dismissed.

                                                 14
                                                 14
    II.      The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
                                                             denying Appellant's
                                                                     Appellant's Motion to

             Suppress
             Suppress the
                      the $3,300
                          $3,300 found
                                 found on Appellant and
                                                    and Appellant's flight incident
                                                        Appellant's flight incident to his
                                                                                       his

             Arrest as Probable Cause Existed to
                                              to Arrest
                                                 Arrest Appellant
                                                        Appellant

          "Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances within the knowledge
          Probable                                                         knowledge of the police
                                                                                            police

officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to justify
                                                    justify a person of reasonable caution in believing
                                                            a person                          believing

the
the suspect has
            has committed or is committing a
                                           a crime." Commonwealth v. Burnside,
                                                                     Burnside, 625      678,
                                                                               625 A.2d 678,

681
681 (Pa. Super. 1993).
    (Pa. Super, 1993). If someone is
                                  is arrested
                                     arrested without probable
                                                      probable cause the
                                                                     the "fruits"
                                                                         "fruits" of that
                                                                                     that search

must be suppressed and disregarded in aacriminal proceeding, and no
                                                                 no "good faith exception"
                                                                                exception"exists
                                                                                           exists

in
in the state of
   the state of Pennsylvania to the
                Pennsylvania to     requirement. Commonwealth
                                the requirement. Commonwealth v. Hopkins,
                                                                 Hopkins, 164
                                                                          164 A.3d
                                                                              A.3d 1133,
                                                                                   1133, 1137
                                                                                         1137

(Pa.
(Pa. 2017).
     2017). Moreover, this
                      this Court is
                                 is aware that
                                          that probable
                                               probable cause for           requires more than
                                                              for an arrest requires      than

merely being near
             near aaperson to which there
                                    there exists probable          suspected criminal activity
                                                 probable cause of suspected          activity (but
                                                                                               (but

                                                          U.S, v. Butts, 704 F.2d 701,
such is not what the evidence in this case demonstrates.) U.S.                         704 (3d
                                                                                  701, 704 (3d Cir.

1983); see also Ybarra v.
                       v, Ill.,
                          ILL,, 444 U.S. 85, 91 ((1979)
                                                  1979) ("[A]
                                                        ([A] aaperson's
                                                               person's mere propinquity
                                                                             propinquity to others

independently
independently suspected
              suspected of
                        of criminal activity does
                           criminal activity      not, without
                                             does not, without more,
                                                               more, give
                                                                     give rise to probable
                                                                          rise to probable cause
                                                                                           cause

to search that person. ").
               person.").

          Before
          Before police          Appellant as he
                 police arrested Appellant    he exited the Holiday
                                                            Holiday Inn Express in Bensalem,
                                                                    Inn Express    Bensalem, they
                                                                                             they

had observed
    observed him drive Mr. Rosales'
                           Rosales' truck to
                                          to Philadelphia,
                                             Philadelphia, Mr. Rosales leave
                                                                       leave the
                                                                             the passenger seat
                                                                                 passenger seat

of the truck, enter another vehicle, hand narcotics to aaConfidential Human Source of the Federal

          Investigation ("CHS"),
Bureau of Investigation (CHS"), Appellant drive the
                                                the vehicle back
                                                            back to the
                                                                    the Holiday
                                                                        Holiday Inn in
                                                                                    in Bensalem
                                                                                       Bensalem

where
where Mr. Rosales had rented aaroom
                               mom after making two
                                                two stops, both Appellant and Mr. Rosales exit

the truck and enter Room 348, both Appellant
                                   Appellant and Mr. Rosales leave Room 348 to look up
                                                                                    up and

down the hallway
         hallway over the next few hours, and Appellant
                                              Appellant and Mr.
                                                            Mr, Rosales leave Room 348 in time

to get
   get to aanarcotics transaction as scheduled between Mr. Rosales and the CHS. Appellant
                                                                                Appellant was

inside the hotel
           hotel room
                 room with     co-conspirator as Mr.
                      with his co-conspirator    Mr. Rosales made phone
                                                                  phone calls setting up the
                                                                              setting up the bulk
                                                 15
   drug transaction, N,T. 4/12/2022, pp. 124 - 125. Under these circumstances, it strains credulity to
                           12/2022, pp. 124 — 125. Under these circumstances, it strains credulity to
   drug transaction. N.T. 4/
    suggest that Appellant was somehow not participating in the narcotics transaction but that he was
   suggest that Appellant was somehow not participating in the narcotics transaction but that he was
   also wholly unaware that it was to occur. The police not only had probable cause to arrest Appellant
  also wholly unaware that it was to occur. The police not only had probable cause to arrest Appellant
   for the planned bulk drug transaction, they had probable cause to arrest Appellant for the prior
  for the planned bulk drug transaction, they had probable cause to arrest Appellant for the prior
   "sample" drug transaction in Philadelphia.
  "sample" drug transaction in Philadelphia.

              Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's sixth allegation of error is without merit
            Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's sixth allegation of error is without merit
   and should be dismissed.
  and should be dismissed.

       IHI.      The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's Motion in
     III.      The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's Motion in
                 Limine to Refer to Defense Counsel as a Publie Defender
               Limine to Refer to Defense Counsel as aPublic Defender
              The standard practice of courts in his Commonwealth is to avoid references to defense
            The standard practice of courts in his Commonwealth is to avoid references to defense
   counsel as a public defender if possible. Whatever the rationale, be it fear of the jury making
 counsel as apublic defender if possible. Whatever the rationale, be it fear of the jury making
   decisions based on the defendant's perceived economic status, a societal assumption that an
 decisions based on the defendant's perceived economic status, a societal assumption that an
   innocent individual would hire a private attorney, or otherwise, the understanding that this Court
 innocent individual would hire aprivate attorney, or otherwise, the understanding that this Court
   has is that the defense counsel's status as a public defender or private counsel is, at best, irrelevant
 has is that the defense counsel's status as apublic defender or private counsel is, at best, irrelevant
   to the determination of the ultimate case.
 to the determination of the ultimate case.

              This Court is aware that the courts of Pennsylvania have held that the inadvertent
        This Court is aware that the courts of Pennsylvania have held that the inadvertent
    disclosure of defense counsel as a public defender has been held to be "insignificant and does not
disclosure of defense counsel as apublic defender has been held to be "insignificant and does not
    violate equal protection". Commonwealth v, Palm, 903 A.2d 1244, 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing
violate equal protection". Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244, 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing
    Commonwealth v. Dunson, 11 Pila. 339 (Pa. Com, PI, 1984)). However, in this case, defense
Commonwealth v. Dunson, 11 Phila. 339 (Pa. Corn. Pl. 1984)). However, in this case, defense
    counsel filed a Motion in Limine for permission to actively inform the jury of their status,
counsel filed a Motion in Limine for permission to actively inform the jury of their status,
    seemingly for the purpose of having the jury assume that Appellant cannot be a drug dealer, as he
seemingly for the purpose of having the jury assume that Appellant cannot be adrug dealer, as he
    would then have the funds to hire private counsel.
would then have the funds to hire private counsel.

              Defense counsel did not provide, and this Court is unaware of, any law in this
       Defense counsel did not provide, and this Court is unaware of, any law in this
    Commonwealth establishing that such an action is permissible. Further, this Court found that
Commonwealth establishing that such an action is permissible. Further, this Court found that
                                                      16
                                                 16
'
I

        stating to the jury that defense counsel was a public defender risked confusion and the jury making
       stating to the jury that defense counsel was apublic defender risked confusion and the jury making
        a finding based not on the facts presented, but rather Appellant's perceived economic status. Even
       afinding based not on the facts presented, but rather Appellant's perceived economic status. Even
        beyond this Court's concerns, Appellant himself seemed reluctant to proceed down this route.
       beyond this Court's concerns, Appellant himself seemed reluctant to proceed down this route.
        When asked by the court "do you want me to allow [Defense Counsel] to tell the jury that he's a
       When asked by the court "do you want me to allow [Defense Counsel] to tell the jury that he's a
        public defender?", Appellant replied, I mean, do we have to?" N.T, 4/11/22, p. 7.
       public defender?", Appellant replied, "Imean, do we have to?" N.T. 4/11/22, p. 7.
                   Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's seventh allegation of error is without
                Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's seventh allegation of error is without

      merit   andshould
        meritand             dismissed.
                  shouldbebedismissed.

             IV.      The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Officer Farnan to testify
          IV.       The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Officer Farnan to testify
                      regarding the contents of surveillance videos
                    regarding the contents of surveillance videos
                   During the suppression hearing, defense counsel objected to Bensalem Township Police
                During the suppression hearing, defense counsel objected to Bensalem Township Police
        Department Officer Connor Farnan testifying as to what he observed on surveillance videos from
      Department Officer Connor Farnan testifying as to what he observed on surveillance videos from
        the Holiday Inn Express as violative of the Best Evidence Rule in that certain surveillance videos
     the Holiday Inn Express as violative of the Best Evidence Rule in that certain surveillance videos
        were not preserved and provided to the defense. N.T. 4/11/22 p. 23. Specifically, Defense counsel
                                                               22p. 23. Specifically, Defense counsel
     were not preserved and provided to the defense. N.T. 4/1 1/
        was not provided videos from December 4, 2020 at approximately 9:00 A.M. to approximately
     was not provided videos from December 4, 2020 at approximately 9:00 A.M. to approximately
         L00 P.M.. N.T. 4/11/22 pp. 23 - 25. The objection was overruled and the question rephrased to
     1:00 P.M.. N.T. 4/11/22 pp. 23 — 25. The objection was overruled and the question rephrased to
        elicit answers from Officer Farnan regarding surveillance videos from roughly 8:30 A.M. to 9.00
     elicit answers from Officer Farnan regarding surveillance videos from roughly 8:30 A.M. to 9:00
       A.M.
    A.M..

                   At trial, the Commonwealth introduced Commonwealth Exhibit C-6 and C-10, containing
             At trial, the Commonwealth introduced Commonwealth Exhibit C-6 and C-10, containing
         surveillance videos of the Holiday Inn lobby and 3" floor, respectively. Exhibit C-6 contains five
    surveillance videos of the Holiday Inn lobby and 3rd floor, respectively. Exhibit C-6 contains five
         videos with visible timestamps" from 08:1101                  08:14:25, 08:IE:01 - 08:14.18, 08:16.34   -
    videos with visible timestamps 9 from 08:11:01 — 08:14:25, 08:11:01 — 08:14:18, 08:16:34 —
         08-1711, 08:2220 -- 08.25.00 and 08:23:14 - 0824.06. See C-6. Mr. Rosales checks in to the
    08:17:11, 08:22:20 — 08:25:00 and 08:23:14 — 08:24:06. See C-6. Mr. Rosales checks in to the
         hotel, and then Appellant and Mr. Rosales enter the elevator, carrying various items. Appellant is
    hotel, and then Appellant and Mr. Rosales enter the elevator, carrying various items. Appellant is

I

I
I
         pe video timestamps re in 24-hour time format, often referred to as military time."
    'The video timestamps are in 24-hour time format, often referred to as "military time."
                                                                 17
                                                            17

i
    seen carrying a black back pack while wheeling an air compressor, while Mr. Rosales maneuvers
   seen carrying ablack backpack while wheeling an air compressor, while Mr. Rosales maneuvers
    a large, wheeled toolbox into the elevator. See C-6. One black backpack was recovered during the
   alarge, wheeled toolbox into the elevator. See C-6. One black backpack was recovered during the
    search of Room 348, which contained approximately 100 grams of heroin and I kilogram of
   search of Room 348, which contained approximately 100 grams of heroin and 1kilogram of
    methamphetamine. N.T, 4/12/2022,p. 225; C-6. Exhibit C-10 contains body-camera recordings of
   methamphetamine. N.T. 4/ 2022, p. 225; C-6. Exhibit C-10 contains body-camera recordings of
                          12/

    a screen, presumably the surveillance computer's, playing three videos with visible timestamps
   ascreen, presumably the surveillance computer's, playing three videos with visible timestamps
    from 12-56.30- 12:57:16, 13:00.09 - 13.00:15, and 16:55:12 - 16:55:40. See C-10. These videos
  from 12:56:30 — 12:57:16, 13:00:09 — 13:00:15, and 16:55:12 — 16:55:40. See C-10. These videos
    show Appellant and/or Mt. Rosales walking to and/or from the 3" floor elevator, and neither
  show Appellant and/or Mr. Rosales walking to and/or from the 3rd floor elevator, and neither
    Appellant nor Mr. Rosales appear to be carrying any objects in their hands. Defense counsel did
  Appellant nor Mr. Rosales appear to be carrying any objects in their hands. Defense counsel did
    not object to the introduction and playing of these videos on the grounds that they were not in the
  not object to the introduction and playing of these videos on the grounds that they were not in the
    defense's possession. Officer Farnan did not testify regarding surveillance videos ranging from
  defense's possession. Officer Farnan did not testify regarding surveillance videos ranging from
    approximately 9.00 A.M. to approximately 1.00 P.M. on December 4, 2020. This is unsurprising,
  approximately 9:00 A.M. to approximately 1:00 P.M. on December 4, 2020. This is unsurprising,
    seeing as during that time Appellant and Mr. Rosales were being surveilled by the FBI Task force.
 seeing as during that time Appellant and Mr. Rosales were being surveilled by the FBI Task force.
    N.T. 4/1202022, pp. 104 - 147. Appellant and Mr. Rosales were engaged in the sample narcotics
 N.T. 4/12/2022, pp. 104 — 147. Appellant and Mr. Rosales were engaged in the sample narcotics
    transaction and then went to the Bob Evans restaurant. N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 128. Officer Farman did
                                                                 2 022, p. 128. Officer Farnan did
 transaction and then went to the Bob Evans restaurant. N.T. 4/12/
    not testify regarding any surveillance videos that were not preserved or not handed over to the
 not testify regarding any surveillance videos that were not preserved or not handed over to the
    defense. As such, Appellant's claim that Officer Farnan's testimony was in contravention of the
 defense. As such, Appellant's claim that Officer Farnan's testimony was in contravention of the
    Best Evidence Rule is meritless
Best Evidence Rule is meritless.

              Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's eighth allegation of error is without merit
         Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's eighth allegation of error is without merit
    and should be dismissed.
and should be dismissed.

         V,      The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting testimony of Detective
    V.        The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting testimony of Detective
                 Eisenhauer
              Eisenhauer

              The purpose of expert testimony is to provide the jury with information requiring special
         The purpose of expert testimony is to provide the jury with information requiring special
    expertise or knowledge helpful to their determination of a fact at issue. Pa.R.E. 702. If valuable to
expertise or knowledge helpful to their determination of afact at issue. Pa.R.E. 702. If valuable to
    the trier of fact, an expert witness may even express an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact. See
the trier of fact, an expert witness may even express an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact. See
                                                       18
                                                  18
    Commonwealth v, Daniels, 390 A.2d 172, 178 (Pa. 1978) (The contention that an expert should
   Commonwealth v. Daniels, 390 A.2d 172, 178 (Pa. 1978) (The contention that an expert should
    never be permitted to express an opinion on an "ultimate issue" is similarly misconceived.). [fa
   never be permitted to express an opinion on an " ultimate issue" is similarly misconceived.). If a
    witness testifies improperly, potential prejudice can be cured by a timely curative instruction, as
   witness testifies improperly, potential prejudice can be cured by atimely curative instruction, as
    "when an objection is sustained and a cautionary instruction is given, and the defendant fails to
   "when an objection is sustained and acautionary instruction is given, and the defendant fails to
    object to the cautionary instruction or to request any further instruction, counsel is presumed to be
   object to the cautionary instruction or to request any further instruction, counsel is presumed to be
    satisfied with the cautionary instruction and any prejudice is cured, because we further presume
   satisfied with the cautionary instruction and any prejudice is cured, because we further presume
    that the jury follows the court's instructions." MountOlivet Tabernacle v,   Edwin L. Wiegand Div,,
  that the jury follows the court's instructions." Mount Olivet Tabernacle v. Edwin L. Wie and Div.
    Emerson Elec. Co,, 781 A.24 1263, 1275 n.12 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Jones,
                                                                 citing Commonwealth v. Jones,
  Emerson Elec. Co., 781 A.2d 1263, 1275 n.12 (Pa. Super. 200 1) (
    668 A.24 491, 508 (Pa. 1995),cert denied, 519 U.S. 826 (1996))
  668 A.2d 491, 508 (Pa. 1995), cert denied, 519 U.S. 826 ( 1996)).
            Detective Eisenhauer was offered as an expert witness without defense voir dire or
         Detective Eisenhauer was offered as an expert witness without defense voir dire or
    objection. See N.T. 4/122022, p. 266. At trial, defense counsel objected to Detective Eisenhauer's
  objection. See N.T. 4/12/2022, p. 266. At trial, defense counsel objected to Detective Eisenhauer's
    testimony suggesting that there was likely another party who would come to deliver drugs as the
  testimony suggesting that there was likely another party who would come to deliver drugs as the
    narcotics sale orchestrated by the CHS and Mr. Rosales involved drugs in quantities beyond what
 narcotics sale orchestrated by the CHS and Mr. Rosales involved drugs in quantities beyond what
    was recovered from Room 348, which was offered in response to the question "how - is that
 was recovered from Room 348, which was offered in response to the question "how — is that
    consistent with the way a drug trafficking organization would operate?" N.T. 4/12/2022, pp. 288
 consistent with the way adrug trafficking organization would operate?" N.T. 4/ 2022, pp. 288
                                                                              12/

    - 291. As the narcotics recovered from Room 348 included 95.89 grams of heroin, but the
 — 291. As the narcotics recovered from Room 348 included 95.89 grams of heroin, but the
    transaction as negotiated was for two kilograms - 2,000 grams - of heroin, there is an inherent
 transaction as negotiated was for two kilograms — 2,000 grams — of heroin, there is an inherent
    incongruity between the deal as designed and the deal that could actually be satisfied with the
incongruity between the deal as designed and the deal that could actually be satisfied with the
    contraband already in Appellant and Mr. Rosales's possession. See C-17. Defense counsel objected
contraband already in Appellant and Mr. Rosales's possession. See C-17. Defense counsel objected
    further that Detective Eisenhauer's use of "they" in testifying "I feel very confident that they were
further that Detective Eisenhauer's use of "they" in testifying "Ifeel very confident that they were
    going to attempt to set up a distribution hub right in this area from this organization." N.T.
going to attempt to set up a distribution hub right in this area from this organization." N.T.
    4/12/2022, pp. 295 - 296. This Court gave a curative instruction to the jury, and upon defense
 12/2022, pp.
4/              295 — 296. This Court gave acurative instruction to the jury, and upon defense
    counsel's motion, ruled that "[t]Jo the extent that the word they was brought up, it will be stricken."
                             f
counsel's motion, ruled that "t]o the extent that the word they was brought up, it will be stricken."

                                                19

                                -
        N.T, 4/12/2022, p. 298. Defense Counsel expressed their satisfaction with this resolution. N.T.
       N.T. 4/
             12/
               2022, p. 298. Defense Counsel expressed their satisfaction with this resolution. N.T.

        4/12/2022, p. 298.
       4/
        12/
          2022, p. 298.

                   Appellant did not identify what portion of Detective Eisenhauer's testimony exceeded the
                Appellant did not identify what portion of Detective Eisenhauer's testimony exceeded the
        scope of proper expert testimony in his 1925(b) statement. However, as this court struck the
      scope of proper expert testimony in his 1925(b) statement. However, as this court struck the
        disputed testimony and provided a curative instruction to the Defense Counsel's satisfaction, any
      disputed testimony and provided acurative instruction to the Defense Counsel's satisfaction, any
        potential prejudice was cured.
      potential prejudice was cured.

                   Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's ninth allegation of error is without merit
               Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's ninth allegation of error is without merit
        and should be dismissed.
      and should be dismissed.

              VI      The trial court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Appellant
         VI.        The trial court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Appellant
                   Appellant had a prior record score of 5, stemming from prior convictions in the State of
               Appellant had aprior record score of 5, stemming from prior convictions in the State of
        Texas. N.T. 7/15/2022, p. 7. Appellant had a 2007 conviction for a misdemeanor analogous to
  Texas. N.T. 7/15/2022, P. 7. Appellant had a2007 conviction for amisdemeanor analogous to
        Then from a Motor Vehicle, two simultaneous 2008 convictions for the same, a 2010 conviction
  Theft from aMotor Vehicle, two simultaneous 2008 convictions for the same, a2010 conviction
        for DUI, a 2013 conviction for a crime analogous to second-degree felony Aggravated Assault,
 for DUI, a2013 conviction for acrime analogous to second-degree felony Aggravated Assault,
        and a 2017 conviction for second-degree felony Aggravated Assault. N.T. 7/15/2022, pp. 7- 10.
 and a2017 conviction for second-degree felony Aggravated Assault. N.T. 7/15/2022, pp. 7 — 10.
     Appellant was completed his sentence for the 2017 conviction roughly 8 months prior to his
 Appellant was completed his sentence for the 2017 conviction roughly 8 months prior to his
        behavior incident to his arrest. N,T, 7/15/2022, p. 10,
 behavior incident to his arrest. N.T. 7/15/
                                           2022, p. 10.

                   The guidelines for Count I, Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance-
              The guidelines for Count 1, Possession with Intent to Deliver aControlled Substance—
        Heroin had a standard range sentence of 60 to 72 months and an aggravated range of 84 months
 Heroin had astandard range sentence of 60 to 72 months and an aggravated range of 84 months
        for possession of slightly over 95 grams of heroin. N.T. 7/15/2022, pp. 29 - 30. These guidelines
for possession of slightly over 95 grams of heroin. N.T. 7/15/2022, pp. 29 — 30. These guidelines
        were for possession of between 50 and IO0 grams of heroin. Appellant was sentenced on Count L
were for possession of between 50 and 100 grams of heroin. Appellant was sentenced on Count 1
      to not less than 7 years, no more than I5 years, within the aggravated range. N.T. 7/15/2022, p.
to not less than 7years, no more than 15 years, within the aggravated range. N.T. 7/  15/2022, p.

43.     43.

                   The guidelines for Count 2, Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance-
          The guidelines for Count 2, Possession with Intent to Deliver aControlled Substance—
        Methamphetamine, were for 60 months to 60 months as the amount possessed was between 100
Methamphetamine, were for 60 months to 60 months as the amount possessed was between 100
                                                          20
                                                    20
        and 1,000 grams of methamphetamine. N,T, 7/15/2022, p. 29. Appellant possessed 957+ grams of
       and 1,000 grams of methamphetamine. N.T. 7/1 5/
                                                     2 022, p. 29. Appellant possessed 957+ grams of

        met hamphetamine, just below the top end of the range. The standard range for the
       methamphetamine, just below the top end of the range. The standard range for the
        methamphetamine charge is the maximum permitted by law on that count. N.T. 7/15/2022, p. 29.
       methamphetamine charge is the maximum permitted by law on that count. N.T. 7/1 5/
                                                                                       2022, p. 29.

        Appellant was sentenced on Count 2 to not less than 5 years, no more than I0 years, concurrent to
      Appellant was sentenced on Count 2to not less than 5years, no more than 10 years, concurrent to
        Count I, within the standard range. N.T, 7/15/2022, p. 43,
      Count 1, within the standard range. N.T. 7/
                                                15/
                                                  2022, p. 43.

                Appellant was sentenced on Count to S years of probation running consecutive to Count
               Appellant was sentenced on Count 3to 5years of probation running consecutive to Count
        I. N.T. 7/15/2022, p. 44. This was below the standard range of 60 months and the mitigated range
      1. N.T. 7/
               15/2022, p. 44. This was below the standard range of 60 months and the mitigated range

        of 60 months.
      of 60 months.

                Appellant was sentenced to no further penalties on Counts 4 and S as they either merged
              Appellant was sentenced to no further penalties on Counts 4and 5as they either merged
        or any sentence imposed would have been redundant, N,T, 7/15/2022, p. 44.
  or any sentence imposed would have been redundant. N.T. 7/1 5/
                                                               2 022, p. 44.

                Throughout the Sentencing Hearing, this court explained the how it took into consideration
              Throughout the Sentencing Hearing, this court explained the how it took into consideration
        Appellant's Age, conduct, character, criminal history, the impact of Appellant's actions on the
  Appellant's Age, conduct, character, criminal history, the impact of Appellant's actions on the
        community, Appellant's rehabilitative needs, the Sentencing Guidelines, the mitigating and
  community, Appellant's rehabilitative needs, the Sentencing Guidelines, the mitigating and
        aggravating factors present, Appellant's behavior at trial, and the letters from his mother and sister.
  aggravating factors present, Appellant's behavior at trial, and the letters from his mother and sister.
        See NT. 7/15/2022, pp. 4 - 13, 36 46; Sentencing D-I and D.-2. This Court also considered
 See N.T. 7/15/2022, pp. 4 — 13, 36 — 46; Sentencing D-1 and D-2. This Court also considered
     Appellant's two prior convictions for crimes of violence and that he was arrested only roughly 8
 Appellant's two prior convictions for crimes of violence and that he was arrested only roughly 8
        months after completing supervision for his second aggravated assault conviction in Texas. See
 months after completing supervision for his second aggravated assault conviction in Texas. See
        N.T. 7/1502022, pp. 10, 40. Further, the impact these drugs have had in the local community,
 N.T. 7/15/2022, pp. 10, 40. Further, the impact these drugs have had in the local community,
        Appellant's boldness in driving up from Texas to distribute bulk quantities, the fact that the
 Appellant's boldness in driving up from Texas to distribute bulk quantities, the fact that the
        quantities of drugs recovered were just undereath the next level of the guidelines for both Counts
quantities of drugs recovered were just underneath the next level of the guidelines for both Counts
        l and 2, and his continued lack of any acceptance of responsibility were considered. N.T
1 and     2, and his continued lack of any acceptance of responsibility were considered. N.T.
        7/15/2022, pp. 36, 39, 42. Only after considering all of these factors, this Court found that
7/15/2022, pp. 36, 39, 42. Only after considering all of these factors, this Court found that
        Appellant's actions required a sentence be imposed in the aggravated range. N.T. 7/15/2022, p.
Appellant's actions required asentence be imposed in the aggravated range. N.T. 7/15/2022, p.
42.     42.
                                                         21
                                                   21
                                                                         --- -

             Accordingly, this Court submits that Appellant's
                                                  Appellant's tenth through eighteenth allegations
                                                                    through eighteenth allegations of
                                                                                                   of

  error are without merit and should be dismissed.

                                            CONCLUSION
                                            CONCLUSION

             Based on
             Based on all
                      all of
                          of the
                             the forgoing,
                                 forgoing, this
                                           this Court respectfully submits
                                                Court respectfully submits that
                                                                           that Appellant's
                                                                                Appellant's eighteen
                                                                                            eighteen

  issues on appeal are without merit. Furthermore, this Court respectfully submits that
                                                              respectfully submits      the Guilty
                                                                                   that the Guilty

  Verdict of April 13, 2022 by a
                               a jury of Appellant's peers, following an exceedingly
                                                     peers, following    exceedingly fair
                                                                                     fair Trial,
                                                                                          Trial, with
                                                                                                 with

                                                                         Lastly, it
 qualified Trial Counsel representing his interests, should be affirmed. Lastly, it is
                                                                                    is respectfully
                                                                                       respectfully
 submitted that this Court's July 15, 2022, Sentencing Order, which followed
                                                                    followed aacomprehensive
                                                                               comprehensive

 review of all relevant sentencing information, and which had followed the Appellant's
                                                                           Appellant's conviction
                                                                                       conviction

 based on overwhelming evidence of guilt that Appellant committed the erimes
                                                                      crimes of Possession with
                                                                                Possession with

 Intent to Deliver aaControlled Substance-Heroin",
                                Substance—Heroin' °, Possession with Intent to
                                                                            to Deliver
                                                                               Deliver a
                                                                                       a Controlled
                                                                                         Controlled

 Substance—Methamphetamine• 1,Criminal Conspiracy
 Substance-Methamphetamine!',          Conspiracy— Possession with Intent to Deliver
                                                                   Intent to Deliver aa

            Substance--(a) Heroin and (b)
 Controlled Substance-{a)             (b) Methamphetamine 12 ,Possession of a
                                          Methamphetamine',                   Controlled
                                                                            a Controlled

 Substance--(a)
       -(a) Heroin and
 Substance         and (b) Methamphetamine 13 ,
                           Methamphetamine",   and Possession of Paraphernalia
                                                                 Paraphernalia"14 should
                                                                                  should also
                                                                                         also

be affirmed. Accordingly, this Court respectfully requests that all issues raised by Appellant be
                                                                                  by Appellant be

determined to be without merit and that Appellant's appeal
                                                    appeal be dismissed in its entirety.
                                                                           its entirety.

Date: ld
       ll•                 U   •

10 35 P.S.
  3$PS. §$ 780-113(x)(30)
              780-113(a)030)
11 35 P.S.
  3$PS. §$780-113(a)830)
              780-113(a)(30)
   18 Pa.C.S. §$903
1218PCS.         903
   35 P.S. $780-113(a)015
1)3$PS.     § 780-113(a)(15)
   35 P.S. §$ 780-113(a)(32)
1°35P.$.      780-1136832)
                                                 22
                            PROOF OF SERVICE
                           PROOF OF SERVICE

              I hereby certify that I served this day the foregoing
             Ihereby certify that Iserved this day the foregoing
  documents upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which
 documents upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which
  service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 121:
 service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 121:

   Service in person
  Service in person
     as follows:
    as follows:

  Hon. Brian T. McGuffi
Hon. Brian T. McGuffin
 (215) 348-6606
(215) 348-6606
 Judges  Chambers
Judges Chambers
  Bucks County Justice Center
Bucks County Justice Center
  Doylestown, PA 18901
Doylestown, PA 18901

  Matthew Weintraub
 Matthew Weintraub
  District
District   Attorney
         Attorney
  (215) 348-6344
(215) 348-6344
  District Attorney's Office
District Attorney's Office
  Bucks County Justice Center
Bucks County Justice Center
  Doylestown,   PA 18901
Doylestown, PA 18901
  Attorney for Appellee
Attorney for Appellee

DATED:                      BY:
                               . £  /
                                  CR1sis.
                               CHRISTA
                                       DUNLEAVY
                                       S. DUNLEAVY
                                 CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
                               CHIEF   DEPUTY
                                  ATTORNEY       476134DEFENDER
                                              IDPUBLIC
                               ATTORNEY    ID # 76134
                                  PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
                               PUBLIC
                                  BUCKS DEFENDER'S    OFFICECENTER
                                          COUNTY JUSTICE
                               BUCKS    COUNTY   JUSTICE
                                  DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901   CENTER
                               DOYLESTOWN,
                                  (215) 348-6473PA 18901
                               (215) 348-6473
                                  EMAIL: slspickler@buckscounty.org
                              EMAIL: slspickler@buckscounty.org
                                 ATTORNEY  FOR APPELLANT
                              ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT