Court Opinion

ID: 9961282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 15:24:37.584988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:31.378859
License: Public Domain

J-S06034-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DYSHA WRIGHT                                 :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 389 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 14, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010170-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                              FILED APRIL 18, 2024

       Dysha Wright (“Wright”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

following his conviction for one count of persons not to possess firearms.1 We

affirm.

       The trial court recounted the underlying facts and procedural history as

follows:

              At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of
       Philadelphia Police Officer Joshua Rubin [(“Officer Rubin”)].
       Officer Rubin testified that[,] on January 30, 2021, at
       approximately 6:40 p.m., he and his partner, Officer Vazquez,[2]
       responded to a radio call for “person with a gun.” As a result of
       the call, the officers arrived at a grocery store located at 6900
       Woodland Avenue in Philadelphia. They went inside the store and
       encountered [Wright], who was standing in the back aisle of the
       store. Officer Rubin walked to the end of the aisle and, from a
       shelf located precisely where [Wright] was standing, recovered a
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.

2 Officer Vazquez’s first name is not included in the certified record.
J-S06034-24

       silver and black .38 caliber handgun. Officer Rubin placed the
       firearm on a property receipt, and [Wright] was taken into
       custody.

              Although Officer Rubin candidly admitted that he never saw
       [Wright] holding the firearm, the Commonwealth played video
       surveillance from the store, which was introduced into evidence
       as Exhibit “C-1”. The surveillance video showed an unknown male
       in all black clothing looking back shortly before police entered the
       store. That male alerted [Wright] that police were coming, at
       which point the video depicted [Wright] retrieving an object from
       his jacket and placing it on the shelf in the back aisle of the store.
       The video depicted no other persons approaching that shelf in the
       brief period prior to Officer Rubin’s recovery of the firearm.

             Finally, prior to resting, the Commonwealth introduced
       stipulated evidence that [Wright] had a prior conviction that
       prohibited him from possessing a firearm.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/17/23, at 2-3 (footnote added, record citations

omitted).

       The trial court convicted Wright of persons not to possess firearms.

After receipt of a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report, the trial court sentenced

Wright to four to ten years in prison. Wright filed a motion for reconsideration

of sentence, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed.3

       Wright raises a single issue on appeal:

       Was the evidence insufficient to adjudicate Wright guilty of
       [persons not to possess firearms]?

Wright’s Brief at 4.

____________________________________________

3 Wright and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -2-
J-S06034-24

       Wright’s issue implicates the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his

conviction for persons not to possess firearms. See Wright’s Brief at 8-9.

Pertinently:

       [w]e review claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by
       considering 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. Further, a conviction may be
       sustained wholly on circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—
       while passing on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of
       the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.
       In conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh the
       evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact[]finder.

Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted).

       The Crimes Code defines persons not to possess firearms as follows:

       (1) A person who has been convicted of an offense enumerated in
       subsection (b), within or without this Commonwealth, regardless
       of the length of sentence or whose conduct meets the criteria in
       subsection (c) shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or
       manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell,
       transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).4

       “Illegal possession of a firearm may be shown by constructive

possession.”     Commonwealth v. Cruz, 21 A.3d 1247, 1253 (Pa. Super.

2011). “[C]onstructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to

____________________________________________

4 Wright does not dispute he was statutorily ineligible to possess a firearm.

See Wright’s Brief at 8-9.
                                           -3-
J-S06034-24

deal with the realities of criminal law enforcement.”     Commonwealth v.

Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078, 1093 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). “Constructive

possession has been defined as the ability to exercise a conscious dominion

over the [contraband]: the power to control the contraband and the intent to

exercise that control.” Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132, 134 (Pa.

1983). “Dominion and control means the defendant had the ability to reduce

the item to actual possession immediately or was otherwise able to govern its

use or disposition as if in physical possession.” Commonwealth v. Peters,

218 A.3d 1206, 1209 (Pa. 2019) (internal citation omitted). The intent to

maintain a conscious dominion may be inferred from the totality of the

circumstances. See id. “[A]lthough mere presence at a crime scene cannot

alone sustain a conviction for possession of contraband[,] a [fact finder] need

not ignore presence, proximity and association when presented in conjunction

with other evidence of guilt.” Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 869

(Pa. Super. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]s with

any other element of a crime, constructive possession may be proven by

circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36-37

(Pa. Super. 2018).

      Wright maintains:

             The Commonwealth failed to prove that Wright possessed
      the firearm. He was never seen possessing the gun, and it was
      recovered on the shelf of a store that was open to the public with
      multiple other people present.

                                     -4-
J-S06034-24

Wright’s Brief at 7.

      The trial court disagreed, explaining:

             The direct and circumstantial evidence, along with all
      reasonable inferences viewed in light most favorable to the
      Commonwealth, established that [Wright] constructively
      possessed the firearm seized in this case. Officer Rubin testified
      that when he entered the grocery store, he encountered [Wright],
      who was standing in the back aisle of the store. Officer Rubin
      walked over to the end of the aisle and, from a shelf located
      precisely where [Wright] was standing, recovered a silver and
      black .38 caliber handgun. While the officer acknowledged that
      he never saw [Wright] holding the firearm, the Commonwealth
      introduced video evidence depicting [Wright] retrieving an object
      from his jacket and placing it on the shelf -- i.e., precisely where
      the firearm was recovered just a few moments later. Moreover,
      the video demonstrated that no other persons approached that
      area of the store prior to recovery of the firearm by Officer Rubin.
      All told, the above evidence and all reasonable inferences
      deducible     therefrom,    amply    established     that   [Wright]
      constructively possessed the firearm. Cf. Commonwealth v.
      Muhammad, [289] A.3d [1078, 1091] (Pa. Super. 2023)
      (evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant constructively
      possessed unlicensed handgun found in center console of rental
      vehicle he was driving, where [police] recovered handgun from
      center console of vehicle, right next to where defendant had been
      sitting, defendant was the only occupant in the car at the time of
      the stop, and furtive movements and awkward positioning of his
      body indicated that he was aware of the gun and attempting to
      conceal it). . . .

            Additionally, [Wright] stipulated to the fact that he had been
      convicted of an offense that prohibited him from possessing a
      firearm.   Accordingly, the evidence adduced at trial clearly
      supported [Wright’s] conviction for persons not to possess
      firearms.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/17/23, at 7-8 (italics added).

      We affirm based on the trial court’s reasoning. The trial court, sitting

as the factfinder, viewed the video of the incident, saw Officer Rubin enter the
                                     -5-
J-S06034-24

story, and saw an unknown male signal to Wright, who removed an object

from his jacket, and place it on the shelf, precisely where Officer Rubin

recovered the gun a few moments later. See id. at 2-3, 7. This is sufficient

to sustain a conviction for persons not to possess firearms.             See

Commonwealth v. Brown, 186 A.3d 985, 992 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding

evidence sufficient to prove persons not to possess firearms where defendant

was a passenger in taxi cab, the driver felt defendant tugging at the jacket

where the driver kept a firearm, immediately after defendant left the cab, the

driver discovered the gun was missing, and the gun was later found in the

possession of a relative of defendant); Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 2023

WL 8183707, at *4 (Pa. Super., 11/27/23) (unpublished memorandum)

(holding the evidence prove persons not to possess firearms, where a police

officer chasing a suspect saw the suspect throw an object from his waistband

and later recovered a firearm from that location).5

       For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Wright’s claim is lacking

in merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non-precedential memoranda decision of

Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for persuasive value).
                                     -6-
J-S06034-24

Date: 4/18/2024

                  -7-