Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-0123 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. RAYMOND D. ARNOLD 01-0123 CRIMINAL CHARGE: UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AFFIANT: TPR. ANTHONY TODARO OPINION PURSUANT TO PA R.A.P. 1925 HOFFER, P.J. On January 4, 2001, Officer Anthony Todaro stopped a speeding automobile on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Cumberland County. During the stop, Officer Todaro detected the odor of marijuana and asked the defendant, Raymond D. Arnold, who was a passenger in the automobile, to exit. Officer Todaro then searched the defendant and found a package of cocaine hidden in his pants. The cocaine weighed 237 grams and was found in a single white ziplock baggy. Additionally, a cutting agent, Lidocaine, was also found in the coat of one of the other passengers. The defendant later made a statement that he had bought the eight ounces of cocaine (237 grams) in Philadelphia for $7,300.00. He also stated that he had put the Lidocaine in the jacket of the other passenger. Testimony was given in defendant's non-jury trial showing that Lidocaine is a cutting agent that is added to cocaine to make a larger quantity of the drug. The defendant was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute by this Court pursuant to 35 P.S. Sec. 780-113(a)(30). The defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to warrant a conviction for possession with intent to distribute. The test for a sufficiency of the evidence is, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, whether the jury could reasonably have determined all elements of the crime to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v Torres, 421 Pa. Super. 233, 237, 617 A.2d 812,813 (1992) (citing Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236, 246, 546 A.2d 1101, 1105 (1988)). The Commonwealth may meet this burden with wholly circumstantial evidence. Id. In cases involving possession with intent to distribute, the court must consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the possession of the substance. Id. Thus, possession with intent to deliver can be inferred from the quantity of the drugs possessed and other surrounding circumstances, such as lack of paraphernalia for consumption. Id. at 238,617 A.2d at 813. The quantity of cocaine was more than enough to justify a conviction of possession with intent to deliver. Torres, 421 Pa. Super. 233, 617 A.2d 812 (holding that 4.63 grams was enough to convict for intent to distribute); Commonwealth v Drummond, 775 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. 2001) (finding that six (6) grams was enough to convict). Here, the defendant had 237 grams (8 ounces, or half a pound) of cocaine, in addition to a cutting agent that is used to enlarge the amount. Additionally, there was no paraphernalia found that would indicate personal consum ption.~ In looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the totality of the circumstances shows that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of possession with intent to distribute. ~ The defendant argues that nothing in this case stated that the quantity of the drugs was unusually large nor was there any expert testimony that the quantity was inconsistent with personal use. Not only does the defendant fail to cite to any cases that would reflect the need for such testimony when the quantity is as obviously large as it is in this case, but in fact, the cases cited within the defendant's brief only go to show that quantity alone permits an inference that the possessor had an intent to sell. Defendant's Brief 2, citing Commonwealth v. Santiago, 462 Pa. 216, 340 A.2d 440 (1975). The defendant does not cite to any cases in his brief that would refute the fact that half a pound of cocaine is an unusually large amount. In fact, the defendant has failed to cite to any cases in support of his contention, but has merely cited to two older cases, both of which assert well founded legal principles that have been restated in much more recent opinions.