Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0001606-2009 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JORDAN KEIR HILL : CP-21-CR-1606-2009 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Masland, J., June 16, 2011:-- Defendant, Jordan Keir Hill, appeals his conviction of the above-captioned charges following a suppression hearing and a stipulated nonjury trial. He complains of the following errors on appeal: 1. The court erred when it found that the traffic stop of Mr. Hill was supported by reasonable suspicion based on Officer Fink's unreasonable assertion that the registration plate was obscured. 2. The court erred when it found that the traffic stop of Mr. Hill was supported by reasonable suspicion based on Officer Fink's unreasonable assertion that Mr. Hill was driving while impaired by stopping at stop signs. 3. The trial court erred when, at the motion to suppress, over defense counsel's objection, it allowed the prosecution to question Officer Fink about the amount of DUI related stops made by police in the area that Mr. Hill was stopped. 4. The court erred when it found that the money and small bags of marijuana seized from Mr. Hill supported a conviction for intent to deliver a schedule I controlled substance. Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, filed March 25, 2011. I. Facts At the outset, we note that our esteemed colleague, the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., conducted the suppression hearing in this matter and entered an order denying Defendant's 1 omnibus pretrial motion. Following Defendant's appeal, Judge Oler filed an opinion pursuant 1 Opinion pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925, filed May 9, 2011 . CP-21-CR-2606-2009 to Rule 1925 wherein he made findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding all of Defendant's suppression issues. This thorough and well-reasoned opinion resolves Defendant's first three claims of error. Accordingly, the court now addresses Defendant's final error attacking the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction for possession with intent to deliver. At his nonjury trial, Defendant stipulated, in relevant part, to the following facts: 5. While speaking with the defendant, Trooper Fink noticed ... there was an odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle. 6. Trooper Fink ... observed a small plastic baggie of marijuana lying in the center console of the vehicle. ... 8. When Trooper Fink asked the defendant to retrieve the marijuana from the console, the defendant complied and Trooper Fink asked if there were any more drugs in the vehicle and the defendant reached behind the seat and produced a black bag. 9. Trooper Fink asked the defendant what was in the black bag and the defendant replied "more weed and some fake coke." 10. Inside the bag was [sic] five small baggies of marijuana and a small bag of white powder. ... 15. The defendant was taken into custody and during the officer safety search, Trooper Fink felt a large bulge in the defendant's front right pocket which turned out to be a large wad of money, which totaled $196.00 in denominations of twenties, tens, fives and one dollar bills. ... 19. When the baggies of marijuana were tested, it was determined that the material was marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance. ... 21. It was the opinion of the police that the manner in which this marijuana was packaged, along with the large sum of cash made the defendant's possession of a schedule I controlled substance (marijuana) consistent with the possession with the intent to deliver. Commonwealth's Ex. 1. -2- CP-21-CR-2606-2009 II. Discussion In a review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a possession with intent to deliver conviction, “all facts and circumstances surrounding the possession are relevant, and the Commonwealth may establish the essential elements of the crime wholly by circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Factors to consider in determining whether the drugs were possessed with the intent to deliver include the particular method of packaging, the form of the drug, and the behavior of the defendant.” Id. First, Defendant admitted possession of the marijuana and presumably does not dispute as much on appeal. Stip. at ¶¶9-10. Next, the court turns to the question of whether Defendant possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver. Looking at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the court finds that the manner of packaging, Defendant's behavior, and his possession of a large wad of cash, support the conclusion that Defendant possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver. During the traffic stop, the Trooper detected the odor of burnt marijuana and observed a small amount of marijuana in the center console. Stip. at ¶¶5-6. Based on these facts alone, Defendant could not be convicted of possession with intent to deliver. However, in response to the Trooper's questioning, Defendant reached behind his seat and produced a black bag containing five individually packaged baggies of marijuana. Stip. at ¶¶8, 10. These baggies of marijuana were packaged for delivery and concealed separately from the marijuana Defendant possessed for personal use. These facts coupled with Defendant's possession of large wad of cash in small bills support the court's finding that Defendant possessed marijuana with the intent to deliver. Bricker, 882 A.2d at 1015. -3- CP-21-CR-2606-2009 III. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, the court did not err in finding Defendant guilty of possession with intent to deliver. As to Defendant's first three allegations of error, the court relies on the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. For all these reasons, Defendant's convictions should be affirmed in all respects. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Matthew P. Smith, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Brian O. Williams, Esquire For Defendant :saa -4-