Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0001836-2010 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CP-21-CR-1836-2010 : : KEITH D. YOUNG : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 It was not clear to the undersigned that an appeal was pending in the Superior Court until we received a letter dated March 1, 2012, from the Superior Court Deputy Prothonotary indicating that the record was overdue. A review of the docket entries in this case reveals some confusion. The defendant was sentenced on October 18, 2011, to a term of not less than two nor more than four years in a State Correctional Institution on a count of possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance. A motion for reconsideration of sentence was filed and denied by order of court, dated November 2, 2011. An appeal was filed to the Superior Court on November 29, 2011. A Notice of Appeal was also filed on December 1, 2011. On December 7, 2011, this Court received an order from the Superior Court indicating that the appeal had been withdrawn effective December 2, 2011. That appeal was docketed to 2056 MDA 2011. We were unaware that an appeal remained pending docketed to 2093 MDA 2011. Because we mistakenly believed that all appeals had been withdrawn in this case, no request was made of the defendant to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. The facts of the underlying conviction are not complicated. The offense occurred in the vicinity of Vinnie’s Pizza located in West Fairview Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The arresting officer, Detective Adam Shope, had entered the pizza shop to have lunch. He observed suspicious activity in the parking lot. At one point, he observed a man, later identified as Roscoe Landis, enter the passenger side rear of a vehicle which was not the same vehicle in which he had arrived earlier. The officer left the pizza shop and was able to observe activity inside the car. He noticed the defendant hand something to Mr. Landis in the rear seat in exchange for which the defendant received money. The defendant began to count the money. Detective Shope then identified himself as a police officer. The defendant, Keith Young, was removed from the vehicle as was the driver, one Kenneth Duncan. In addition, Mr. Landis was made to exit the vehicle. The officer and Landis walked away from the area whereupon Mr. Landis was read his Miranda warnings. He advised the officer that he had come to the parking lot to purchase crack cocaine from his dealer. He identified Keith Young as his crack cocaine supplier. He indicated, further, that, when apprehended, he was in the process of purchasing $100.00 worth of crack cocaine from Keith Young. A small amount of crack cocaine was located on the seat which had been occupied by Mr. Landis. The defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence in this case. We denied that motion. To the extent that this appeal involves the legality of the search of the vehicle, that matter was addressed in our opinion and order of February 10, 2011. We rest on our opinion of February 10, 2011, and incorporate same herein by reference. The defendant was found guilty by a jury on July 27, 2011. To the extent that this appeal raises the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, we briefly address the matter. At the trial, Detective Shope testified that he observed what was clearly a drug transaction going on right in front of him. He described how the substance involved had been handed from the defendant to Mr. Landis in exchange for money. Roscoe Landis also testified. He describes his interaction with the defendant as follows: 2 A I got in the back seat. I asked the driver to pull off. They said, no, let’s just do it right here. The man in front of me slid the drug through here, and I put $100.00 up over his right shoulder. He took the 100. I took the package and put it in my left hand. And the officer come up and put a big badge in front of my face. And I stuck it down between the seat and I tried to hide it. Trial Transcript, p. 88. The defendant also testified. He denied delivering cocaine and attempted to explain the $100.00 in his possession. His explanation was, at best, disjointed and, at worse, total gibberish. In short, the evidence of guilt in this case is overwhelming. In any event, a determination of the credibility of the witnesses is the exclusive province of the jury. Com. v. Kerrigan, 920 A.2d 190 (Pa.Super. 2007). The defendant filed a post-sentence motion seeking reconsideration of sentence. He requested a sentence of less than two to four years because, while awaiting trial in his case, he had been gainfully employed, he worked with the Big Brother program prior to his incarceration, and he has three children. The sentence was imposed following our careful consideration of the sentence report. We continue to be satisfied that the factors which were raised post-sentence should do nothing to disturb the sentence we imposed which was in the lower end of the standard range. At the time of sentencing, we noted that the sentencing guidelines in this case involved the application of a prior record score based on his “abhorrent” prior criminal record. March 6, 2012 _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, P. J. 3 Matthew P. Smith, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Halkias, Esquire Senior Assistant Public Defender :rlm 4