J-S10003-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RASHEEN ARMAND GRAYSON
Appellant No. 1536 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 12, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002674-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 02, 2016
Appellant, Rasheen Armand Grayson, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following
his jury trial conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled
substance (“PWID”).1 We affirm.
The trial court fully set forth the relevant facts and procedural history
of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN
THE CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER SINCE THE
COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE, BEYOND A
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S10003-16
REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT [APPELLANT] ACTUALLY OR
CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES AT ISSUE HEREIN, OR THAT HE DID SO
WITH THE INTENT TO DELIVER THEM?
(Appellant’s Brief at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable John P.
Capuzzi, Sr., we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed July 1, 2015, at 5-9) (finding:
when officers arrived at house at 5:50 a.m., they found Appellant hiding in
bedroom closet naked; Appellant was only male in residence; Appellant
indicated that pair of pants on floor belonged to him; pants contained large
bag of cocaine; evidence established Appellant’s constructive possession of
cocaine; Appellant possessed cocaine in quantity indicative of seller as
opposed to user; Commonwealth’s expert opined that circumstances,
including scale and differently sized smaller bags located on dresser in
bedroom, showed intent to distribute cocaine; therefore, Commonwealth’s
evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s PWID conviction).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-2-
J-S10003-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/2/2016
-3-
Circulated 01/20/2016 02:51 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELA WARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-23-CR-2674-2014
v.
Rasheen Grayson
A. Sheldon Kovach, Esquire, Deputy District Attorney, for the Commonwealth
- - Steven-M-.-Papi/l!squtre;-fonlre-App-e-Uant--
- --- - - - -- - - -- -
OPINION
Capuzzi, J. Filed: 7 I t I ti0\5
This is an appeal from Appellant's judgment of sentence entered on March 12, 2015. On
appeal, Appellant alleges that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction
for Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver herein "PWID"1 because the
Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant actually or
constructively possessed any of the controlled substances at issue or that he did so with the intent
to deliver them. For the forthcoming reasons, the evidence presented unequivocally established
the elements of PWID and Appellant's judgment of sentence should be affirmed.
FACTUAL BASIS
Agent Tim Stevenson is employed by the United States Marshal Service Task Force and
was so employed on March 24, 201,4. [N.T., 1/29/2015 p.28]. Acting in his capacity as a US
Marshall, Agent Stevenson had occasion to go to 55 North Keystone Avenue in Upper Darby,
Delaware County, Pennsylvania. [N.T., 1/29/2015 p.28]. Agent Stevenson arrived along with
1
35 Pa.C.S. §780-113(a)(30)
Page 1 of 10
other members of the Marshal Task Force and Pennsylvania State Troopers. A female answered
the door and gave the officers permission to enter. [N.T., 1/25/2015 p. 29]. Once inside the
home, Agent Stevenson observed two females and a child on the first floor. [N.T., 1/25/2015 p.
29]. Along with a few troopers, Agent Stevenson walked upstairs and entered the front bedroom.
The room contained a bed, dresser, and a closet. (N.T., 1/25/2015 p. 29, 37]. One of the officers
located Appellant, naked and hiding in a closet. [N.T., 1/25/2015 p.30]. After Appellant was
~etainec!,_h~ _!!_~!_Com. v. Grayson, R.
Combined Opinion