J-S76007-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAMONT LORRICK
Appellant No. 3124 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-5-CR-0008869-2013
BEFORE: STABILE, DUBOW, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2016
Appellant, Lamont Lorrick, appeals from the April 20, 2015 judgment
of sentence imposing concurrent sentences of four to eight years of
incarceration for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance,
conspiracy, and unlawful possession of a firearm.1 We affirm.
The trial court, sitting as fact finder, found Appellant guilty of the
aforementioned offenses and several related offenses2 at the conclusion of a
March 3, 2015 trial. The trial court summarized the pertinent facts, which
are not in dispute:
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903 and 6105, respectively.
2
The trial court imposed no further punishment for the related offenses.
J-S76007-16
On April 2, 2013, Philadelphia Police Officer Joseph
McCook, assigned to the Narcotics [Field] Unit, along with Police
Officer [William] Beck, went to the 2600 block of North 8 th Street
in Philadelphia and met with a confidential informant (hereinafter
“CI”). During the meeting, Officer Beck searched the CI and
after ascertaining that he did not have money or contraband in
his possession, gave the CI pre-recorded ‘buy’ money. The CI
then walked to the east side of the 2600 block of North 8th Street
where approached a Hispanic male named Raphael Rondon
Rivera who engaged him in a brief conversation. Rivera then
accepted the buy money from the CI and walked to the west side
of North 8th Street where he approached Appellant, who was
standing in front of 2636 North 8th Street. Rivera handed
Appellant the buy money. Appellant entered of [sic] 2636 North
8th Street for a short time and thereafter emerged handing a
small bundle to Rivera who then walked back to the CI and
handed him the bundle. Once the CI retrieved the bundle, he
returned to Officer McCook and handed him the bundle. The
bundle contained what later testing revealed to be marijuana.
Officer McCook returned to the area on April 9, 2013, and
again met a CI. As was the case on April 2, 2013, the CI was
searched and given $20.00 in buy money which he handed to
Rivera who gave it to Appellant who then retrieved a small
object from inside of 2636 North 8th Street that was transferred
to Rondon and then the CI. The CI surrendered the object to
Officer McCook and he determined that it contained marijuana.
As a result of the CI’s buy, Officer McCook obtained a
search warrant for 2636 North 8th Street, which was executed on
April 12, 2013, by Officer McCook and other officers. Inside the
residence police encountered Appellant, co-defendant Stanley
Harrison, and a third male sitting around a table in the dining
room eating chicken. On the table, police discovered a scale,
two large bags filled with marijuana, and a jar of codeine syrup
all of which was seized. From inside a clothes dryer situated
about six feet from where the men were seated, police seized
four bags of marijuana and a nine millimeter handgun that was
under the bags of marijuana and from the second floor a digital
scale.
Philadelphia Police Officer Bill Bolds participated in the
execution of the search warrant and placed Appellant under
arrest. Incident to that arrest, Officer Bolds seized $842.00 in
-2-
J-S76007-16
U.S. currency from Appellant. The money, along with the items
described above were placed on property receipts.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/21/16, at 2-3 (record citations omitted).
After sentencing, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion that
was denied by operation of law on August 31, 2015. This timely appeal
followed. Appellant raises two issues for our review:
1. Was the evidence presented at trial by the
Commonwealth insufficient to sustain [Appellant’s]
conviction for criminal conspiracy?
2. Was the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction for
possession of the firearm found in the dryer of a
residence sustain [sic] [Appellant’s] conviction [for
unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of an
instrument of crime]?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
The applicable standard of review is well-settled:
When evaluating a sufficiency claim, our standard is
whether, viewing all the evidence and reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the factfinder
reasonably could have determined that each element of the
crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court
considers all the evidence admitted, without regard to any claim
that some of the evidence was wrongly allowed. We do not
weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations.
Moreover, any doubts concerning a defendant's guilt were to be
resolved by the factfinder unless the evidence was so weak and
inconclusive that no probability of fact could be drawn from that
evidence.
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 332 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal
denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).
-3-
J-S76007-16
Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of
his conspiracy conviction. The Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines criminal
conspiracy as follows:
(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of
conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if
with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or
one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes
such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the
planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or
solicitation to commit such crime.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a). Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to
produce sufficient evidence that he entered a criminal conspiracy with
anybody. After thorough review, we have concluded that the trial court
accurately addressed this issue in its January 21, 2016 opinion. In
particular, we note that the record plainly evidences conspiratorial conduct
between Appellant and Rivera. We reject Appellant’s argument on the basis
of the trial court’s opinion.
Next, Appellant argues the Commonwealth did not produce sufficient
evidence of Appellant’s constructive possession of the firearm police seized
from inside the clothes dryer.
Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic
construct to deal with the realities of criminal law enforcement.
Constructive possession is an inference arising from a set of
facts that possession of the contraband was more likely than not.
We have defined constructive possession as conscious dominion.
We subsequently defined conscious dominion as the power to
-4-
J-S76007-16
control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control. To
aid application, we have held that constructive possession may
be established by the totality of the circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal
denied, 78 A.3d 1090 (Pa. 2013). “Additionally, it is possible for two people
to have joint constructive possession of an item of contraband.” Id.
Appellant argues the Commonwealth produced insufficient evidence tying
him to the house police searched. Appellant also argues the Commonwealth
produced insufficient evidence of constructive possession given the presence
of other persons when police seized the gun. Once again, after thorough
review, we conclude that the trial court’s opinion accurately applied the law
to the facts. We note that police observed Appellant selling drugs out of the
house in question on several occasions, and more than one person can have
constructive possession of an unlawful item. We reject Appellant’s argument
on the basis of the trial court’s January 21, 2016 opinion.
In summary, we affirm the judgment of sentence for the reasons set
forth on pages 5 to 8 of the trial court’s January 21, 2016 opinion. We direct
that a copy of the trial court’s opinion be filed along with this memorandum.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-5-
J-S76007-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2016
-6-
Com. v. Lorick, L.
Combined Opinion