Opinion
668 MDA 2021 J-S05013-22
04-05-2022
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ISRAEL KING ESTRELLA Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 21, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0001728-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM
PANELLA, P.J.
This criminal matter compels us to review challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting convictions of guilt imposed on Israel King Estrella for charges stemming from the drug overdose death of Justin Shifflett. We affirm.
Justin, who was living in his father's residence along with other family members, had been friends with Estrella. On April 21, 2018, Justin's girlfriend, December Cleckner, was spending the day at the house with Justin. In the evening, Justin and Estrella were exchanging text messages, and Estrella eventually appeared at the residence. Justin and Cleckner joined Estrella and Justin's father, Walter Shifflett, on the front porch. After some time passed, Justin walked with Estrella to Estrella's car, where the two remained for approximately fifteen minutes. Justin returned to the house and went upstairs with Cleckner to his bedroom. A while later, Justin went to the bathroom for a few minutes, returned to the bedroom, and slumped to the floor. Justin remained there until the next day, when police were called, and it was determined that he had overdosed. Justin's cause of death was mixed substance toxicity from a combination of heroin and fentanyl.
Estrella was charged with involuntary manslaughter, drug delivery resulting in death, criminal use of a communication facility, and possession with intent to deliver ("PWID"). On October 28, 2020, a jury convicted Estrella of criminal use of a communication facility and PWID. The jury found Estrella not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and was deadlocked on the charge of drug delivery resulting in death.
On December 21, 2020, the trial court sentenced Estrella to serve an aggregate prison term of three to six years. Estrella filed post-sentence motions, which were denied on May 12, 2021. This timely appeal followed.
Estrella raises two claims for our consideration, which challenge the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Estrella essentially maintains that, because no one witnessed an exchange between Estrella and Justin, and the timing of the delivery does not coincide with text message exchange, the convictions should be overturned.
We first address Estrella's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because he would be entitled to discharge if the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. "Because a successful sufficiency of the evidence claim warrants discharge on the pertinent crime, we must address this issue first." Commonwealth v. Toritto, 67 A.3d 29, 33 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
Estrella argues the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for PWID. See Appellant's Brief at 11-13. Estrella contends that there was no evidence to prove that he made any delivery to Justin. He also posits that the text message interactions between himself and Justin do not prove that he delivered drugs to Justin because the messages were exchanged after the two men were together, and therefore after any delivery of drugs could have possibly occurred.
To the extent Estrella attempts to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of use of a communication facility, we note this issue is waived due to his failure to specify the elements of the crime allegedly not proven by the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) (finding sufficiency claim waived for failure to specify either in Rule 1925(b) statement or in argument portion of appellate brief which elements of crime were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt) (citation omitted).
Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom are sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged is established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003). "The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence." Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
"[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence." Id. (citation omitted). Any doubt raised as to the accused's guilt is to be resolved by the factfinder. See id. "As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record." Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict "unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances." Bruce, 916 A.2d at 661 (citation omitted).
Pennsylvania prohibits the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to deliver, of a controlled substance by a person not registered to do so. See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). Delivery is defined as "the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, other drug, device or cosmetic whether or not there is an agency relationship." 35 P.S. § 780-102.
"[F]or a defendant to be liable for the delivery of a controlled substance there must be evidence that he knowingly made an actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance to another person without the legal authority to do so." Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312, 319 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). "A defendant actually transfers drugs whenever he physically conveys drugs to another person." Id. (citation omitted).
Our review of the record reflects the jury had more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Estrella delivered drugs to Justin. The Commonwealth presented evidence that Justin's cell phone was recovered from the scene and data extraction was performed on the device. See N.T., 10/27/20, at 223-224. Detective Timothy Shermeyer of the York City Police offered testimony concerning the communications between Estrella and Justin that occurred on April 21, 2018.
Particularly, Detective Shermeyer testified to the text message exchange between Estrella and Justin beginning at 9:08 p.m., which concerned Justin procuring narcotics from Estrella. See id. at 230-243. The texts discussed amounts of drugs, pricing, and the fact that Estrella would travel to Justin because Justin was with his girlfriend. See id. Importantly, Estrella sent a message to Justin indicating that Estrella had a bundle that had eight bags, and he would accept a delayed payment of $60.00 for it. See id. at 238. The two men then agreed to a delivery at Justin's residence. See id. at 238-239.
Detective Shermeyer stated that eight bags were recovered from the scene. See id. at 238. Five of the packets had heroin and fentanyl in them. See id., at 192-4. The detective also explained that the final text message sent from Estrella, which Justin never read, warned of the strength of the drugs stating, "It's straight do not do more than two at first okay." See id. at 242-243.
The Commonwealth also produced testimony from Cleckner regarding Estrella's visit to Justin's residence on April 21, 2018. Cleckner explained that she and Justin were in his bedroom watching movies and went to the front porch when Walter Shifflett alerted them that Estrella had arrived. See N.T., 10/27/20, at 107-109. Cleckner stated that she stayed on the porch when Estrella and Justin eventually walked to Estrella's vehicle, which was parked several car lengths down the street. See id. at 110. Cleckner indicated that the two men were at the vehicle, and she could not hear what they were discussing. See id. at 111. However, she did observe Estrella get into the driver's seat and Justin lean into the window with his arms. See id. Further, Justin did not interact with anyone else when he was at the vehicle, or when he returned to the house. See id. at 111-112.
Viewing the totality of this evidence, both direct and circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we hold there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Estrella delivered drugs to Justin. While there was no direct evidence of the physical transaction, the jury was entitled to infer that the eight bags found in Justin's room were the eight bags containing narcotics discussed in the text exchange and transferred from Estrella to Justin when the two met at Estrella's car. Therefore, Estrella's claim that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the crime of PWID lacks merit.
We next address Estrella's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Basically, Estrella argues that the evidence presented did not establish he made a delivery of drugs to Justin. More specifically, he challenges that: testimony from Cleckner and Walter Shifflett showed that Estrella was at Justin's residence prior to the text message exchange brought into evidence, there was no proof that it was Estrella who sent the text messages to Justin, no witness testified that an actual exchange occurred between Justin and Estrella, other individuals may have delivered drugs to Justin, and no witness actually saw Justin take drugs delivered by Estrella.
The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666, 672 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). When considering a motion that a verdict was against the weight of the evidence, a "trial court should award a new trial on this ground only when the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381, 396 (Pa. 2011).
This Court's standard of review of a trial court's decision regarding a weight of the evidence claim is limited to determining whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in concluding that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003). "Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court's determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 546 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). "One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice." Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted)
The jury, sitting as the finder of fact, chose to believe the evidence presented by the Commonwealth, as well as the logical inferences derived therefrom, as was its right. In addressing Estrella's challenge to the weight of the evidence set forth in his post-sentence motions, the trial court presented a thorough recitation of the facts established by the evidence, which discounted each of Estrella's contentions. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/21, at 1-12.
It was within the province of the jury as factfinder to resolve all issues of credibility, resolve any conflicts in evidence, make reasonable inferences from the evidence, believe all, none, or some of the evidence, and ultimately adjudge Estrella guilty. The jury weighed the evidence and concluded Estrella delivered drugs to Justin on April 21, 2018. The trial court did not err in concluding the jury's verdict was not so contrary to the evidence so as to shock one's sense of justice. While we acknowledge that the Commonwealth's case was built on circumstantial evidence, it was evidence that established an intent to sell narcotics, a meeting arranged for the purpose of the transfer, and evidence that Justin subsequently possessed narcotics that matched the description of the narcotics that Estrella offered to Justin for sale. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining Estrella's weight of the evidence claim lacks merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.