The opinion
J-S33008-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DASHAWN LAQUINN JAMISON :
:
Appellant : No. 1232 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 24, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-67-CR-0002709-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2025
Appellant, Dashawn Laquinn Jamison, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on July 24, 2023, following his jury trial conviction for
delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 We affirm.
We briefly set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. On February 4, 2021, three police officers with the York County Drug
Task Force conducted a controlled narcotics transaction between a confidential
informant (CI) and Appellant. The police searched the CI prior to the
transaction, and he did not have anything on his person. At an agreed upon
location at the corner of Hartley and Clarke Streets in York, Pennsylvania, the
officers surveilled and photographed a hand-to-hand exchange inside a silver
Chevrolet between the CI and Appellant. The CI gave Appellant $200.00 in
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S33008-24
exchange for a bag of crack cocaine. The police recovered two cellular
telephones and $200.00 from Appellant in a search incident to his arrest. On
June 24, 2022, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with the
aforementioned offense. Appellant proceeded pro se. The trial court
appointed standby counsel for Appellant in November 2022. Prior to trial
Appellant filed a pro se omnibus motion, which included, inter alia, a request
to compel the identity of the CI. Following a hearing on December 21, 2022,
the trial court denied relief. At a status hearing held in March 2023, Appellant
asserted that he was unable to conduct pro se witness interviews from prison,
so the trial court appointed an investigator from the York County Office of
Conflict Counsel to assist Appellant. At the conclusion of a three-day trial
commencing on May 8, 2023, the jury found Appellant guilty of the
aforementioned crime. On July 24, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to three to six years of incarceration. This timely, counseled appeal resulted.2
____________________________________________
2 Appellant filed a timely pro se post sentence motion which the trial court
denied by order entered on August 8, 2023. Thereafter, Appellant filed a
timely pro se notice of appeal. After the trial court granted Appellant an
extension, Appellant filed a pro se concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) as directed. On October 16, 2023,
this Court ordered the trial court to determine whether appellate counsel
should be appointed to represent Appellant or Appellant voluntarily wished to
continue to proceed pro se. The trial court conducted a hearing on November
16, 2023 and Appellant knowingly waived his right to counsel. Appellant
requested additional time to file a pro se amended Rule 1925(b) statement
which the trial court granted. In February 2023, Appellant filed a motion for
the reappointment of appellate counsel. The trial court appointed counsel and
ordered her to file an amended Rule 1925(b) statement. After the grant of
several extensions for various reasons, counsel for Appellant filed a timely
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S33008-24
On appeal, counsel for Appellant presents the following issues3 for our
review:
I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to prove every element
of the offense of delivery of cocaine[,] specifically[,]
whether the evidence was insufficient to prove Appellant
delivered the controlled substance [(cocaine)] to the [CI]?
II. Whether the verdict was against the greater weight of the
evidence?
III. Whether the trial court erred when it declined to compel
discovery, specifically the CI’s identity in violation of
Appellant’s state and federal due process rights?
IV. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s
request to interview potential defense witnesses at York
County Prison, but rather directed conflict counsel to secure
an investigator to interview said witnesses, in violation of
Appellant’s right to self-representation?
V. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s
request to call different witnesses on the basis that the trial
court determined they were not relevant?
a. Witnesses who knew the CI and heard the CI discussing
staging drug buys to save himself from prison;
b. Laura Brown, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who
would have provided testimony on habits, routines, and
traits of addicts and to potentially inform the jury the
potential mental state of an informant who actively used
drugs; and
____________________________________________
Rule 1925(b) statement on March 19, 2024. On March 26, 2024, the trial
court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
3 We have reordered Appellant’s issues for ease of discussion and disposition.
-3-
J-S33008-24
c. A corrections officer at York County Prison whose
testimony would have cast doubt on the
Commonwealth’s evidence regarding the search of CI
prior to CI’s interaction with Appellant. The witness would
have testified, in an expert capacity, about how new
[inmates] to the prison who were previously searched by
York police were found in possession of illegal contraband
upon entry to the prison.
VI. Whether the trial court erred when it excused Juror 158, the
only black juror, without further inquiring into why the juror
stated that they could no longer deliberate during active
deliberations?
VII. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s
request for a [b]ill of [p]articulars?
VIII. Whether the Commonwealth committed numerous Brady[4]
violations when it withheld [information] that a man named
Mr. Robert Huffmaster had the same telephone number that
the CI called [in this matter]?
Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.
On appeal, Appellant’s first seven issues challenge various pretrial and
trial rulings. First, Appellant challenges the weight and sufficiency of the
evidence presented at trial, arguing that “[t]here [wa]s no evidence that
Appellant gave the CI crack cocaine” because “while a detective observed a
hand-to-hand exchange, he could not testify as to exactly what was
exchanged[.]” Id. at 17. Appellant further argues that “[t]he CI could have
received the drugs [that police later recovered from him] after he was
originally searched by” the police and “[i]f Appellant would have had the
identity of the CI, Appellant could have cross[-]examined the CI on his
____________________________________________
4 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
-4-
J-S33008-24
motives for setting up the controlled sale [or] had previously arranged similar
transactions to lessen the CI’s [exposure to a] prison sentence[.]” Id. at 28;
see also id. at 34 (Appellant “believed the CI staged the buy and could have
retrieved the drugs from either hiding it so the officers who searched him prior
to the controlled buy could not find it or [he] picked it up somewhere between
the time after the CI was searched and when the CI handed over the drugs
after the controlled buy.”). Moreover, Appellant suggests there was “at least
a reasonable possibility the CI’s identity would exonerate him, [] because the
CI was known for setting up other individuals for controlled buys[.]” Id. at
29. Next, Appellant argues that his right to self-representation was violated
when “the trial court actually endorsed hybrid representation when it directed
standby counsel to secure a private investigator to investigate any potential
defense witnesses, which in turn violated Appellant’s right to represent himself
pro se.” Id. at 31-32. Appellant also argues that the trial court denied his
request to call various witnesses to cast doubt on the CI’s credibility and to
show that he staged the controlled buy to avoid imprisonment himself. Id. at
33-35. Appellant also argues that the trial court failed to take protective
measures, specifically failed to extensively question the alternate and
remaining jurors, when “Juror #158 explained they could no longer deliberate
due to concern for their emotional wellbeing” after one hour of deliberation.
Id. at 42-43. Finally, Appellant suggests that “the trial court abused its
discretion in failing to order the Commonwealth to file a [b]ill of [p]articulars”
when Appellant only filed a pro se motion for an extension of time “so the
-5-
J-S33008-24
Commonwealth would have time to provide discovery and [b]ill of [p]articulars
to him.” Id. at 45-46.
Regarding sufficiency of the evidence, we adhere to the following
standards:
Because a determination of evidentiary sufficiency presents a
question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope
of review is plenary. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient
to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth
need not preclude every possibility of innocence. It is within the
province of the fact-finder to determine the weight to be accorded
to each witness's testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the
evidence. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving
every element of the crime by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, as an appellate court, we may not re-weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
finder.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 305–306 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Moreover, regarding the weight of the evidence:
The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based upon
a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is
within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, the function of
an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court's exercise
of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather than to
consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of the
evidence.
An appellate court may not overturn the trial court's decision
unless the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on
the weight claim. Further, in reviewing a challenge to the weight
of the evidence, a verdict will be overturned only if it is so contrary
to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice.
-6-
J-S33008-24
A trial court's determination that a verdict was not against the
interest of justice is one of the least assailable reasons for denying
a new trial. A verdict is against the weight of the evidence where
certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them
or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
We do not reach the underlying question of whether the verdict
was, in fact, against the weight of the evidence. Instead, this
Court determines whether the trial court abused its discretion in
reaching whatever decision it made on the motion.
Id. at 312 (internal citations, quotations, brackets and ellipses omitted).
“Our standard of review of claims that a trial court erred in its disposition
of a request for disclosure of an informant's identity is confined to abuse of
discretion.” Commonwealth v. Withrow, 932 A.2d 138, 140 (Pa. Super.
2007) (citation omitted). “Indeed, where the informant was an eyewitness to
the transaction in question, the role of the trial judge's discretion is established
by rule of court.” Id. citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(i). We also review
the trial court's decision to admit or preclude testamentary evidence for an
abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Cox, 115 A.3d 333, 336 (Pa. Super.
2015) (en banc). “The decision to discharge a juror is within the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that
discretion… even after the jury has been empaneled and the juror sworn.”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 562 (Pa. Super. 2019). The
Superior Court also reviews a trial court’s decision regarding a request for a
bill of particulars for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v.
McKnight, 305 A.3d 582, 589 (Pa. Super. 2023) citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 572. “An
abuse of discretion is not a mere error in judgment but, rather, involves bias,
-7-
J-S33008-24
ill will, partiality, prejudice, manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of
law.” Cox, 115 A.3d at 336 (citation omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the
parties, and the thorough Rule 1925(a) opinion issued by the trial court on
March 26, 2024. Because the trial court's opinion adequately and accurately
addresses Appellant’s first seven appellate claims as set forth above, we adopt
the trial court's March 26, 2024 opinion as our own. Here, the trial court noted
that three police officers were involved in the controlled narcotics purchase
between Appellant and the CI. One of the officers specifically saw a hand-to-
hand transaction between Appellant and the CI inside a vehicle and the
Commonwealth presented photographs of the interaction at trial. The driver
of the vehicle, wherein the controlled buy occurred, testified that she observed
the CI hand Appellant $200.00. As such, the trial court determined there was
sufficient evidence of a drug delivery. The trial court further determined that
the jury’s verdict did not shock the conscience of the court and, therefore, the
verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We will not usurp that
determination. Moreover, the trial court further found that Appellant failed
to show that the identity of the CI was material to his defense because there
was no reasonable possibility that the CI would exonerate Appellant and the
CI was not the only witness to the transaction. Regarding additional trial
witnesses, the trial court concluded that Appellant could not interview
potential witnesses pro se at the prison due to security reasons and because
Appellant had a prior conviction for witness intimidation. As such, the trial
-8-
J-S33008-24
court found it was appropriate to order an investigator to meet with witnesses,
at Appellant’s direction, in preparation for trial. Regarding the removal of a
juror, the trial court noted that during deliberation, Juror #158 believed he
could no longer participate and asked to be replaced with an alternate.
Outside the presence of the remaining jurors, the trial court determined that
the juror could not be fair and impartial because he was concerned about his
emotional well-being. The trial court replaced him with a sequestered
alternate and twice instructed the remaining venire to start deliberations
anew. Finally, regarding a bill of particulars, the trial court recognized that
Appellant failed to make a timely or formal request pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
572 and the Commonwealth already timely turned over discovery which
contained the same information which would have been disclosed in a bill of
particulars. On all of these issues, we discern no abuse of discretion and adopt
the trial court’s decision as our own. The parties are hereafter directed to
include a copy of the trial court's March 26, 2024 opinion with all future filings
pertaining to our disposition of this appeal.
Finally, Appellant contends that, after trial, he discovered that the
telephone number that the CI used to call Appellant in this matter was used
in another, unrelated case. Appellant’s Brief at 36-38 (“Mr. Robert
H[u]ffmaster was also charged with the delivery of crack cocaine and the same
aforementioned telephone number was listed in Mr. H[u]ffmaster’s
discovery.”). Appellant alleges that the Commonwealth withheld this
information from him in violation of Brady, supra. He claims that “had
-9-
J-S33008-24
Appellant been privy to this evidence[,] Appellant could have shown the jury
that the same telephone number was previously linked to another person
thereby creating reasonable doubt of Appellant’s guilt.” Id. at 37.
Accordingly, Appellant requests a new trial, or alternatively, for this Court to
remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. Id. at 38.
As we have previously determined:
To obtain relief on a claim of after-discovered evidence, the
evidence must satisfy a four-prong test:
(1) the evidence could not have been obtained before the
conclusion of the trial by reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is
not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the evidence will not
be used solely for purposes of impeachment; and (4) the evidence
is of such a nature and character that a different outcome is likely.
The United States Supreme Court held in Brady “that the
suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an
accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is
material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good
faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” This duty to disclose
evidence is applicable even where the defendant has not made a
request for it. Evidence is material “if there is a reasonable
probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense,
the result of the proceeding would have been different.” This rule
includes evidence known only to police investigators, but not the
prosecutor, who has a duty to learn of any evidence known by
others who are acting on behalf of the Commonwealth in the
defendant's case.
* * *
[Generally, on after-discovered evidence claims presented on
direct appeal,] we remand to provide the trial court the
opportunity to develop the record and to rule upon [] after-
discovered evidence and Brady claims in the first instance.
- 10 -
J-S33008-24
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 237 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2020) (non-
precedential decision) (internal citations omitted)5; see also
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355, 358 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing
Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C), comment (“[A]fter-discovered evidence discovered
during the direct appeal process must be raised promptly during the direct
appeal process, and should include a request for a remand to the trial judge.”).
Here, Appellant presented his after-discovered evidence/Brady claim and
request for remand promptly on direct appeal. Accordingly, we remand to
provide the trial court the first opportunity to develop the record and rule on
Appellant’s claim in the first instance.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Case remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 01/13/2025
____________________________________________
5See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (providing that unpublished decisions filed by this
Court after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value).
- 11 -
Circulated 12/13/2024 02:21 PM
I
L
i
11111111111111
1111111111111
B A T C H *
Defendant-Name:
Defendant-Name:
Dashawn Laquinn Jamison
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111
MO T I O N -
II IIII II I II II IIII II
II E IIT I T IIllO N - 0 R D E R II
Case Number
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
I III II IIIIII] TIA[
* C p - 6 7 - C R - 0 0 0 2 7 0 9 - 2 0 2 2
R
OTN:
R 163169-6
we a a«a a a a ea
z
W AGaeH `SSON
Fill
Fill in
in Circle
Circle -• Queue
Queue Minutes
Minutes to:
to: [
I
■
ms-scAvneee
RE-SCAN needed "
1
D
G
I
I I
I CJ)
-Reason:
Reason:
1 1
[] Adult- Probation-Q
Aun-Probaton-0 I I
1
I
[7 PennDOT-Q
Penn0o1-o I
1
1
c SC-Q
SCI- Q I
L RETURN
RETURN TO
TO RECORDS
RECORDS UNIT
UNIT
1
JI
c YCP-Prision-Q
YCP-Prision-Q
I attest
I attest and
and certify that as
certify that
Serviced and
properly Serviced
properly
as Deputy Clerk of
Deputy Clerk
and Docketed
Docketed the
of Courts
Courts I
the documents
I have
have
documents related
related
□D I
to this
to this case
case action
action and
and have
have verified
verified the
the completeness
completeness
and image
and image quality of the
quality of the scanned
scanned documents.
documents.
Date:
Date
Docketed
Docketed in
in CPCMS
CPCMS
Scanned Images
Scanned Images OK
OK-- Verified
Verified // QC'd
QC'd or Stamp
Signature or
Signature Stamp-- Deputy Clerk of
Deputy Clerk of Courts
Courts
Dan
Dan Byrnes
Byrnes -- York
York County
County Clerk
Clerk of
of Courts
Courts
L4
L4
541991
541991 Tuesday, August
Tuesday, 16, 2022
August 16, 2022 02:47:49
02:4 7:49 PM
PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF
COMMONWEALTH OF CP-67-CR-2709-2022
CP-67-CR-2709-2022
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
v. Clerk of Courts at 10:32 am, Mar 26, 2024
By Clerk of Courts at 10:32 am, Mar 26, 2024
V. By
DASHAWN JAMISON
DASHAWN JAMISON
Defendant/Appellant
Defendant/Appellant
OPINION PURSUANT TO
OPINION PURSUANT Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
L,
NOW, this
AND NOW,
AND this }(' day of March, 2024, upon receipt of notice that an
1 day of March, 2024, upon receipt of notice that an
has been
appeal has
appeal this matter,
filed inin this
been filed consideration of
and inin consideration
matter, and the Statement
ofthe of
Statementof
Matters Complained
Matters Complainedof on Appeal,
ofon Appeal, filed prose
filedpro DashawnJamison
by Dashawn
se by Jamison
theundersigned
(Appellant), the
("Appellant"), undersigned files thisstatement
filesthis pursuanttotoPA.R.A.P.
statementpursuant l 925(a).
PA.R.A.P. 1925(a).
RELEVANTFACTUAL
RELEVANT AND PROCEDURAL
FACTUALAND HISTORY
PROCEDURALHISTORY
Onthe
On ofFebruary
afternoonof
theafternoon Officerswith
2021,Officers
February4,4,2021, theYork
withthe Drug
CountyDrug
YorkCounty
TaskForce
Task controlledbuy
conductedaacontrolled
Forceconducted betweenaaconfidential
buybetween and
informantand
confidentialinformant
Appellant.While
Appellant. thepresence
Whileininthe presenceof DetectiveZachary
ofDetective Pelton("Detective
ZacharyPelton Pelton"),
(DetectivePelton"),
theconfidential
the placedaaphone
informantplaced
confidentialinformant phonecall cellphone
calltotoaacell numberlisted
phonenumber 717-
listedasas717-
318-0931.(N.T.,
318-093 N.T., 170-72,
1. ( May9,9,2023).
170-72,May 2023).The individualwho
Theindividual thephone
answeredthe
whoanswered phone
was identifiedby
wasidentified theconfidential
bythe informantasasAppellant,
confidentialinformant andananarrangement
Appellant,and was
arrangementwas
made forthe
madefor informanttotogogototoananagreed-upon
confidentialinformant
theconfidential locationatatthe
agreed-uponlocation the
intersectionofofHartley
intersection Hartleyand ClarkeStreet
andClarke York,Pennsylvania
StreetininYork, crack
purchasecrack
Pennsylvaniatotopurchase
cocaine. Id. at
cocaine. Id. at 172.
172. Prior
Prior to
to the
the controlled
controlled buy, Detective Pelton
buy, Detective Pelton searched
searched the
the
confidential informant
confidential informant and
and confirmed
confirmed he
he did
did not
not have
have any contraband, drugs,
any contraband, or
drugs, or
on his
money on
money his person. Id. at
person. Id. at 173-74.
173-74. Next,
Next, Detective
Detective Pelton
Pelton provided the
provided the
confidential informant
confidential informant with
with $$200.00 ofcontrolled
200.00 of controlled funds
funds and
and drove
drove the
the confidential
confidential
informant to
informant to West
West Clarke
Clarke Avenue.
Avenue.
Prior toto arriving
Prior arriving atat the
the agreed-upon location for
agreed-upon location forthe
the controlled
controlled buy,
buy,
Detective Pelton
Detective Pelton let
let the
the confidential
confidential informant
informantout
out of
ofhis
his vehicle. Id. atat 177.
vehicle. Id. 177.
Detective Pelton
Detective Peltonobserved
observedthe
the confidential
confidential informant
informantwalk
walkdown
downClarke
ClarkeAvenue
Avenue
withoutstopping
without orinteracting
stoppingor withany
interactingwith otherindividuals
anyother individualsor
orvehicles. Id. atat 177-
vehicles.Id.. 177-
78. When
78. Whenthe
theconfidential
confidential informant
informantarrived
arrivedclose
closetotothe
theintersection
intersectionof
ofthe
theagreed-
agreed-
location,Detective
uponlocation,
upon DetectiveJames
JamesMcBride
McBrideof
ofthe
theYork
YorkCounty
CountyDistrict
DistrictAttorney's
Attorney's
Office("("Detective
Office McBride")began
Detective McBride") begantotosurveil
surveilthe
theconfidential
confidentialinformant. Id.atat
informant.Id.
282.At
282. Atthat
thattime,
time,Detective
DetectiveMcBride
McBrideobserved
observedaasilver
silverChevy vehicleturn
Chevyvehicle turnleft
leftonto
onto
ClarkAvenue
Clark Avenueand
andsubsequently stop.Id.Id.Detective
subsequentlystop. DetectiveMcBride
McBrideobserved
observedthe
the
confidentialinformant
confidential informantenter
enterthe
theChevy
Chevythrough thepassenger-side
throughthe door.Id.Id.atat
reardoor.
passenger-siderear
282-83.Next,
282-83. Next,the
theChevy travelledwest
Chevytravelled westononClarke
ClarkeAvenue
Avenuefor
forapproximately
approximately1010toto
1515yards beforeDetective
yardsbefore DetectiveMcBride
McBridelost sightofofit.it.Id.Id.atat283.
lostsight 283.
AtAtthe
thesame
sametime,
time,Officer
OfficerJeremy Fatlandofofthe
JeremyFatland theYork
YorkCounty
CountyRegional
Regional
PoliceDepartment
Police Department ("OfficerFatland")
("Officer wasobserving
Fatland")was andphotographing
observingand the
photographingthe
Chevyasasit itturned
Chevy turnedinto
intoaparking
a parkinglotlotoff
off WestClarke
West ClarkeAvenue
Avenuenear
nearNorth
NorthHartley
Hartley
2
Street. Id. at 241
242. The Chevy was subsequently parked in the parking lot directly
next to Officer Fatland's vehicle. Id. at 243. Officer Fatland witnessed a
a hand-to-
hand transaction between Appellant and the confidential informant inside the
Chevy. Id. at 250. Subsequently, Detective McBride and Officer Fatland observed
the confidential informant exit the Chevy and walk back toward the location where
Detective Pelton was waiting for him,
him. Id.
Id. at 251.
When
When the
the confidential
confidential informant arrived back
back to
to Detective
Detective Pelton,
Pelton, he handed
handed
Detective
Detective Pelton
Pelton one
one clear
clear plastic
plastic baggy
baggy containing
containing suspected
suspected crack
crack cocaine.
cocaine. Id.
Id. at
at
180.
180. Detective
Detective Pelton
Pelton secured
secured this
this item
item in
in his
his vehicle
vehicle and
and conducted
conducted another
another search
search
of
of the
the confidential
confidential informant
informant and
and did
did not
not find
find any
any other
other contraband,
contraband, drugs,
drugs, or
or
money. Id. at
money. Id. at 180-81.
180-81. Detective
Detective Pelton
Pelton field
field tested
tested the
the suspected
suspected crack
crack cocaine
cocaine and
and
received
received a
a positive
positive reaction.
reaction. Id.
Id. at
at 184.
184. A
A subsequent test by
subsequent test by the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State
State
Police
Police Drug
Drug Lab
Lab confirmed
confirmed that
that the
the substance
substance was
was in
in fact
fact cocaine.
cocaine. Id.
Id. at
at 316.
316.
Following
Following the
the controlled
controlled buy,
buy, Detective
Detective McBride
McBride seized
seized two
two phones
phones from
from
Appellant. Id. atat 286-87.
Appellant. Id. 286-87. A
A data
data extraction
extraction revealed
revealed that
that one
one of
ofthe
the phones
phones had
had the
the
number
number of
of 717-318-0931.
717-318-093 l. Id.
Id. at
at 294.
294.
On
On June
June 24,
24, 2022,
2022, Appellant
Appellant was
was charged
charged by
by way
way of
ofInformation
Information with
with one
one
count
count of
of Delivery
Delivery of
of a Controlled
Controlled Substance
Substance pursuant
pursuant to
to 35 P.S. §$ 780-113(a)(30).
35 P.S. 780-113(a)(30).
On
On November
November 29,
29, 2022,
2022, Joshua
Joshua E.
E. Neiderheiser,
Neiderheiser, Esquire,
Esquire, of
ofthe
the York
York
County
County Office
Office of
ofConflict
Conflict Counsel,
Counsel, was
was appointed
appointed as
as stand-by
stand-by counsel
counsel for
for
3
3
prose
Appellant, who represented himself pro this case.'
se in this case.1
On December
On 21, 2022,
December 21, a hearing
2022, a took place
hearing took on Appellant's
place on prose
Appellant's pro Omnibus
se Omnibus
Pretrial Motion.
Pretrial the hearing,
At the
Motion. At the Court
hearing, the denied Appellant's
Court denied Appellant's motion to compel
motion to the
compel the
identity of
identity the confidential
of the informant. ((Omnibus
confidential informant. Pretrial Mot.
Omnibus Pretrial Mot. Hr'g
Hr'g Tr., Dec.
30, Dec.
Tr., 30,
21, 2022),
21, 2022)
On March
On 23, 2023,
March 23, status hearing
a status
2023, a took place
hearing took place before this Court,
before this which
at which
Court, at
time Appellant
time concerns about
raised concerns
Appellant raised his inability
about his to interview
inability to and prepare
interview and prepare
witnesses for
witnesses trial while
for trial York County
housed inin York
while housed Prison. The
County Prison. The Court ordered that
Court ordered an
that an
investigator from
investigator York County
the York
from the County Office Conflict Counsel
ofConflict
Office of with Appellant
meet with
Counsel meet Appellant
to obtain
to information for
obtain information trial. ((Status
fortrial. Tr., 38,
Hr'gTr.,
Status Hr'g 38, Mar. 23, 2023).
Mar. 23, 2023).
Ajury
A jury trial tookplace
trial took place from 2023,through
May 8,8, 2023,
from May 11,2023.
May 11,
throughMay the
Atthe
2023. At
conclusionof
conclusion thejury
trial,the
oftrial, foundAppellant
juryfound guiltyof
Appellantguilty thesole
ofthe countof
solecount the
ofthe
Information, Delivery
Information, ofaaControlled
Deliveryof Substance.(N.T.,
ControlledSubstance. 436,May
(N.T.,436, 11,2023).
May 11, 2023).
OnJuly
On 2023,the
24,2023,
July24, sentencedAppellant
Courtsentenced
theCourt sixyears'
threetotosix
Appellanttotothree years'
incarceration. Hr' gTr.,
(SentencingHr'g
incarceration.( Sentencing 24,2023).
July24,
Tr.,4,4,July 2023).
On 2023,Appellant
August4,4,2023,
OnAugust Appellantfiled Post-Sentence
filedaaPost- Motion.On
Sentence Motion. August8,8,
OnAugust
2023, theCourt
2023,the theMotion.
deniedthe
Courtdenied Motion.
OnAugust
On August30, 2023,Appellant
30,2023, Appellantfiled NoticeofofAppeal
filedaaNotice theSuperior
Appealtotothe Superior
1
1 Defendant waspreviously
Defendantwas appointedRonald
previouslyappointed Jackson,Esquire,
RonaldJackson, YorkCounty
theYork
Esquire,ofofthe Public
CountyPublic
Defender's Office. Attorney Jackson was later withdrawn because of a conflict of interest
Defender's Office. Attorney .Jackson was later withdrawn because of aconflict of interest due duetoto
thePublic
the Defender'sOffice's
PublicDefender's co-Defendant.
representationofofaaeo-Defendant.
Office'srepresentation
44
the Court ordered
Court of Pennsylvania. On the same day, the a
ordered Appellant to file a
Statement on Appeal
of on
Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to
Appeal Pursuant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On September
On 2023, Appellant
11, 2023,
September 11, filed a
Appellant filed for Extension
Motion for
a Motion of Time
Extension of to
Time to
file a Statement
file a pursuant to
Statement pursuant 1925(b) due
to 1925(b) a delay
to a
due to delay in the production
in the of necessary
production of necessary
transcripts. On September
transcripts. On September 15, 2023, the
15, 2023, Court granted
the Court the Motion
granted the directed
and directed
Motion and
Appellant to file
Appellant to a Statement
file a within 30
Statement within days.
30 days.
On October
On 2022, Appellant
13, 2022,
October 13, Appellant filed Statement of
a Statement
filed a Errors Complained
ofErrors of
Complained of
on Appeal
on Pa.R.A.P. §$ 1925(b).
to Pa.R.A.P.
Pursuant to
Appeal Pursuant l 925(b ).
On October
On 16, 2023,
October 16, the Superior
2023, the Court of
Superior Court ofPennsylvania
Pennsylvania issued Order
an Order
issued an
directing Courttoto detennine
the Court
directing the Appellant's eligibility
detennineAppellant's eligibility for court-appointed
for court- counsel
appointed counsel
and, ififeligible,
and, appointappeal
eligible, appoint appeal counsel forAppellant.
counsel for Appellant.'
OnOctober-
On 2023,the
17,2023,
October 17, Courtappointed
theCourt LaTasha
appointedLa Esquire,asas
Williams,Esquire,
TashaWilliams,
counsel forAppellant.
counsel for Appellant.The Courtscheduled
TheCourt statushearing
scheduledaastatus forNovember
hearingfor 16,
November 16,
2023, whetherAppellant
determinewhether
2023,totodetermine wouldproceed
Appellantwould withthe
proceedwith theassistance of
assistanceof
counselororelect
counsel prose.
proceedpro
electtotoproceed se.
At thehearing
Atthe onNovember
hearingon 16,2023,
November16, Courtfound
theCourt
2023,the thatAppellant
foundthat made
Appellantmade
knowing,voluntary,
aaknowing, andintelligent
voluntary,and intelligentwaiver counsel.Appellant
waiverofofcounsel. requested
Appellantrequested
additionaltime
additional prose
fileaapro
timetotofile StatementofofMatters
supplementalStatement
se supplemental Complainedofof
MattersComplained
The
The Court didnot
Courtdid initiallyappoint
notinitially appealcounsel
appointappeal becauseAppellant
counselbecause Appellantdid notrequest
didnot counsel
requestcounsel
and represented himself pro se for the duration of this case including trial.
and represented himself pro se for the duration of this case including trial.
55
on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b),
1925(6). The Court granted Appellant's request
Appellant's request
and ordered that Appellant file a
a pro se supplemental 1925(b) Statement within
twenty-one
twenty-one ((21)
21) days.
days. ((Order
Order Granting Withdrawal of Counsel, Nov. 16, 2023).
On December 5, 2023, Appellant filed a
a pro se Motion for Extension of time
prose
to file his supplemental 1925(b)
1925(6) Statement, requesting
requesting additional time for the
production of necessary transcripts. This Court reviewed the record and confirmed
that the transcript which Appellant requested had not been produced
produced or provided
provided to
Appellant. Accordingly, this Court granted Appellant's motion and ordered
Appellant file his supplemental statement no later than twenty-one
twenty-one ((21)
21) days,
days, by
December 28, 2023.
On December 26, 2023, Appellant filed a
a second Motion for extension of
time to file his Amended 1925(b) Statement, seeking additional time to procure the
transcript of the March 23, 2023, status hearing before Judge
Judge Kraft. After
confirming that the transcript still had not been produced or provided to Appellant,
this Court granted the motion and provided Appellant with twenty-one
twenty-one ((21)
21) days to
file his Amended 1925(b) Statement, until January 31, 2024. Additionally, the
Court attached
attached the transcript of the March 23, 2023, status hearing before Judge
Judge
Kraft
Kraft as
as an
an exhibit. 3
exhibit. 3
z The transcript
'The transcript for
for the
the March
March 23,
23, 2023,
2023, status
status hearing
hearing before
before Judge
Judge Kraft
Kraft was
was produced
produced on
December 29, 2023, three days after Appellant filed his second motion
December 29, 2023. three days after Appellant filed his second motion for extension of time to
file
file an
an Amended
Amended 1925(b)
1925(b) Statement.
Statement.
6
6
On February 2, 2024, Appellant filed a
a Motion for Re-appointment of appeal
counsel. Because Appellant is entitled to counsel at every critical stage of a
a
criminal proceeding, including appeal, this Court granted Appellant's motion.'
Art.I, §§9;
U.S. Const. Amend. VI; Pa.Const. Art.1, 9; Commonwealth v. Rosario, 635 A.2d
109-10
109-10 ((Pa.
Pa. 1993).
1993 ). The Court re- appointed La Tasha Williams, Esquire, as counsel
re-appointed
for Appellant, and ordered
ordered counsel to file
file an Amended
Amended Concise Statement
Statement pursuant
pursuant
to
to Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
1925(b) within
within 21
21 days,
days, by
by February 29,
29, 2024.
2024.
On
On February
February 29,
29, 2024,
2024, Appellant
Appellant filed
filed a
a Motion
Motion for
for Extension
Extension of
of Time
Time for
for
Counsel
Counsel to
to File
File a
a 1925(b)
1925(b) Statement
Statement seeking
seeking an
an additional
additional 14
14 days
days to
to review
review the
the
entire
entire lower
lower court
court record.
record.
On
On March
March 4,
4, 2024,
2024, this
this Court
Court granted
granted Appellant
Appellant an
an additional
additional seven
seven ((7)
7) days
days
to
to file
file its
its 1925(b)
1925(b) Statement,
Statement. On
On March
March 11,
11, 2024,
2024, this
this Court
Court was
was informed
informed that
that
due
due to
to a
a delay
delay that
that occurred
occurred during
during filing,
filing, the
the Order
Order was
was not
not received
received by
by
Appellant's
Appellant's counsel
counsel until
until March
March 12,
12, 2024.
2024. Therefore,
Therefore, on
on March
March 13,
13, 2024,
2024, this
this
Court
Court granted
granted a
a final
final extension
extension of
oftime
time for
for Appellant
Appellant to
to file
file its
its 1925(b)
1925(b) Statement,
Statement,
until
until March
March 19,
19, 2024.
2024.
4' This
This Court
Court explained
explained inin its
its Order
Order that
that ififAppellant
Appellant elects
elects to
to proceed
proceedpro
pro se
se a
a second
second time,
time, any
any
further
further Motions
Motions for
for Re-appointment
Re-appointment of ofCounsel
Counsel would
would bebe denied.
denied.
7
7
On March 19, 2024, counsel for Appellant filed aaStatement of Errors
Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Complained of on Appeal 1.925(b). Appellant alleges the
Appellant alleges
following errors
following errors on appeal:
on appeal:
I. prove that
Whether the evidence was insufficient to prove
Appellant delivered the controlled substance to the
confidential informant?
I1.
II. Whether the jury's
jury's verdict was against the greater weight
of the evidence?
III. Whether the Court erred in denying Appellant's motion to
compel discovery, specifically the identity of the
confidential infomiant?
confidential informant?
IV.
IV. Whether the Court improperly denied Appellant's motions
to interview potential defense witnesses but rather directed
conflict counsel to secure an investigator to interview said
witnesses in violation of Appellant's right to self-
representation?
V. Whether the Court erred when it denied Appellant's
when it
request to call several witnesses on the basis that the
witnesses were not relevant?
VI. Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by
withholding that another individual had the same
telephone number that the confidential informant called in
telephone
Appellant's
Appellant's case
VII. Whether the Court improperly denied Appellant's request
to call Detective Pelton as aarebuttal witness?
VIII. Whether the Court improperly removed Juror no. 158?
IX. Whether the Court erred in failing to order the Commonwealth to
produce
produce aaBill of Particulars?
88
(Def.'s
(Def.'s Statement of the Errors Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(B), 1.9, 2024).
1925(B), Mar. 19,
DISCUSSION
I. Whether prove that
Whether the evidence was insufficient to prove
Appellant delivered the controlled substance to the
confidential informant?
informant?
Appellant asserts prove that
asserts the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that
Appellant delivered the controlled substance, specifically cocaine, to the
Appellant
informant. ((Def.'s
confidential informant. Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, I,
1,
tinder the following
Mar. 19, 2024). The Court reviews sufficiency claims under
standard:
standard:
In evaluating aasufficiency claim, the Court must accept
In evaluating
the evidence
the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as
Commonwealth as verdict-winner
verdict-winner and in in drawing all
rational
rational evidentiary
evidentiary inferences,
inferences, determine
determine whether
whether a a
sensible jury
sensible jury could havehave found that each each element of of the
the
crime was
crime was established
established beyond
beyond aa reasonable
reasonable doubt. doubt.
Additionally,
Additionally, thethe evidence
evidence at at trial need not
trial need not preclude
preclude every
every
possibility
possibility ofof innocence,
innocence, and the the fact-finder
fact-finder is is free
free to
to
resolve any
resolve any doubts regarding a
doubts regarding a defendant's
defendant's guilt
guilt unless
unless the
the
evidence is
evidence is so
so weak and and inconclusive
inconclusive thatthat as
as a
a matter
matter ofof
law no
law no probability
probability of of fact
fact maymay be drawn from from thethe
combined circumstances. When evaluating evaluating the credibility
and weight of of the
the evidence,
evidence, the fact- finder is
the fact-finder is free
free to
part or
believe all, part or none ofof the evidence.
evidence.
940 A.2d
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 493, 500
A.2d 493, 500 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(Pa. Super. 2007) ((citations
citations
omitted). To preserve aaclaim of insufficient evidence for appeal, a
a defendant must
"specify the element or elements upon
"specify upon which the evidence was insufficient" in the
99
defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Commonwealth v. Smyser, 195 A.3d 912, 915 (Pa.
912,915 (Pa. 2018).
The Court finds the evidence presented at trial sufficient to prove that
Appellant delivered cocaine to the confidential informant. To support
support aaconviction
for delivery of a
a controlled substance, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a
a
reasonable doubt that the defendant
defendant ""knowingly
knowingly made an actual.
actual, constructive, or
attempted transfer of a
a controlled substance to another person without the legal
authority to do so." Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1234 (Pa. 2004). In
(Pa.
addition to proving the elements of the offense beyond a
a reasonable doubt, the
Commonwealth must identity the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Smvser,
Smyser, 195 A.3d at 915.
915. ((citing
citing Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7
7 A.3d 852, 857 (Pa,
(Pa.
Super. 2010)). However,
However, ""direct
direct evidence of identity is, of course, not necessary
and a
a defendant may be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence."
C'ommonwoulth
Commonwealth v. Hickman, 309 A.2d 564, 566
566 (Pa.
(Pa. 1973).
At
At trial, the Commonwealth presented direct and circumstantial evidence
that Appellant
Appellant delivered cocaine to the confidential informant. Such evidence
includes
includes the
the testimony
testimony of Detective
Detective Pelton, who testified that he has served as an
officer
officer for the York City Police Department
Department for fifteen years, including
assignments
assignments with
with the York County
County Drug Task Force and the Drug
Drug Enforcement
Administration,
Administration, and
and has
has investigated
investigated ""thousands"
thousands" of
of drug
drug offenses,
offenses, and
and conducted
10
10
controlled buys
buys "on a
a daily basis."
basis." ((N.T.,
N.T., 164-65, May 9, 2023),
2023). Detective Pelton
testified that he observed the confidential informant arrange the controlled buy by
placing a
a phone call to the Appellant, and that the confidential informant described
Appellant and identified him as
as ""D"
D" or
or "Dashawn." Id. at 170-71. Additionally,
that Detective Pelton heard a
a male voice on the phone with
with the CI. Id. at 172.
Detective
Detective Pelton testified that he drove the confidential
confidential informant
informant to
to the area
area of
West
West Clarke Avenue
Avenue and
and North Hartley Street,
Street, and
and observed
observed the
the confidential
confidential
informant
informant walk
walk down
down the
the street.
street. Id.
Id. at
at 177.
177. Detective
Detective McBride testified
testified that
that he
he
observed
observed the
the Chevy
Chevy pull
pull up,
up, pick
pick up
up the
the confidential
confidential infonnant,
informant, and
and continue
continue down
down
Clarke
Clarke Avenue.
Avenue. Id.
Id. 282.
282. Detective
Detective McBride
McBride maintained
maintained surveillance
surveillance until
until he
he could
could
not
not see
see the
the vehicle
vehicle any
any longer,
longer, at
at which
which time
time Officer
Officer Fatland
Fatland radioed
radioed that
that he
he took
took
over
over surveillance
surveillance of
of the
the vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. at
at 285-86.
285-86.
Officer
Officer Fatland
Fatland testified
testified that
that he
he saw
saw the
the Chevy
Chevy park
park and
and observed
observed the
the
confidential
confidential informant
informant enter
enter the
the back
back seat
seat of
ofthe
the Chevy,
Chevy, and
and Appellant
Appellant seated
seated in
in
the
the passenger
passenger seat.
seat. Next,
Next, he
he observed
observed the
the Appellant
Appellant move
move back
back and
and forth
forth over
over the
the
center
center console
console and
and conduct
conduct aa ""hand-to-hand
hand-to-hand transaction."
transaction." Additionally,
Additionally, the
the
Commonwealth
Commonwealth presented
presented photographs
photographs taken
taken by
by Officer
Officer Fatland
Fatland of
ofAppellant
Appellant
seated
seated in
in the
the vehicle
vehicle at
at the
the time
time of
ofthe
the alleged
alleged transaction.
transaction. Lastly,
Lastly, Detective
Detective
McBride
McBride testified
testified that
that following
following the
the alleged
alleged transaction,
transaction, he
he picked
picked up
up surveillance
surveillance
of
ofthe
the confidential
confidential informant
informant who
who handed
handed him
him a
a bag
bag of
ofsuspected
suspected crack
crack cocaine.
cocaine.
1111
expert witness who testified that the
Id. at 180. The Commonwealth presented an expert
substance tested positive
positive for cocaine. Id. at 316.
Viewing the
Viewing the evidence
evidence in
in the
the light most favorable
light most to the
favorable to the Commonwealth
Commonwealth as
as
the verdict winner, the prove that Appellant
the Court finds the evidence sufficient to prove Appellant
delivered aacontrolled substance to the confidential informant beyond aareasonable
doubt. Patterson, 940 A.2d at 500.
II. Whether the verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence?
Appellant asserts the
Appellant jury's verdict
the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
In proceedings, the credibility
In criminal proceedings, credibility of witnesses and weight of evidence
evidence lie
solely 445 (Pa.
solely with the trier of fact. Commonwealth v. Williams, 854 A.2d 440, 445 (Pa.
2004). ""The
The trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence." Id.
`The jury's verdict will only
The jury's only be overturned
overturned ""if
if it is so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 444
2003) ((internal
(Pa. 2003) internal citations omitted).
opinion, the Court finds
As stated earlier in this opinion, finds the evidence presented by
support Appellant's conviction of delivery
the Commonwealth sufficient to support delivery of aa
Accordingly, the Court does not find
controlled substance. Accordingly, find the jury's verdict
contrary to the evidence as to "shock one's sentence of justice." Champney, 832
A.2d 444.
12
12
III.
III. Whether the
Whether the Court
Court erred
erred in
in denying
denying Appellant's motion
Appellant's motion
to compel discovery, specifically
to compel discovery,
the identity
specifically the of the
identity of the
confidential informant?
confidential informant?
Appellant asserts
Appellant asserts the
the Court
Court violated
violated Appellant's state and
Appellant's state and federal
federal due
due process
process
rights when it denied Appellant's motion to compel discovery,
rights when it denied Appellant's motion to compel specifically, the
discovery, specifically, the
identity of the confidential informant. (Def.'s Statement of En-ors Complainedof
identity of the confidential informant. (Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained
of
onAppeal,
on Appeal, 1,1,Mar.
Mar. 19,
19,2023).
2023).At
Atthe
theOmnibus
OmnibusPretrial
PretrialMotion
Motionhearing on
hearingon
December21,
December 2 1,2022,
2022,the
theCourt
Courtdenied
deniedAppellant's motiontotocompel
Appellant'smotion theidentity
compelthe identityof
of
theconfidential
the confidentialinformant,
informant,finding thatthis
findingthat thisinformation
informationwas
wasimmaterial
immaterialtoto
defense.(Omnibus
Appellant'sdefense.
Appellant's (OmnibusPretrial
PretrialMot.
Mot.Hr'g Tr.,28-30,
Hr'gTr., 28-30,Dec.
Dec.21,
21,2022).
2022).
Thestandard
The standardofofreview
reviewofofclaims
claimsthat
thataatrial
trialcourt
courterred
erredinindenying
denyingaarequest
request
fordisclosure
for disclosureofofananinformant's
informant'sidentity
identityisisconfined
confinedtotoabuse
abuseofofdiscretion.
discretion.
Commonwealthv, •Washington.
Commonwealth Washington,6363A.3d
A.3d797,
797,801
801( Pa.
(Pa.Super
Super2013).
2013).To
Toovercome
overcome
the Commonwealth'squalifiedprivilege
the Commonwealth's qualified
to withhold the identity of a confidential
privilegeto withhold the identity of aconfidential
source,aadefendant
source, defendantmust
mustshow
show" that
"thatthe
theinformation
informationsought
soughtis ismaterial
materialtotothe
the
of the defendant and that the
preparationof the defendant and that the request
preparation
is reasonable." Commonwealth v.
requestis reasonable." Commonwealth v.
Watson,6969A.3d
Watson, A.3d605,
605,607-608
607-608 (Pa.Super.
( Pa. 2013).
Super.2013).
Here,Appellant
Here, failedto tomeet
Appellantfailed meetthethethreshold
thresholdrequirement
requirementofof materiality.ToTo
materiality.
show that evidence is material, a defendant must demonstrate "that the confidential
show that evidence is material, adefendant must demonstrate " that the confidential
informant
informant possesses
possesses relevant
relevant information
information that
that will
will materially
materially aidaid
thethe defendant
defendant in in
presenting
presenting
his or her defense and that the information is not obtainable from
his or her defense and that the information is not obtainable from
13 13
312, 317 (Pa.
another source." Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312,317 (Pa. 2019). The
defendant ""must
defendant must demonstrate at least aareasonable possibility the informant's
testimony
testimony would
would exonerate
exonerate him." Washington, 63 A.3d at 801.
him." Washington, 801. ""Only
Only after the
defendant shows that the identity of the confidential informant is material to the
defense is the trial court required to exercise its discretion to determine whether the
information should be revealed by balancing relevant factors, which are initially
initially
weighted toward the Commonwealth." Watson, 69 A.3d at 608.
The Court must apply
apply a
a balancing test when determining
detennining whether the
identity of a
a confidential informant should be disclosed. The test ""initially
initially weighs
weighs
in favor of maintaining confidentiality of the informant's identity in order to
preserve
preserve the public's interest in effective law enforcement." Commonwealth v.
Baker, 946 A.2d 691, 694 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(Pa. 2008) ((citing
citing In re R.S., 847 A.2d 685, 688
(Pa. Super 2004)),
2004)). The Supreme Court explained that factors to be considered are
"the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime
crime
crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's
testimony
testimony and other relevant factors." Commonwealth v.v. Carter, 233 A.2d 284,
287
287 ((quoting
quoting Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-62
60-62 ((1957)).
1957)). For example,
when
when the
the confidential informant
infonnant was
was the
the only eyewitness to the entire transaction
aside
aside from law
law enforcement,
enforcement, the Court
Court found
found this factor
factor weighed in favor of
disclosure.
disclosure. Commonwealth v.v. Roebuck,
Roebuck, 681
681 A.2d
A.2d 1279,
1279, 1284
1284 (Pa.
(Pa. 1996).
14
14
The Court
The Court does
does not
not find
find the
the confidential
confidential informant's
informant's identity
identity materially
materially relevant
relevant
to Appellant's case. Appellant failed to demonstrate a possibility that
a reasonable possibility
testimony would
the confidential informant's testimony Appellant. Detective
would exonerate Appellant.
Pelton testified that,
that, prior to the controlled
controlled buy, he searched
searched the confidential
informant and found no contraband, money. The entirety of the
contraband, drugs, or money. the
buy was surveilled by
controlled buy by five officers with the York County Drug Task
Force,
Force, four of which testified at trial regarding
regarding their observations.
observations. Particularly,
Officer Fatland testified that he witnessed the "hand-to-hand
"hand-to-hand transaction" between
Appellant and the confidential informant.
Appellant informant. (N.T., May 10, 2023)
(N.T., 250, May 2023).
Additionally, Appellant called witness Jo'Nae Deshields, the driver of Chevy.
Jo'Nae Deshields
Jo'Nae Deshields testified
testified that
that she
she was present with
was present with Appellant
Appellant and the confidential
and the confidential
informant, and that she observed the confidential informant hand Appellant
Appellant
$200.00, but that she did not see the
the confidential informant transfer any drugs to
Appellant. Id. at 356. Here, multiple
Appellant. multiple witnesses, including aanon-law-enforcement
non- law- enforcement
Jo'Nae
witness, Jo 'Nae Deshields, testified regarding
regarding their eyewitness
eyewitness observations.
Roebuck, 681 A.2d at 1284.
Furthermore, the factors weigh in favor of maintaining confidentiality to
preserve
preserve the public's interest in effective law enforcement. Baker, 946 A.2d at 694.
Detective Pelton testified that although this was the first time the confidential
participated in aacontrolled buy, he
informant participated he later participated in multiple buys for
later participated
15
15
separate, unrelated cases.
cases. (N.T.,
(N.T., 168, May 9, 2023).
2023 ). As such, the Court did not
abuse its discretion when it found that, in balancing the factors, the confidential
informant's testimony was immaterial and thus denied Appellant's motion to
compel identity of the confidential informant.
IV. Whether the Court improperly
improperly denied Appellant's
motions to interview potential defense witnesses but
rather
rather directed conflict counsel to
to secure
secure an investigator
investigator
to interview said witnesses in violation of Appellant's
right to self-representation?
self-representation?
Appellant
Appellant claims
claims that
that the
the Court
Court violated
violated Appellants
Appellants right
right to
to self-representation
self-representation
by
by denying
denying Appellant
Appellant his
his right
right to
to interview
interview potential
potential defense
defense witnesses
witnesses at
at York
York
County
County Prison
Prison and
and directing
directing conflict
conflict counsel
counsel to
to secure
secure an
an investigator
investigator to
to interview
interview
said
said witnesses.
witnesses. ((Def.'s
Def.'s Statement
Statement of
of Errors
Errors Complained
Complained of
of on
on Appeal,
Appeal, 2,
2, Mar.
Mar. 19,
19,
2024).
2024). At
At the
the status
status hearing
hearing on
on March
March 23,
23, 2023,
2023, the
the Court
Court addressed
addressed Appellant's
Appellant's
concerns
concerns regarding
regarding his
his ability
ability as
as a
apro se litigant
prose litigant to
to interview
interview and
and prepare
prepare witnesses
witnesses
for
for trial
trial while
while housed
housed in
in York
York County
County Prison.
Prison. In
In response,
response, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth
expressed
expressed its
its concerns
concerns regarding
regarding Appellant's
Appellant's contact
contact with
with witnesses,
witnesses, due
due to
to
Appellant's
Appellant's prior
prior conviction
conviction for
for Intimidation
Intimidation of
of a
a Witness,
Witness, a
a first-degree
first-degree felony.
felony.
(Status
(Status Hr'g
Hr'g Tr.
Tr. 9,
9, Mar.
Mar. 23,
23, 2023).
2023).
A
A lengthy
lengthy discussion
discussion took
took place
place on
on the
the record
record concerning
concerning Appellant's
Appellant's ability
ability to
to
interview
interview witnesses.
witnesses. Deputy
Deputy Warden
Warden Michael
Michael Cuti
Cuti of
ofthe
the York
York County
County Prison
Prison
discussed
discussed the
the concerns
concerns about
about how
how to
to best
best meet
meet Appellant's
Appellant's need
need to
to prepare
prepare his
his
16
16
case, while also maintaining
maintaining security
security at York County
County Prison. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the Court ordered that an investigator
investigator from the York County
County Office of
Conflict Counsel meet with Appellant
Appellant and interview any
any witnesses Appellant
Appellant
wishes to interview to prepare for trial. ((Status
Status Hr'g
Hr'g Tr., 38, Mar. 23, 2023).
2023).
Accordingly,
Accordingly, Appellant's
Appellant's claim
claim that
that he
he was
was denied the ability
denied the ability to
to interview
interview
witnesses
witnesses for
for trial
trial is
is without
without merit.
merit.
V. Whether the Court erred when it denied Appellant's
request to call several witnesses on the basis that the
witnesses were not relevant?
Appellant asserts the Court improperly
improperly denied his request
request to call several
witnesses at trial on the basis that they were not relevant. Specifically, Appellant
requested
requested to
to call
call unnamed
unnamed witnesses
witnesses who
who would
would testify
testify that
that they
they knew
knew the
the
confidential informant and that he would stage
stage drug
drug buys
buys to ""save
save himself from
prison."
prison." ((Def.'s
Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained
Complained of on Appeal,
Appeal, 2, Mar. 19, 2024).
At
At the
the status
status hearing
hearing on
on March
March 23,
23, 2023,
2023, Appellant
Appellant requested
requested to
to call
call these
these
unnamed witnesses to show the confidential informant's
informant's "habit,"
"habit," "routine,"
routine," and to
prove
prove that
that the
the confidential
confidential informant
informant was
was aa ""drug
drug addict."
addict." ((Status
Status H'rg
H'rg Tr.,
Tr., 27,
27,
Mar.
Mar. 23,
23, 2023).
2023).
Additionally,
Additionally, Appellant
Appellant asserts
asserts the
the Court
Court erred
erred in
in denying
denying Appellant's
Appellant's request
request
to
to call
call forensic
forensic psychologist
psychologist Laura Brown
Brown to provide
provide expert
expert testimony
testimony "on
"on habits,
routines,
routines, and
and traits
traits of
of addicts
addicts and
and to
to potentially
potentially inform
inform the
the jury
jury the potential mental
17
17
drugs." (Def.'s
state of an informant who actively uses drugs." (Def.'s Statement
Statement of Errors
Complained of Appeal, 2, Mar. 19, 2024).
of on Appeal, 2024).
Furthermore, Appellant asserts the Court erred denying Appellant's
erred in denying Appellant's request
request
to call aacorrections officer from York County
County Prison who would provide
provide expert
expert
testimony that
testimony that "new
" new commits
commits to the prison
to the prison who
who were previously searched
were previously searched by
by York
York
police are found in possession of illegal contraband upon
upon entry
entry to prison." Id
to prison."
Appellant asserts this testimony would have cast
cast doubt on the Commonwealth's
evidence regarding the search of the confidential informant prior to the interaction
Appellant. Id.
with Appellant. Id,
The Court found the proposed
proposed testimony of these witnesses not relevant and
introduction. ((Status
thus denied its introduction. Status H'rg Tr,
Tr, 27,
27, Mar. 23, 2023). Pennsylvania
Rule of
Rule of Evidence
Evidence 401
401 provides
provides that "[e]vidence is
that "[evidence is relevant
relevant if
if ((a)
a) it
it has any
has any
tendency
tendency to make
make aafact more or less probable than
than it would be without
without the
the
evidence; and
and ((b)
b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." See
Pa.R.E., Rule 401. ""As
As with all testimony must first be relevant to
all evidence, expert testimony
the case in order to be admissible." Commonwealth v. Selenski, 158 A.3d 102, 106
Super. 2017).
(Pa. Super.
Here, the entire controlled buy was testified to by officers with the York County
Drug Task Force. The Commonwealth did not
not call the
the confidential informant as aa
witness;
witness; therefore, the confidential informant's credibility was not an issue in this
18
18
case. Appellant's proposed testimony regarding the confidential informant's
credibility, the general
general "habits, routines, and traits of addicts," or expert testimony
testimony
by aacorrections officer regarding searches of new commits to York County
County Prison,
was not relevant. See Pa.R.E., Rule 401.
40 I. As such, the Court did not err in
precluding this testimony.
VI. Whether the Commonwealth
violated Brady by
withholding that another individual had the same
telephone number that the confidential informant called
in Appellant '
scase?
Appellant's
Appellant argues the Commonwealth committed violations of Brady v.
v.
Marvland
Maryland5 when it withheld that another individual named Robert Huffmaster had
the same telephone number that the confidential informant called to purchase drugs
in Appellants
Appe1lants case.
case. (Def.'s
(Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 2-3,
Mar. 1.9,
19, 2023). To establish a
a Brady violation, the burden is on the Appellant to
"demonstrate
"demonstrate that exculpatory or impeaching evidence, favorable to the defense,
was suppressed
suppressed by the prosecution, to the prejudice of the defendant."
Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d 61, 75
75 (Pa.
(Pa. 2009)
2009) (citing
(citing Commonwealth v.
Gibson,
Gibson, 951
951 A.2d
A.2d 1 l10, 1126
1110, 1126 ((2008)).
2008)). ""To
To satisfy
satisfy the prejudice inquiry, the
evidence
evidence suppressed
suppressed must
must have
have been
been material to
to guilt or
or punishment." Id. Although
Brady
Brady is
is based
based on
on the due process
process requirement,
requirement, "[t]he
"[t]he prosecutor
prosecutor is not required to
Brach
Brady .
. ,v.• Rlar•yland
Maryland, 373
373 U.S.
U.S. 83
83 ((1963).
1963).
19
19
deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only
only to disclose evidence favorable to
the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive
deprive the defendant of aafair trial." Id.
(citing
(citing United States
States v. Bagley, 473
v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667
667 ((1985)).
1985)).
Here, Appellant asserts the Commonwealth withheld the fact that the phone
number associated with Appellant at this trial, (717) 318-0931, was also used by
(717)
officers to purchase drugs from a
a man named Robert Hoffmaster at the same
location in this case, and that this phone number is also listed in Mr. Hoffmaster's
discovery.
discovery. ((Status
Status H'rg T., 7-8, Mar. 23, 2023). However, Appellant
7-8, Appellant did not raise
this issue in a
a pretrial motion or at trial; nor does Appellant provide any evidence
showing that the phone number listed at (717) 318-0931 is associated with Mr.
(717)
Hoffmaster's discovery. Appellant merely asserts that, after trial, he learned that
Detective
Detective Pelton knew this information. The
The Court does not find this assertion
sufficient
sufficient to overcome Appellant's burden of demonstrating that the prosecution
withheld exculpatory or impeaching evidence in violation of Brady, or that
Appellant
Appellant was prejudiced. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d at 75. Accordingly, Appellant's
Brady
Brady claim
claim fails.
VII.
VII. Whether
Whether the
the Court improperly
improperly denied Appellant's
request
request to call
call Detective Pelton as
as a
a rebuttal
rebuttal witness?
Appellant argues
argues that
that the Court erred when it denied his
his request to call
Detective
Detective Pelton
Pelton as a
a rebuttal
rebuttal witness. (Statement of
(Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal,
Appeal, 3,
3, Mar.
Mar. 19,
19, 2024).
2024 ). It
It is
is well- settled that
well-settled that "[t]he
"[t]he admission
admission of
of evidence
evidence is
20
20
within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will be reversed on appeal only
upon a
a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Similarly,
Similarly, the
admission or rejection of rebuttal evidence is also within the sound discretion of
the trial court." Commonwealth v. Miles, 846 A.—
Id 132, 136
A.2d 136 (Pa.
(Pa. Super. 2004)
nternal citations omitted.)
(internal
( omitted.) "[T]he
"[T]he appropriate
appropriate scope of rebuttal evidence is
defined by the evidence that it is intended to rebut. Where the evidence proposed
goes to the impeachment of the testimony of his opponent's witnesses, it is
admissible
admissible as a
a matter of
of right.
right. Rebuttal is proper where facts discrediting the
the
proponent's
proponent's witnesses
witnesses have
have been
been offered." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Colon,
Colon, 230
230 A.3d
A.3d 368,
368,
379
3 79 ((Pa.
Pa. Super
Super 2020).
2020).
At
At trial,
trial, Appellant
Appellant requested
requested to
to re- call Detective
re-call Detective Pelton
Pelton for
for the
the purpose
purpose of
of
rebutting
rebutting Officer
Officer Fatland's
Fatland's testimony.
testimony. (N.T.,
(N.T., 342-22,
342-22, May
May 10,
10, 2023).
2023). Appellant
Appellant
generally
generally claimed
claimed that
that "[Officer
"[Officer Fatland's
Fatland's testimony]
testimony] contradicted
contradicted what
what Officer
Officer
Pelton
Pelton testified
testified to."
to." Id.
Id. at
at 343.
343. Furthermore,
Furthermore, Appellant
Appellant asserted
asserted he
he wished
wished to
to elicit
elicit
testimony
testimony from
from Detective
Detective Pelton
Pelton regarding
regarding the
the location
location where
where the
the confidential
confidential
informant
informant entered
entered the
the Chevy,
Chevy, and
and that
that this
this testimony
testimony would
would rebut
rebut whether
whether
Detective
Detective Fatland
Fatland observed
observed a
a hand-to-hand
hand-to-hand transaction.
transaction. Id
Id at
at 342.
342. The
The Court
Court agreed
agreed
with
with the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth that
that Appellant
Appellant had
had the
the opportunity
opportunity to
to cross-examine
cross-examine
Detective
Detective Pelton
Pelton regarding
regarding this
this issue
issue at
at an
an earlier
earlier time,
time, and
and determined
determined this
this was
was not
not
proper
proper rebuttal
rebuttal testimony
testimony but
but rather,
rather, an
an argument
argument Appellant
Appellant was
was permitted
permitted to
to
21
21
present to the jury. Id.
Id at 344. Accordingly, the Court properly
properly exercised its
discretion in denying Appellant's request to call Detective Pelton as aarebuttal
witness. Miles, 846 A.2d at 136.
VIII. Whether the Court improperly
improperly removed Juror no. 158?
Appellant argues that the Court improperly
improperly excused Juror No. 158, the only
only
black juror, ""without
without further inquiring
inquiring into why
why the juror
juror stated they
they could no
longer deliberate during active deliberations."
deliberations." ((Def.'s
Def's Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal, 3, Mar. 19, 2024).
2024 ). The Pennsylvania Superior Court has
found that when the trial court substitutes an alternate juror after deliberations have
begun,
begun, there is a
a presumption
presumption of prejudice
prejudice against
against defendant which
which ""may
may only
only be
rebutted by evidence which establishes that sufficient protective
protective measures were
taken to insure the integrity of the jury function." Commonwealth v. Saunders, 686
A.2d 25, 29
29 ((Pa.
Pa. Super. 1996). The Court explained that
that "the trial court's
instructions to the recomposed jury are of the uppermost importance." Id.
(emphasis
( emphasis added). First, the Court must instruct the recomposed jury that the
discharge
discharge of the original
original juror
juror ""was
was entirely personal and had nothing to do with
the
the discharged
discharged juror's
juror's views on
on the case or the juror's relationship
relationship with fellow
jurors."
jurors." Second,
Second, "the
"the recomposed
recomposed jury must be
be directed to
to begin deliberations
anew."
anew." Id.
1lere, while the
Here, the jury
jury was
was deliberating
deliberating in
in this
this case,
case, the
the Court was informed that
that a
a
22
22
juror believed
juror believed he
he could
could no
no longer
longer participate in deliberations
participate in deliberations and
and wanted
wanted to
to be
be
replaced with
with one
one of
of the
the alternate
alternate jurors.
jurors. (N.T., 411 May
(N.T., 411 10, 2023).
May 10, A discussion
202
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.