Com. v. Cox (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S77008-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. GREG COX, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1100 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on April 5, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0010595-2010 BEFORE: MUSMANNO, WECHT and PLATT*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Filed: March 18, 2013 Greg Cox ( Cox ) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and criminal conspiracy.1 We affirm. The pertinent facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in the trial court s Opinion, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/17/12, at 1-4. In this timely appeal, Cox raises the following issue: Was not the evidence insufficient to support [Cox s] conviction for delivery/possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and conspiracy inasmuch as the police did not recover illegal drugs from [Cox] or his alleged co-conspirator, or any illegal drugs from a nearby alley, which was the suspected site of the drug stash and did not see what was transferred to two purported buyers who were later found with drug[] vials in their possession? 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903. *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S77008-12 Brief for Appellant at 3. Cox alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Cox contends that the evidence that he delivered drugs was speculative because neither Cox nor his co-conspirator personally possessed controlled substances when arrested. Cox also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of possession with intent to deliver because the police did not find a drug stash in the alley. He further contends that the Commonwealth did not establish a connection between the money that Cox and his coconspirator possessed and the alleged drug sales, and that the first buyer, King, was not stopped until an hour after the alleged drug transaction. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure require that an appellant set forth, in the Argument section of his appellate brief, a reference to the place in the record where the matter referred to appears. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). The failure to develop an argument properly in an appellate brief, including proper citation to the record, results in waiver. Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007). [T]his Court will not scour the record to find evidence to support an argument . Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Cox has failed to include citations to the record in support of his argument. Therefore, he has waived his claim on appeal. See id. However, even if Cox had preserved his claim on appeal, we would conclude -2- J-S77008-12 that the claim lacks merit for the reasons stated in the trial court s Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/17/12, at 4-8.2 Judgment of sentence affirmed. In addition to the reasons set forth in the trial court s Opinion, we note also that although the police did not recover a stash of drugs in the alley, the police observed thousands of used clear plastic sandwich bags in that location, N.T., 4/5/11, at 12; money in small denominations was recovered from both Cox and his co-conspirator, id. at 24-26; and the police apprehended King, the first buyer, within thirty minutes after the transaction with Cox and the co-conspirator, id. at 16-17. 2 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
