Com. v. Puentes (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S77004-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ADAIN PUENTES, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3218 EDA 2010 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on November 5, 2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0310981-2006 BEFORE: MUSMANNO, WECHT and PLATT*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Filed: March 11, 2013 Adain Puentes ( Puentes ) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and criminal conspiracy.1 We affirm. The pertinent facts and procedural history of this case were set forth by the trial court in its Opinion, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/21/12, at 1-7. On appeal, Puentes raises the following issues: 1. Whether the trial court [erred] by denying [Puentes s] [M]otion to sever because [Puentes s] defenses were divergent at their core and [Puentes] claimed that he did not possess narcotics and there was no evidence to tie [Puentes] to the 70 grams of heroin in the house ¦[?] 1 35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113(a)(30), (a)(16), (a)(32); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1). *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S77004-12 2. Whether there was insufficient evidence to find [Puentes] guilty of possession with intent to deliver heroin because the 70 grams found in the house could not be attributed to [Puentes?] Brief for Appellant at 2. Puentes first asserts that the trial court erred by denying his Motion to sever. He contends that joinder of his trial with that of his co-defendant caused him to suffer prejudice that exceeded the general prejudice any defendant suffers when the Commonwealth s evidence links him to a crime. Id. at 14. The decision on whether to grant a motion for severance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Payne, 760 A.2d 400, 404 (Pa. Super. 2000). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Puentes s Motion for severance. The trial court has thoroughly addressed this issue, and we adopt its Opinion for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/21/12, at 9-16. Puentes next contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possession with intent to deliver heroin. Puentes asserts that the heroin that was recovered in his co-defendant s residence could not be attributed to him. We have reviewed the record, and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Puentes s conviction of possession with intent to deliver. -2- J-S77004-12 The trial court has thoroughly addressed this issue, and we adopt the trial court s Opinion for the purpose of this appeal. 3/21/12, at 16-20. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -3- See Trial Court Opinion,
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.
