Com. v. Rashid, H (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J.S26042/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. HADDAD RASHID, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 351 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 3, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-51-CR-0005084-2011 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 Appellant, Haddad Rashid, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following a jury trial and conviction for possession with intent to distribute 1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, as well as whether the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion. We affirm. 2 Op. 10/22/13, at 3-7, 16-18. Following a jury conviction, the court * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 2 See Trial Ct. J. S26042/14 sentenced Appellant imprisonment. on Ja Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion challenging, inter alia on January 10, 2013. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court- ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which was detailed and specific.3 Appellant raises the following issues: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict? Whether the verdict was against the weight of evidence? Whether the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress physical evidence? that the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession of the drugs hidden in the vehicle. Appellant opines that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because his conduct was inconsistent with knowledge that drugs were present. Finally, he maintains that the trial court should have suppressed the currency seized after a pat-down search and the police lacked reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle that Appellant did not the suppression hearing. (Pa. 2013). See generally In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1084 3 See generally Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008). -2- J. S26042/14 own or have permission to operate. We hold Appellant is not entitled to relief. the standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is de novo, as it is a question of law. 1233, 1235 (Pa. 2007). Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d Our Crimes Code defines the offense of PWID as follows: (30) Except as authorized by this act, the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance. 35 P.S. § 780narcotics with the intent to deliver, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a controlled substance and Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence for PWID, an appellate court considers the quantity of the the behavior of the defendant, the presence of drug paraphernalia, and large[ ] sums of cash found in possession of the defendant. The final factor to be considered is expert test Ratsamy, 934 A.2d at 1237-38 (citation omitted). -3- J. S26042/14 In order to prove that a defendant had constructive possession of a prohibited item, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant had both the ability to consciously exercise control over it as well as the intent to exercise such control. An intent to maintain a conscious dominion may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, and circumstantial evidence may be used contraband. Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 969 A.2d 584, 590 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). trial based on a weight-of-evidence claim is of the exercise of the trial etion, and not a ruling on the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of evidence. Commonwealth v. Blackham, its judgment for that of the finder of fact [and] may only reverse the lower Commonwealth v. Lewis, 911 A.2d 558, 565 (Pa. Super. 2006). Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression record, we are bound by these findings and may -4- J. S26042/14 erroneous. Where, as here, the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression ding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review. sole province as fact finder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2011) (punctuation and citations omitted), affirmed on other grounds, 78 A.3d 1044 (Pa. 2013). well-reasoned decision of the Honorable Charles J. Cunningham, III, we See Trial Ct. Op. at 7-10, 13-21 (holding: (1) recovery of sixty packets of heroin, large quantity of cash, and loaded handgun from concealed compartment in vehicle sufficient to establish PWID; (2) Appellant had no expectation of privacy in vehicle not owned by him and Appellant did not establish he was given permission to operate vehicle; and (3) police justified in conducting pat-down search after determination that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. -5- J. S26042/14 See Blackham, 909 A.2d at 320. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2014 -6-

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.