Com. v. Henderson, L. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S45006-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LAKHAWN HENDERSON Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1541 EDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 16, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009577-2017 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2020 Lakhawn Henderson appeals from the judgment of sentence of four to eight years of imprisonment imposed following his convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”) and conspiracy to commit PWID. We affirm. Philadelphia Police used a confidential informant to make two controlled buys of marijuana from different individuals inside the residence at 2244 N. 12th Street. Using the information thereby acquired, the police obtained a warrant to search the property. When they executed it the next day, Appellant was arrested on the front porch. The search resulted in the seizure from one of the property’s bedrooms of a backpack containing marijuana, crack cocaine packaged for individual sale, other drug paraphernalia, along with Appellant’s identification card, birth certificate, and other identifying documents. The documents listed an address for Appellant other than 2244 N. 12th Street. J-S45006-20 The Commonwealth charged Appellant with PWID, conspiracy, and three other counts which were ultimately nolle prossed. At trial, a jury convicted Appellant of PWID and conspiracy, and the trial judge sentenced him as indicated above. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, and then a timely notice of appeal after the trial court denied the motion. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents two questions for our review: 1. Was there sufficient evidence to prove constructive possession of the drugs here to prove the crime of [PWID] beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Did the trial court err in finding that the warrant for 2244 N. 12th Street was issued with probable cause despite its lack of details about the property and its insides? Appellant’s brief at 3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). The following informs our review of Appellant’s claims of error. As to Appellant’s sufficiency challenge, we bear in mind: 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. [T]he 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 factfinder. -2- J-S45006-20 Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 305-06 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As to Appellant’s suppression question, we observe: An appellate court’s standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are 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 court’s factual findings are supported by the record, the appellate court is bound by those findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. Where the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions are not binding 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 plenary review. Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2017) (cleaned up). After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs and the pertinent law, we discern no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court as to the issues raised by Appellant, and we affirm the judgment of sentence on the basis of the cogent and well-reasoned opinion that Honorable Susan I. Schulman entered on November 18, 2019. Specifically, Judge Schulman thoroughly and accurately reviewed the applicable law and the evidence offered at trial, and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Appellant possessed the -3- J-S45006-20 drugs found in his backpack, and that he did so with the intent to deliver them. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/18/19, at 2-7, 12-16. Further, Judge Schulman explained that Appellant’s suppression motion lacked merit based upon the law applicable to the validity of search warrants and the contents of the affidavit of probable cause detailing the evidence of drug sales being made out of the residence searched. Id. at 8-12. As to all of the foregoing points, we adopt Judge Schulman’s reasoning as our own. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/23/2020 -4- Circulated 11/30/2020 09:08 AM
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.
