Com. v. Hatchett, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 529 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Dubow

Opinion

J-S44023-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALFRED HATCHETT : : Appellant : No. 529 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 14, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003287-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JANUARY 14, 2026

Appellant, Alfred Hatchett, appeals from the February 14, 2025

judgment of sentence of 10 to 21 years of incarceration entered in the

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas following his conviction of Persons

Not to Possess Firearms and two counts of Possession With Intent to Deliver

(“PWID”).1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his

Persons Not to Possess Firearms and PWID convictions and the weight the jury

gave to the evidence. After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On February

12, 2022, Darby Borough Police Patrolmen Shain McCaughey and Terrell Lee

responded to a 911 call from Angel Cooper, the daughter of the owner of a

residence on North 3rd Street in Darby Borough. Ms. Cooper had reported that

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1), and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), respectively. J-S44023-25

a man who did not live at the residence, later identified as Appellant, was

present and possibly in possession of a firearm and narcotics. Upon their

arrival, the patrolmen met Ms. Cooper and her mother, Carleen Sutherland.

Ms. Cooper told the patrolmen that she and Paul Poulet—a man who had been

living in the residence’s basement—had been in the basement when Appellant

arrived to retrieve a gray/green backpack that he had left there. Ms. Cooper

and Mr. Poulet watched Appellant look through the backpack and heard him

complain that marijuana worth $700 was missing from it. Appellant became

angry when Ms. Cooper and Mr. Poulet denied knowing what had happened to

the drugs, prompting him to lift his shirt and display the handle of a black

semiautomatic handgun tucked in his waistband. Appellant then pulled the

gun from his waistband and threatened to shoot whoever had stolen from him.

After hearing Ms. Cooper’s account, Ms. Sutherland permitted the

patrolmen to enter basement to investigate. The basement was an area of

the home accessible only through a door located along an alleyway in the rear

of the residence. The patrolmen entered the basement by passing through its

entry hall, arrived in an area of the basement that had been converted into a

living space, and observed Appellant alone and lying on a bed, apparently

asleep. The patrolmen woke Appellant, detained him without incident, and

retrieved an iPhone from his pocket.

Patrolman McCaughey then saw in plain sight a grey/green backpack

between three and five feet from where Appellant had been sleeping. The

backpack contained, inter alia, a loaded firearm, numerous bags containing

-2- J-S44023-25

marijuana, a bag containing numerous vials of crack cocaine, and various

items of drug paraphernalia. Patrolman McCaughey also discovered 52 blue

vials containing fentanyl in the ceiling rafters of the unfinished drop ceiling

above where Appellant had been sleeping. Patrolman McCaughey then

arrested Appellant. Prior to leaving the scene, Mr. Poulet arrived at the

residence and provided the patrolmen with a written statement consistent with

Ms. Cooper’s oral account.

Following this incident, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with, inter

alia, the above crimes. Appellant’s jury trial commenced on December 9,

2024. The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Patrolman McCaughey

and Terrell Lee, who testified in accordance with the above facts.

The Commonwealth and defense counsel stipulated that forensic

investigators performed a forensic extraction of Appellant’s iPhone. Analyst

Maria Cerino of the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office Criminal

Investigation Division then testified that during the course of her investigation

of Appellant’s iPhone, she recovered a photograph created a few weeks prior

to Appellant’s arrest depicting a handgun, and a video recorded the preceding

autumn which was attached to an outgoing text message that also depicted a

handgun with the prominently displayed serial number “JBC6726.”

Delaware County Criminal Investigation Division Detective Louis

Grandizio, a county firearms examiner and expert in firearms identification

and ballistics, also testified on behalf of the Commonwealth. He testified that

the serial number on the handgun found in the backpack proximate to

-3- J-S44023-25

Appellant prior this arrest was “JBC6726.” Detective Grandizio further

testified that the handgun recovered by the patrolmen was consistent with the

handgun in the photo extracted from Appellant’s iPhone as to the

manufacturer, slide striations, caliber, model, and certain alphanumeric

markings. He also testified that the firearm in the video extracted from

Appellant’s iPhone clearly bore a serial number identical to the handgun

recovered from the backpack physically proximate to Appellant in the

basement bed.

The Commonwealth played the video recovered from Appellant’s iPhone

for the jury. The video showed the handgun laying on a flat, cloth-covered

surface, with a loaded magazine positioned on the same surface below the

firearm. The video next showed the right hand of an African American, with

a light complexion similar to Appellant’s, pick up the magazine and bring it

close to the recording device to highlight that it was loaded. The video then

showed seemingly the same light complexioned African American grab the

firearm by its grip and rotate it making its other side fully visible before

returning it to the flat surface.

On December 11, 2024, the jury convicted Appellant of the above

charges. On February 14, 2025, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of

eight to 16 years of incarceration for the Persons not to Possess Firearms

conviction, a consecutive term of two to five years of incarceration for one

PWID conviction, and a concurrent term of one to two years of incarceration

for the other PWID conviction. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.

-4- J-S44023-25

This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:

1. Was the evidence legally insufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions where the Commonwealth failed to establish actual or constructive possession of the firearm and controlled substances?

2. Were the verdicts against the weight of the evidence where the Commonwealth presented no forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony linking Appellant to the contraband?

Appellant’s Brief at iv.

In his first issue, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth presented

insufficient evidence to prove that he actually or constructively possessed the

firearm and narcotics found near him. Id. at 3-7. In support of this claim,

Appellant notes that the Commonwealth introduced no direct evidence or

eyewitness testimony linking Appellant to the contraband. Id. at 5. He also

notes that investigators never subjected the contraband to DNA or fingerprint

testing. Id. Appellant further contends that the Commonwealth’s case was

devoid of evidence that Appellant owned the backpack located in the basement

or that the basement was under his exclusive control and, given that the

basement was part of a shared residential property, the Commonwealth

should have presented evidence “to establish who had dominion over the

space or the items recovered.” Id. at 5-6. Appellant also argues that the

Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant had the intent to exercise control

over the contraband because it did not introduce any evidence of “behavior or

-5- J-S44023-25

statements by Appellant indicative of the intent to control the firearm or

narcotics.” Id. at 6. He concludes that the Commonwealth’s case was based

on “pure speculation and conjecture” because it “rested almost entirely on the

fact that Appellant was found sleeping in a basement near a backpack that

contained contraband.” Id. at 5-6.

We review claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by

considering whether, “viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light

most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the

fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and

quotation omitted). Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on

circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or

none of the evidence. Id. at 40 (citation and quotation omitted). “Because

evidentiary sufficiency is a matter of law, our standard of review is de novo

and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d

325, 330 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

A jury may find that a defendant actually possessed contraband or did

so constructively. Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36 (Pa. Super.

2018). “Where a defendant is not in actual possession of the prohibited items,

the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant had constructive

possession to support the conviction.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v.

Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that a conviction under

-6- J-S44023-25

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a) was supported by a finding of constructive possession)).

“Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to deal with

the realities of criminal law enforcement.” Parrish, 191 A.3d at 36 (citation

omitted). “We have defined constructive possession as conscious dominion,

meaning that the defendant has the power to control the contraband and the

intent to exercise that control.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

“[A]s with any other element of a crime, constructive possession may

be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 36-37 (citation omitted). “In

other words, the Commonwealth must establish facts from which the trier of

fact can reasonably infer that the defendant exercised dominion and control

over the contraband at issue.” Id. at 37 (citing Commonwealth v. Davis,

743 A.2d 946, 953–54 (Pa. Super. 1999) (holding that evidence was sufficient

to prove constructive possession over drugs found in common areas of an

apartment where the defendant entered the apartment using his own key, and

possessed $800 in cash on his person, and police recovered defendant’s

identification badge, size-appropriate clothing, and firearms from a

bedroom)).

As noted above, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to

prove he actually or constructively possessed the firearm or narcotics, and

lists numerous reasons why be believes his conviction was the result of “pure

speculation and conjecture.” Appellant fails to acknowledge, however, that

the Commonwealth’s case included evidence that Appellant’s phone contained

a photograph of a firearm whose serial number matched the serial number on

-7- J-S44023-25

the firearm found by the police in the backpack proximate to Appellant and

testimony that the handgun in the photograph was consistent with the

handgun in the backpack as to the manufacturer, slide striations, caliber,

model, and certain alphanumeric markings. The Commonwealth also

presented video evidence seized from Appellant’s iPhone showing the hand of

an African American whose complexion was similar to that of Appellant

handling the same firearm. Viewing all the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict-winner, we conclude that it was

reasonable for the jury to infer that Appellant exercised dominion and control

over the contraband at issue. Appellant’s claim that the Commonwealth failed

to prove he had possession—actual or constructive—thus, fails.

In his second issue, Appellant challenges the weight the jury gave to the

Commonwealth’s evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 7-10. Appellant did not,

however, raise and preserve his weight challenge in the trial court. See

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 497 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining

that an appellant must preserve a weight challenge before sentencing or in a

post-sentence motion). As a result, this issue is waived. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)

(“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the

first time on appeal.”).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

-8- J-S44023-25

Date: 1/14/2026

-9-