Com. v. Jamison, D.
This text of Com. v. Jamison, D. (Com. v. Jamison, D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S33008-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DASHAWN LAQUINN JAMISON : : Appellant : No. 1232 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 24, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0002709-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2025
Appellant, Dashawn Laquinn Jamison, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on July 24, 2023, following his jury trial conviction for
delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 We affirm.
We briefly set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. On February 4, 2021, three police officers with the York County Drug
Task Force conducted a controlled narcotics transaction between a confidential
informant (CI) and Appellant. The police searched the CI prior to the
transaction, and he did not have anything on his person. At an agreed upon
location at the corner of Hartley and Clarke Streets in York, Pennsylvania, the
officers surveilled and photographed a hand-to-hand exchange inside a silver
Chevrolet between the CI and Appellant. The CI gave Appellant $200.00 in
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). J-S33008-24
exchange for a bag of crack cocaine. The police recovered two cellular
telephones and $200.00 from Appellant in a search incident to his arrest. On
June 24, 2022, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with the
aforementioned offense. Appellant proceeded pro se. The trial court
appointed standby counsel for Appellant in November 2022. Prior to trial
Appellant filed a pro se omnibus motion, which included, inter alia, a request
to compel the identity of the CI. Following a hearing on December 21, 2022,
the trial court denied relief. At a status hearing held in March 2023, Appellant
asserted that he was unable to conduct pro se witness interviews from prison,
so the trial court appointed an investigator from the York County Office of
Conflict Counsel to assist Appellant. At the conclusion of a three-day trial
commencing on May 8, 2023, the jury found Appellant guilty of the
aforementioned crime. On July 24, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to three to six years of incarceration. This timely, counseled appeal resulted.2 ____________________________________________
2 Appellant filed a timely pro se post sentence motion which the trial court denied by order entered on August 8, 2023. Thereafter, Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. After the trial court granted Appellant an extension, Appellant filed a pro se concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) as directed. On October 16, 2023, this Court ordered the trial court to determine whether appellate counsel should be appointed to represent Appellant or Appellant voluntarily wished to continue to proceed pro se. The trial court conducted a hearing on November 16, 2023 and Appellant knowingly waived his right to counsel. Appellant requested additional time to file a pro se amended Rule 1925(b) statement which the trial court granted. In February 2023, Appellant filed a motion for the reappointment of appellate counsel. The trial court appointed counsel and ordered her to file an amended Rule 1925(b) statement. After the grant of several extensions for various reasons, counsel for Appellant filed a timely (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2- J-S33008-24
On appeal, counsel for Appellant presents the following issues3 for our
review:
I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to prove every element of the offense of delivery of cocaine[,] specifically[,] whether the evidence was insufficient to prove Appellant delivered the controlled substance [(cocaine)] to the [CI]?
II. Whether the verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence?
III. Whether the trial court erred when it declined to compel discovery, specifically the CI’s identity in violation of Appellant’s state and federal due process rights?
IV. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s request to interview potential defense witnesses at York County Prison, but rather directed conflict counsel to secure an investigator to interview said witnesses, in violation of Appellant’s right to self-representation?
V. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s request to call different witnesses on the basis that the trial court determined they were not relevant?
a. Witnesses who knew the CI and heard the CI discussing staging drug buys to save himself from prison;
b. Laura Brown, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who would have provided testimony on habits, routines, and traits of addicts and to potentially inform the jury the potential mental state of an informant who actively used drugs; and
Rule 1925(b) statement on March 19, 2024. On March 26, 2024, the trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
3 We have reordered Appellant’s issues for ease of discussion and disposition.
-3- J-S33008-24
c. A corrections officer at York County Prison whose testimony would have cast doubt on the Commonwealth’s evidence regarding the search of CI prior to CI’s interaction with Appellant. The witness would have testified, in an expert capacity, about how new [inmates] to the prison who were previously searched by York police were found in possession of illegal contraband upon entry to the prison.
VI. Whether the trial court erred when it excused Juror 158, the only black juror, without further inquiring into why the juror stated that they could no longer deliberate during active deliberations?
VII. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s request for a [b]ill of [p]articulars?
VIII. Whether the Commonwealth committed numerous Brady[4] violations when it withheld [information] that a man named Mr. Robert Huffmaster had the same telephone number that the CI called [in this matter]?
Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.
On appeal, Appellant’s first seven issues challenge various pretrial and
trial rulings. First, Appellant challenges the weight and sufficiency of the
evidence presented at trial, arguing that “[t]here [wa]s no evidence that
Appellant gave the CI crack cocaine” because “while a detective observed a
hand-to-hand exchange, he could not testify as to exactly what was
exchanged[.]” Id. at 17. Appellant further argues that “[t]he CI could have
received the drugs [that police later recovered from him] after he was
originally searched by” the police and “[i]f Appellant would have had the
identity of the CI, Appellant could have cross[-]examined the CI on his
4 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
-4- J-S33008-24
motives for setting up the controlled sale [or] had previously arranged similar
transactions to lessen the CI’s [exposure to a] prison sentence[.]” Id. at 28;
see also id. at 34 (Appellant “believed the CI staged the buy and could have
retrieved the drugs from either hiding it so the officers who searched him prior
to the controlled buy could not find it or [he] picked it up somewhere between
the time after the CI was searched and when the CI handed over the drugs
after the controlled buy.”). Moreover, Appellant suggests there was “at least
a reasonable possibility the CI’s identity would exonerate him, [] because the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S33008-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DASHAWN LAQUINN JAMISON : : Appellant : No. 1232 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 24, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0002709-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2025
Appellant, Dashawn Laquinn Jamison, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on July 24, 2023, following his jury trial conviction for
delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 We affirm.
We briefly set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. On February 4, 2021, three police officers with the York County Drug
Task Force conducted a controlled narcotics transaction between a confidential
informant (CI) and Appellant. The police searched the CI prior to the
transaction, and he did not have anything on his person. At an agreed upon
location at the corner of Hartley and Clarke Streets in York, Pennsylvania, the
officers surveilled and photographed a hand-to-hand exchange inside a silver
Chevrolet between the CI and Appellant. The CI gave Appellant $200.00 in
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). J-S33008-24
exchange for a bag of crack cocaine. The police recovered two cellular
telephones and $200.00 from Appellant in a search incident to his arrest. On
June 24, 2022, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with the
aforementioned offense. Appellant proceeded pro se. The trial court
appointed standby counsel for Appellant in November 2022. Prior to trial
Appellant filed a pro se omnibus motion, which included, inter alia, a request
to compel the identity of the CI. Following a hearing on December 21, 2022,
the trial court denied relief. At a status hearing held in March 2023, Appellant
asserted that he was unable to conduct pro se witness interviews from prison,
so the trial court appointed an investigator from the York County Office of
Conflict Counsel to assist Appellant. At the conclusion of a three-day trial
commencing on May 8, 2023, the jury found Appellant guilty of the
aforementioned crime. On July 24, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to three to six years of incarceration. This timely, counseled appeal resulted.2 ____________________________________________
2 Appellant filed a timely pro se post sentence motion which the trial court denied by order entered on August 8, 2023. Thereafter, Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. After the trial court granted Appellant an extension, Appellant filed a pro se concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) as directed. On October 16, 2023, this Court ordered the trial court to determine whether appellate counsel should be appointed to represent Appellant or Appellant voluntarily wished to continue to proceed pro se. The trial court conducted a hearing on November 16, 2023 and Appellant knowingly waived his right to counsel. Appellant requested additional time to file a pro se amended Rule 1925(b) statement which the trial court granted. In February 2023, Appellant filed a motion for the reappointment of appellate counsel. The trial court appointed counsel and ordered her to file an amended Rule 1925(b) statement. After the grant of several extensions for various reasons, counsel for Appellant filed a timely (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2- J-S33008-24
On appeal, counsel for Appellant presents the following issues3 for our
review:
I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to prove every element of the offense of delivery of cocaine[,] specifically[,] whether the evidence was insufficient to prove Appellant delivered the controlled substance [(cocaine)] to the [CI]?
II. Whether the verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence?
III. Whether the trial court erred when it declined to compel discovery, specifically the CI’s identity in violation of Appellant’s state and federal due process rights?
IV. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s request to interview potential defense witnesses at York County Prison, but rather directed conflict counsel to secure an investigator to interview said witnesses, in violation of Appellant’s right to self-representation?
V. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s request to call different witnesses on the basis that the trial court determined they were not relevant?
a. Witnesses who knew the CI and heard the CI discussing staging drug buys to save himself from prison;
b. Laura Brown, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who would have provided testimony on habits, routines, and traits of addicts and to potentially inform the jury the potential mental state of an informant who actively used drugs; and
Rule 1925(b) statement on March 19, 2024. On March 26, 2024, the trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
3 We have reordered Appellant’s issues for ease of discussion and disposition.
-3- J-S33008-24
c. A corrections officer at York County Prison whose testimony would have cast doubt on the Commonwealth’s evidence regarding the search of CI prior to CI’s interaction with Appellant. The witness would have testified, in an expert capacity, about how new [inmates] to the prison who were previously searched by York police were found in possession of illegal contraband upon entry to the prison.
VI. Whether the trial court erred when it excused Juror 158, the only black juror, without further inquiring into why the juror stated that they could no longer deliberate during active deliberations?
VII. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s request for a [b]ill of [p]articulars?
VIII. Whether the Commonwealth committed numerous Brady[4] violations when it withheld [information] that a man named Mr. Robert Huffmaster had the same telephone number that the CI called [in this matter]?
Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.
On appeal, Appellant’s first seven issues challenge various pretrial and
trial rulings. First, Appellant challenges the weight and sufficiency of the
evidence presented at trial, arguing that “[t]here [wa]s no evidence that
Appellant gave the CI crack cocaine” because “while a detective observed a
hand-to-hand exchange, he could not testify as to exactly what was
exchanged[.]” Id. at 17. Appellant further argues that “[t]he CI could have
received the drugs [that police later recovered from him] after he was
originally searched by” the police and “[i]f Appellant would have had the
identity of the CI, Appellant could have cross[-]examined the CI on his
4 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
-4- J-S33008-24
motives for setting up the controlled sale [or] had previously arranged similar
transactions to lessen the CI’s [exposure to a] prison sentence[.]” Id. at 28;
see also id. at 34 (Appellant “believed the CI staged the buy and could have
retrieved the drugs from either hiding it so the officers who searched him prior
to the controlled buy could not find it or [he] picked it up somewhere between
the time after the CI was searched and when the CI handed over the drugs
after the controlled buy.”). Moreover, Appellant suggests there was “at least
a reasonable possibility the CI’s identity would exonerate him, [] because the
CI was known for setting up other individuals for controlled buys[.]” Id. at
29. Next, Appellant argues that his right to self-representation was violated
when “the trial court actually endorsed hybrid representation when it directed
standby counsel to secure a private investigator to investigate any potential
defense witnesses, which in turn violated Appellant’s right to represent himself
pro se.” Id. at 31-32. Appellant also argues that the trial court denied his
request to call various witnesses to cast doubt on the CI’s credibility and to
show that he staged the controlled buy to avoid imprisonment himself. Id. at
33-35. Appellant also argues that the trial court failed to take protective
measures, specifically failed to extensively question the alternate and
remaining jurors, when “Juror #158 explained they could no longer deliberate
due to concern for their emotional wellbeing” after one hour of deliberation.
Id. at 42-43. Finally, Appellant suggests that “the trial court abused its
discretion in failing to order the Commonwealth to file a [b]ill of [p]articulars”
when Appellant only filed a pro se motion for an extension of time “so the
-5- J-S33008-24
Commonwealth would have time to provide discovery and [b]ill of [p]articulars
to him.” Id. at 45-46.
Regarding sufficiency of the evidence, we adhere to the following
standards:
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. The 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 fact- finder.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 305–306 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Moreover, regarding the weight of the evidence:
The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based upon a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, the function of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court's exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather than to consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of the evidence.
An appellate court may not overturn the trial court's decision unless the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. Further, in reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, a verdict will be overturned only if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice.
-6- J-S33008-24
A trial court's determination that a verdict was not against the interest of justice is one of the least assailable reasons for denying a new trial. A verdict is against the weight of the evidence where certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice. We do not reach the underlying question of whether the verdict was, in fact, against the weight of the evidence. Instead, this Court determines whether the trial court abused its discretion in reaching whatever decision it made on the motion.
Id. at 312 (internal citations, quotations, brackets and ellipses omitted).
“Our standard of review of claims that a trial court erred in its disposition
of a request for disclosure of an informant's identity is confined to abuse of
discretion.” Commonwealth v. Withrow, 932 A.2d 138, 140 (Pa. Super.
2007) (citation omitted). “Indeed, where the informant was an eyewitness to
the transaction in question, the role of the trial judge's discretion is established
by rule of court.” Id. citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(i). We also review
the trial court's decision to admit or preclude testamentary evidence for an
abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Cox, 115 A.3d 333, 336 (Pa. Super.
2015) (en banc). “The decision to discharge a juror is within the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that
discretion… even after the jury has been empaneled and the juror sworn.”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 562 (Pa. Super. 2019). The
Superior Court also reviews a trial court’s decision regarding a request for a
bill of particulars for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v.
McKnight, 305 A.3d 582, 589 (Pa. Super. 2023) citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 572. “An
abuse of discretion is not a mere error in judgment but, rather, involves bias,
-7- J-S33008-24
ill will, partiality, prejudice, manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of
law.” Cox, 115 A.3d at 336 (citation omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the
parties, and the thorough Rule 1925(a) opinion issued by the trial court on
March 26, 2024. Because the trial court's opinion adequately and accurately
addresses Appellant’s first seven appellate claims as set forth above, we adopt
the trial court's March 26, 2024 opinion as our own. Here, the trial court noted
that three police officers were involved in the controlled narcotics purchase
between Appellant and the CI. One of the officers specifically saw a hand-to-
hand transaction between Appellant and the CI inside a vehicle and the
Commonwealth presented photographs of the interaction at trial. The driver
of the vehicle, wherein the controlled buy occurred, testified that she observed
the CI hand Appellant $200.00. As such, the trial court determined there was
sufficient evidence of a drug delivery. The trial court further determined that
the jury’s verdict did not shock the conscience of the court and, therefore, the
verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We will not usurp that
determination. Moreover, the trial court further found that Appellant failed
to show that the identity of the CI was material to his defense because there
was no reasonable possibility that the CI would exonerate Appellant and the
CI was not the only witness to the transaction. Regarding additional trial
witnesses, the trial court concluded that Appellant could not interview
potential witnesses pro se at the prison due to security reasons and because
Appellant had a prior conviction for witness intimidation. As such, the trial
-8- J-S33008-24
court found it was appropriate to order an investigator to meet with witnesses,
at Appellant’s direction, in preparation for trial. Regarding the removal of a
juror, the trial court noted that during deliberation, Juror #158 believed he
could no longer participate and asked to be replaced with an alternate.
Outside the presence of the remaining jurors, the trial court determined that
the juror could not be fair and impartial because he was concerned about his
emotional well-being. The trial court replaced him with a sequestered
alternate and twice instructed the remaining venire to start deliberations
anew. Finally, regarding a bill of particulars, the trial court recognized that
Appellant failed to make a timely or formal request pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
572 and the Commonwealth already timely turned over discovery which
contained the same information which would have been disclosed in a bill of
particulars. On all of these issues, we discern no abuse of discretion and adopt
the trial court’s decision as our own. The parties are hereafter directed to
include a copy of the trial court's March 26, 2024 opinion with all future filings
pertaining to our disposition of this appeal.
Finally, Appellant contends that, after trial, he discovered that the
telephone number that the CI used to call Appellant in this matter was used
in another, unrelated case. Appellant’s Brief at 36-38 (“Mr. Robert
H[u]ffmaster was also charged with the delivery of crack cocaine and the same
aforementioned telephone number was listed in Mr. H[u]ffmaster’s
discovery.”). Appellant alleges that the Commonwealth withheld this
information from him in violation of Brady, supra. He claims that “had
-9- J-S33008-24
Appellant been privy to this evidence[,] Appellant could have shown the jury
that the same telephone number was previously linked to another person
thereby creating reasonable doubt of Appellant’s guilt.” Id. at 37.
Accordingly, Appellant requests a new trial, or alternatively, for this Court to
remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. Id. at 38.
As we have previously determined:
To obtain relief on a claim of after-discovered evidence, the evidence must satisfy a four-prong test:
(1) the evidence could not have been obtained before the conclusion of the trial by reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the evidence will not be used solely for purposes of impeachment; and (4) the evidence is of such a nature and character that a different outcome is likely.
The United States Supreme Court held in Brady “that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” This duty to disclose evidence is applicable even where the defendant has not made a request for it. Evidence is material “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” This rule includes evidence known only to police investigators, but not the prosecutor, who has a duty to learn of any evidence known by others who are acting on behalf of the Commonwealth in the defendant's case.
* * *
[Generally, on after-discovered evidence claims presented on direct appeal,] we remand to provide the trial court the opportunity to develop the record and to rule upon [] after- discovered evidence and Brady claims in the first instance.
- 10 - J-S33008-24
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 237 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2020) (non-
precedential decision) (internal citations omitted)5; see also
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355, 358 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing
Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C), comment (“[A]fter-discovered evidence discovered
during the direct appeal process must be raised promptly during the direct
appeal process, and should include a request for a remand to the trial judge.”).
Here, Appellant presented his after-discovered evidence/Brady claim and
request for remand promptly on direct appeal. Accordingly, we remand to
provide the trial court the first opportunity to develop the record and rule on
Appellant’s claim in the first instance.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Case remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 01/13/2025
5See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (providing that unpublished decisions filed by this Court after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value).
- 11 - Circulated 12/13/2024 02:21 PM
I L
i
11111111111111 1111111111111 B A T C H * Defendant-Name: Defendant-Name: Dashawn Laquinn Jamison
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111 MO T I O N - II IIII II I II II IIII II II E IIT I T IIllO N - 0 R D E R II Case Number
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I III II IIIIII] TIA[ * C p - 6 7 - C R - 0 0 0 2 7 0 9 - 2 0 2 2 R OTN: R 163169-6 we a a«a a a a ea z
W AGaeH `SSON Fill Fill in in Circle Circle -• Queue Queue Minutes Minutes to: to: [ I ■ ms-scAvneee RE-SCAN needed " 1 D G I I I I CJ) -Reason: Reason: 1 1 [] Adult- Probation-Q Aun-Probaton-0 I I 1 I [7 PennDOT-Q Penn0o1-o I 1 1
c SC-Q SCI- Q I L RETURN RETURN TO TO RECORDS RECORDS UNIT UNIT 1 JI
c YCP-Prision-Q YCP-Prision-Q I attest I attest and and certify that as certify that Serviced and properly Serviced properly as Deputy Clerk of Deputy Clerk and Docketed Docketed the of Courts Courts I the documents I have have documents related related
□D I to this to this case case action action and and have have verified verified the the completeness completeness and image and image quality of the quality of the scanned scanned documents. documents. Date: Date Docketed Docketed in in CPCMS CPCMS
Scanned Images Scanned Images OK OK-- Verified Verified // QC'd QC'd or Stamp Signature or Signature Stamp-- Deputy Clerk of Deputy Clerk of Courts Courts
Dan Dan Byrnes Byrnes -- York York County County Clerk Clerk of of Courts Courts L4 L4 541991 541991 Tuesday, August Tuesday, 16, 2022 August 16, 2022 02:47:49 02:4 7:49 PM PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF COMMONWEALTH OF CP-67-CR-2709-2022 CP-67-CR-2709-2022 PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA RECEIVED RECEIVED v. Clerk of Courts at 10:32 am, Mar 26, 2024 By Clerk of Courts at 10:32 am, Mar 26, 2024 V. By
DASHAWN JAMISON DASHAWN JAMISON Defendant/Appellant Defendant/Appellant
OPINION PURSUANT TO OPINION PURSUANT Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). L, NOW, this AND NOW, AND this }(' day of March, 2024, upon receipt of notice that an 1 day of March, 2024, upon receipt of notice that an
has been appeal has appeal this matter, filed inin this been filed consideration of and inin consideration matter, and the Statement ofthe of Statementof
Matters Complained Matters Complainedof on Appeal, ofon Appeal, filed prose filedpro DashawnJamison by Dashawn se by Jamison
theundersigned (Appellant), the ("Appellant"), undersigned files thisstatement filesthis pursuanttotoPA.R.A.P. statementpursuant l 925(a). PA.R.A.P. 1925(a).
RELEVANTFACTUAL RELEVANT AND PROCEDURAL FACTUALAND HISTORY PROCEDURALHISTORY
Onthe On ofFebruary afternoonof theafternoon Officerswith 2021,Officers February4,4,2021, theYork withthe Drug CountyDrug YorkCounty
TaskForce Task controlledbuy conductedaacontrolled Forceconducted betweenaaconfidential buybetween and informantand confidentialinformant
Appellant.While Appellant. thepresence Whileininthe presenceof DetectiveZachary ofDetective Pelton("Detective ZacharyPelton Pelton"), (DetectivePelton"),
theconfidential the placedaaphone informantplaced confidentialinformant phonecall cellphone calltotoaacell numberlisted phonenumber 717- listedasas717-
318-0931.(N.T., 318-093 N.T., 170-72, 1. ( May9,9,2023). 170-72,May 2023).The individualwho Theindividual thephone answeredthe whoanswered phone
was identifiedby wasidentified theconfidential bythe informantasasAppellant, confidentialinformant andananarrangement Appellant,and was arrangementwas
made forthe madefor informanttotogogototoananagreed-upon confidentialinformant theconfidential locationatatthe agreed-uponlocation the
intersectionofofHartley intersection Hartleyand ClarkeStreet andClarke York,Pennsylvania StreetininYork, crack purchasecrack Pennsylvaniatotopurchase cocaine. Id. at cocaine. Id. at 172. 172. Prior Prior to to the the controlled controlled buy, Detective Pelton buy, Detective Pelton searched searched the the
confidential informant confidential informant and and confirmed confirmed he he did did not not have have any contraband, drugs, any contraband, or drugs, or
on his money on money his person. Id. at person. Id. at 173-74. 173-74. Next, Next, Detective Detective Pelton Pelton provided the provided the
confidential informant confidential informant with with $$200.00 ofcontrolled 200.00 of controlled funds funds and and drove drove the the confidential confidential
informant to informant to West West Clarke Clarke Avenue. Avenue.
Prior toto arriving Prior arriving atat the the agreed-upon location for agreed-upon location forthe the controlled controlled buy, buy,
Detective Pelton Detective Pelton let let the the confidential confidential informant informantout out of ofhis his vehicle. Id. atat 177. vehicle. Id. 177.
Detective Pelton Detective Peltonobserved observedthe the confidential confidential informant informantwalk walkdown downClarke ClarkeAvenue Avenue
withoutstopping without orinteracting stoppingor withany interactingwith otherindividuals anyother individualsor orvehicles. Id. atat 177- vehicles.Id.. 177-
78. When 78. Whenthe theconfidential confidential informant informantarrived arrivedclose closetotothe theintersection intersectionof ofthe theagreed- agreed-
location,Detective uponlocation, upon DetectiveJames JamesMcBride McBrideof ofthe theYork YorkCounty CountyDistrict DistrictAttorney's Attorney's
Office("("Detective Office McBride")began Detective McBride") begantotosurveil surveilthe theconfidential confidentialinformant. Id.atat informant.Id.
282.At 282. Atthat thattime, time,Detective DetectiveMcBride McBrideobserved observedaasilver silverChevy vehicleturn Chevyvehicle turnleft leftonto onto
ClarkAvenue Clark Avenueand andsubsequently stop.Id.Id.Detective subsequentlystop. DetectiveMcBride McBrideobserved observedthe the
confidentialinformant confidential informantenter enterthe theChevy Chevythrough thepassenger-side throughthe door.Id.Id.atat reardoor. passenger-siderear
282-83.Next, 282-83. Next,the theChevy travelledwest Chevytravelled westononClarke ClarkeAvenue Avenuefor forapproximately approximately1010toto
1515yards beforeDetective yardsbefore DetectiveMcBride McBridelost sightofofit.it.Id.Id.atat283. lostsight 283.
AtAtthe thesame sametime, time,Officer OfficerJeremy Fatlandofofthe JeremyFatland theYork YorkCounty CountyRegional Regional
PoliceDepartment Police Department ("OfficerFatland") ("Officer wasobserving Fatland")was andphotographing observingand the photographingthe
Chevyasasit itturned Chevy turnedinto intoaparking a parkinglotlotoff off WestClarke West ClarkeAvenue Avenuenear nearNorth NorthHartley Hartley
2 Street. Id. at 241 242. The Chevy was subsequently parked in the parking lot directly
next to Officer Fatland's vehicle. Id. at 243. Officer Fatland witnessed a a hand-to-
hand transaction between Appellant and the confidential informant inside the
Chevy. Id. at 250. Subsequently, Detective McBride and Officer Fatland observed
the confidential informant exit the Chevy and walk back toward the location where
Detective Pelton was waiting for him, him. Id. Id. at 251.
When When the the confidential confidential informant arrived back back to to Detective Detective Pelton, Pelton, he handed handed
Detective Detective Pelton Pelton one one clear clear plastic plastic baggy baggy containing containing suspected suspected crack crack cocaine. cocaine. Id. Id. at at
180. 180. Detective Detective Pelton Pelton secured secured this this item item in in his his vehicle vehicle and and conducted conducted another another search search
of of the the confidential confidential informant informant and and did did not not find find any any other other contraband, contraband, drugs, drugs, or or
money. Id. at money. Id. at 180-81. 180-81. Detective Detective Pelton Pelton field field tested tested the the suspected suspected crack crack cocaine cocaine and and
received received a a positive positive reaction. reaction. Id. Id. at at 184. 184. A A subsequent test by subsequent test by the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State State
Police Police Drug Drug Lab Lab confirmed confirmed that that the the substance substance was was in in fact fact cocaine. cocaine. Id. Id. at at 316. 316.
Following Following the the controlled controlled buy, buy, Detective Detective McBride McBride seized seized two two phones phones from from
Appellant. Id. atat 286-87. Appellant. Id. 286-87. A A data data extraction extraction revealed revealed that that one one of ofthe the phones phones had had the the
number number of of 717-318-0931. 717-318-093 l. Id. Id. at at 294. 294.
On On June June 24, 24, 2022, 2022, Appellant Appellant was was charged charged by by way way of ofInformation Information with with one one
count count of of Delivery Delivery of of a Controlled Controlled Substance Substance pursuant pursuant to to 35 P.S. §$ 780-113(a)(30). 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(30).
On On November November 29, 29, 2022, 2022, Joshua Joshua E. E. Neiderheiser, Neiderheiser, Esquire, Esquire, of ofthe the York York
County County Office Office of ofConflict Conflict Counsel, Counsel, was was appointed appointed as as stand-by stand-by counsel counsel for for
3 3 prose Appellant, who represented himself pro this case.' se in this case.1
On December On 21, 2022, December 21, a hearing 2022, a took place hearing took on Appellant's place on prose Appellant's pro Omnibus se Omnibus
Pretrial Motion. Pretrial the hearing, At the Motion. At the Court hearing, the denied Appellant's Court denied Appellant's motion to compel motion to the compel the
identity of identity the confidential of the informant. ((Omnibus confidential informant. Pretrial Mot. Omnibus Pretrial Mot. Hr'g Hr'g Tr., Dec. 30, Dec. Tr., 30,
21, 2022), 21, 2022)
On March On 23, 2023, March 23, status hearing a status 2023, a took place hearing took place before this Court, before this which at which Court, at
time Appellant time concerns about raised concerns Appellant raised his inability about his to interview inability to and prepare interview and prepare
witnesses for witnesses trial while for trial York County housed inin York while housed Prison. The County Prison. The Court ordered that Court ordered an that an
investigator from investigator York County the York from the County Office Conflict Counsel ofConflict Office of with Appellant meet with Counsel meet Appellant
to obtain to information for obtain information trial. ((Status fortrial. Tr., 38, Hr'gTr., Status Hr'g 38, Mar. 23, 2023). Mar. 23, 2023).
Ajury A jury trial tookplace trial took place from 2023,through May 8,8, 2023, from May 11,2023. May 11, throughMay the Atthe 2023. At
conclusionof conclusion thejury trial,the oftrial, foundAppellant juryfound guiltyof Appellantguilty thesole ofthe countof solecount the ofthe
Information, Delivery Information, ofaaControlled Deliveryof Substance.(N.T., ControlledSubstance. 436,May (N.T.,436, 11,2023). May 11, 2023).
OnJuly On 2023,the 24,2023, July24, sentencedAppellant Courtsentenced theCourt sixyears' threetotosix Appellanttotothree years'
incarceration. Hr' gTr., (SentencingHr'g incarceration.( Sentencing 24,2023). July24, Tr.,4,4,July 2023).
On 2023,Appellant August4,4,2023, OnAugust Appellantfiled Post-Sentence filedaaPost- Motion.On Sentence Motion. August8,8, OnAugust
2023, theCourt 2023,the theMotion. deniedthe Courtdenied Motion.
OnAugust On August30, 2023,Appellant 30,2023, Appellantfiled NoticeofofAppeal filedaaNotice theSuperior Appealtotothe Superior
1 1 Defendant waspreviously Defendantwas appointedRonald previouslyappointed Jackson,Esquire, RonaldJackson, YorkCounty theYork Esquire,ofofthe Public CountyPublic Defender's Office. Attorney Jackson was later withdrawn because of a conflict of interest Defender's Office. Attorney .Jackson was later withdrawn because of aconflict of interest due duetoto thePublic the Defender'sOffice's PublicDefender's co-Defendant. representationofofaaeo-Defendant. Office'srepresentation
44 the Court ordered Court of Pennsylvania. On the same day, the a ordered Appellant to file a
Statement on Appeal of on Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Appeal Pursuant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On September On 2023, Appellant 11, 2023, September 11, filed a Appellant filed for Extension Motion for a Motion of Time Extension of to Time to
file a Statement file a pursuant to Statement pursuant 1925(b) due to 1925(b) a delay to a due to delay in the production in the of necessary production of necessary
transcripts. On September transcripts. On September 15, 2023, the 15, 2023, Court granted the Court the Motion granted the directed and directed Motion and
Appellant to file Appellant to a Statement file a within 30 Statement within days. 30 days.
On October On 2022, Appellant 13, 2022, October 13, Appellant filed Statement of a Statement filed a Errors Complained ofErrors of Complained of
on Appeal on Pa.R.A.P. §$ 1925(b). to Pa.R.A.P. Pursuant to Appeal Pursuant l 925(b ).
On October On 16, 2023, October 16, the Superior 2023, the Court of Superior Court ofPennsylvania Pennsylvania issued Order an Order issued an
directing Courttoto detennine the Court directing the Appellant's eligibility detennineAppellant's eligibility for court-appointed for court- counsel appointed counsel
and, ififeligible, and, appointappeal eligible, appoint appeal counsel forAppellant. counsel for Appellant.'
OnOctober- On 2023,the 17,2023, October 17, Courtappointed theCourt LaTasha appointedLa Esquire,asas Williams,Esquire, TashaWilliams,
counsel forAppellant. counsel for Appellant.The Courtscheduled TheCourt statushearing scheduledaastatus forNovember hearingfor 16, November 16,
2023, whetherAppellant determinewhether 2023,totodetermine wouldproceed Appellantwould withthe proceedwith theassistance of assistanceof
counselororelect counsel prose. proceedpro electtotoproceed se.
At thehearing Atthe onNovember hearingon 16,2023, November16, Courtfound theCourt 2023,the thatAppellant foundthat made Appellantmade
knowing,voluntary, aaknowing, andintelligent voluntary,and intelligentwaiver counsel.Appellant waiverofofcounsel. requested Appellantrequested
additionaltime additional prose fileaapro timetotofile StatementofofMatters supplementalStatement se supplemental Complainedofof MattersComplained
The The Court didnot Courtdid initiallyappoint notinitially appealcounsel appointappeal becauseAppellant counselbecause Appellantdid notrequest didnot counsel requestcounsel and represented himself pro se for the duration of this case including trial. and represented himself pro se for the duration of this case including trial.
55 on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), 1925(6). The Court granted Appellant's request Appellant's request
and ordered that Appellant file a a pro se supplemental 1925(b) Statement within
twenty-one twenty-one ((21) 21) days. days. ((Order Order Granting Withdrawal of Counsel, Nov. 16, 2023).
On December 5, 2023, Appellant filed a a pro se Motion for Extension of time prose
to file his supplemental 1925(b) 1925(6) Statement, requesting requesting additional time for the
production of necessary transcripts. This Court reviewed the record and confirmed
that the transcript which Appellant requested had not been produced produced or provided provided to
Appellant. Accordingly, this Court granted Appellant's motion and ordered
Appellant file his supplemental statement no later than twenty-one twenty-one ((21) 21) days, days, by
December 28, 2023.
On December 26, 2023, Appellant filed a a second Motion for extension of
time to file his Amended 1925(b) Statement, seeking additional time to procure the
transcript of the March 23, 2023, status hearing before Judge Judge Kraft. After
confirming that the transcript still had not been produced or provided to Appellant,
this Court granted the motion and provided Appellant with twenty-one twenty-one ((21) 21) days to
file his Amended 1925(b) Statement, until January 31, 2024. Additionally, the
Court attached attached the transcript of the March 23, 2023, status hearing before Judge Judge
Kraft Kraft as as an an exhibit. 3 exhibit. 3
z The transcript 'The transcript for for the the March March 23, 23, 2023, 2023, status status hearing hearing before before Judge Judge Kraft Kraft was was produced produced on December 29, 2023, three days after Appellant filed his second motion December 29, 2023. three days after Appellant filed his second motion for extension of time to file file an an Amended Amended 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement. Statement. 6 6 On February 2, 2024, Appellant filed a a Motion for Re-appointment of appeal
counsel. Because Appellant is entitled to counsel at every critical stage of a a
criminal proceeding, including appeal, this Court granted Appellant's motion.'
Art.I, §§9; U.S. Const. Amend. VI; Pa.Const. Art.1, 9; Commonwealth v. Rosario, 635 A.2d
109-10 109-10 ((Pa. Pa. 1993). 1993 ). The Court re- appointed La Tasha Williams, Esquire, as counsel re-appointed
for Appellant, and ordered ordered counsel to file file an Amended Amended Concise Statement Statement pursuant pursuant
to to Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 1925(b) within within 21 21 days, days, by by February 29, 29, 2024. 2024.
On On February February 29, 29, 2024, 2024, Appellant Appellant filed filed a a Motion Motion for for Extension Extension of of Time Time for for
Counsel Counsel to to File File a a 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement Statement seeking seeking an an additional additional 14 14 days days to to review review the the
entire entire lower lower court court record. record.
On On March March 4, 4, 2024, 2024, this this Court Court granted granted Appellant Appellant an an additional additional seven seven ((7) 7) days days
to to file file its its 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement, Statement. On On March March 11, 11, 2024, 2024, this this Court Court was was informed informed that that
due due to to a a delay delay that that occurred occurred during during filing, filing, the the Order Order was was not not received received by by
Appellant's Appellant's counsel counsel until until March March 12, 12, 2024. 2024. Therefore, Therefore, on on March March 13, 13, 2024, 2024, this this
Court Court granted granted a a final final extension extension of oftime time for for Appellant Appellant to to file file its its 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement, Statement,
until until March March 19, 19, 2024. 2024.
4' This This Court Court explained explained inin its its Order Order that that ififAppellant Appellant elects elects to to proceed proceedpro pro se se a a second second time, time, any any further further Motions Motions for for Re-appointment Re-appointment of ofCounsel Counsel would would bebe denied. denied.
7 7 On March 19, 2024, counsel for Appellant filed aaStatement of Errors
Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Complained of on Appeal 1.925(b). Appellant alleges the Appellant alleges
following errors following errors on appeal: on appeal:
I. prove that Whether the evidence was insufficient to prove Appellant delivered the controlled substance to the confidential informant?
I1. II. Whether the jury's jury's verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence?
III. Whether the Court erred in denying Appellant's motion to compel discovery, specifically the identity of the confidential infomiant? confidential informant?
IV. IV. Whether the Court improperly denied Appellant's motions to interview potential defense witnesses but rather directed conflict counsel to secure an investigator to interview said witnesses in violation of Appellant's right to self- representation?
V. Whether the Court erred when it denied Appellant's when it request to call several witnesses on the basis that the witnesses were not relevant?
VI. Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by withholding that another individual had the same telephone number that the confidential informant called in telephone Appellant's Appellant's case
VII. Whether the Court improperly denied Appellant's request to call Detective Pelton as aarebuttal witness?
VIII. Whether the Court improperly removed Juror no. 158?
IX. Whether the Court erred in failing to order the Commonwealth to produce produce aaBill of Particulars? 88 (Def.'s (Def.'s Statement of the Errors Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(B), 1.9, 2024). 1925(B), Mar. 19,
DISCUSSION
I. Whether prove that Whether the evidence was insufficient to prove Appellant delivered the controlled substance to the confidential informant? informant? Appellant asserts prove that asserts the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that
Appellant delivered the controlled substance, specifically cocaine, to the Appellant
informant. ((Def.'s confidential informant. Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, I, 1,
tinder the following Mar. 19, 2024). The Court reviews sufficiency claims under
standard: standard:
In evaluating aasufficiency claim, the Court must accept In evaluating the evidence the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as Commonwealth as verdict-winner verdict-winner and in in drawing all rational rational evidentiary evidentiary inferences, inferences, determine determine whether whether a a sensible jury sensible jury could havehave found that each each element of of the the crime was crime was established established beyond beyond aa reasonable reasonable doubt. doubt. Additionally, Additionally, thethe evidence evidence at at trial need not trial need not preclude preclude every every possibility possibility ofof innocence, innocence, and the the fact-finder fact-finder is is free free to to resolve any resolve any doubts regarding a doubts regarding a defendant's defendant's guilt guilt unless unless the the evidence is evidence is so so weak and and inconclusive inconclusive thatthat as as a a matter matter ofof law no law no probability probability of of fact fact maymay be drawn from from thethe combined circumstances. When evaluating evaluating the credibility and weight of of the the evidence, evidence, the fact- finder is the fact-finder is free free to part or believe all, part or none ofof the evidence. evidence.
940 A.2d Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 493, 500 A.2d 493, 500 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Pa. Super. 2007) ((citations citations
omitted). To preserve aaclaim of insufficient evidence for appeal, a a defendant must
"specify the element or elements upon "specify upon which the evidence was insufficient" in the
99 defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Commonwealth v. Smyser, 195 A.3d 912, 915 (Pa. 912,915 (Pa. 2018).
The Court finds the evidence presented at trial sufficient to prove that
Appellant delivered cocaine to the confidential informant. To support support aaconviction
for delivery of a a controlled substance, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a a
reasonable doubt that the defendant defendant ""knowingly knowingly made an actual. actual, constructive, or
attempted transfer of a a controlled substance to another person without the legal
authority to do so." Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1234 (Pa. 2004). In (Pa.
addition to proving the elements of the offense beyond a a reasonable doubt, the
Commonwealth must identity the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Smvser, Smyser, 195 A.3d at 915. 915. ((citing citing Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 7 A.3d 852, 857 (Pa, (Pa.
Super. 2010)). However, However, ""direct direct evidence of identity is, of course, not necessary
and a a defendant may be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence."
C'ommonwoulth Commonwealth v. Hickman, 309 A.2d 564, 566 566 (Pa. (Pa. 1973).
At At trial, the Commonwealth presented direct and circumstantial evidence
that Appellant Appellant delivered cocaine to the confidential informant. Such evidence
includes includes the the testimony testimony of Detective Detective Pelton, who testified that he has served as an
officer officer for the York City Police Department Department for fifteen years, including
assignments assignments with with the York County County Drug Task Force and the Drug Drug Enforcement
Administration, Administration, and and has has investigated investigated ""thousands" thousands" of of drug drug offenses, offenses, and and conducted
10 10 controlled buys buys "on a a daily basis." basis." ((N.T., N.T., 164-65, May 9, 2023), 2023). Detective Pelton
testified that he observed the confidential informant arrange the controlled buy by
placing a a phone call to the Appellant, and that the confidential informant described
Appellant and identified him as as ""D" D" or or "Dashawn." Id. at 170-71. Additionally,
that Detective Pelton heard a a male voice on the phone with with the CI. Id. at 172.
Detective Detective Pelton testified that he drove the confidential confidential informant informant to to the area area of
West West Clarke Avenue Avenue and and North Hartley Street, Street, and and observed observed the the confidential confidential
informant informant walk walk down down the the street. street. Id. Id. at at 177. 177. Detective Detective McBride testified testified that that he he
observed observed the the Chevy Chevy pull pull up, up, pick pick up up the the confidential confidential infonnant, informant, and and continue continue down down
Clarke Clarke Avenue. Avenue. Id. Id. 282. 282. Detective Detective McBride McBride maintained maintained surveillance surveillance until until he he could could
not not see see the the vehicle vehicle any any longer, longer, at at which which time time Officer Officer Fatland Fatland radioed radioed that that he he took took
over over surveillance surveillance of of the the vehicle. vehicle. Id. Id. at at 285-86. 285-86.
Officer Officer Fatland Fatland testified testified that that he he saw saw the the Chevy Chevy park park and and observed observed the the
confidential confidential informant informant enter enter the the back back seat seat of ofthe the Chevy, Chevy, and and Appellant Appellant seated seated in in
the the passenger passenger seat. seat. Next, Next, he he observed observed the the Appellant Appellant move move back back and and forth forth over over the the
center center console console and and conduct conduct aa ""hand-to-hand hand-to-hand transaction." transaction." Additionally, Additionally, the the
Commonwealth Commonwealth presented presented photographs photographs taken taken by by Officer Officer Fatland Fatland of ofAppellant Appellant
seated seated in in the the vehicle vehicle at at the the time time of ofthe the alleged alleged transaction. transaction. Lastly, Lastly, Detective Detective
McBride McBride testified testified that that following following the the alleged alleged transaction, transaction, he he picked picked up up surveillance surveillance
of ofthe the confidential confidential informant informant who who handed handed him him a a bag bag of ofsuspected suspected crack crack cocaine. cocaine.
1111 expert witness who testified that the Id. at 180. The Commonwealth presented an expert
substance tested positive positive for cocaine. Id. at 316.
Viewing the Viewing the evidence evidence in in the the light most favorable light most to the favorable to the Commonwealth Commonwealth as as
the verdict winner, the prove that Appellant the Court finds the evidence sufficient to prove Appellant
delivered aacontrolled substance to the confidential informant beyond aareasonable
doubt. Patterson, 940 A.2d at 500.
II. Whether the verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence?
Appellant asserts the Appellant jury's verdict the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
In proceedings, the credibility In criminal proceedings, credibility of witnesses and weight of evidence evidence lie
solely 445 (Pa. solely with the trier of fact. Commonwealth v. Williams, 854 A.2d 440, 445 (Pa.
2004). ""The The trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence." Id.
`The jury's verdict will only The jury's only be overturned overturned ""if if it is so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 444
2003) ((internal (Pa. 2003) internal citations omitted).
opinion, the Court finds As stated earlier in this opinion, finds the evidence presented by
support Appellant's conviction of delivery the Commonwealth sufficient to support delivery of aa
Accordingly, the Court does not find controlled substance. Accordingly, find the jury's verdict
contrary to the evidence as to "shock one's sentence of justice." Champney, 832
A.2d 444.
12 12 III. III. Whether the Whether the Court Court erred erred in in denying denying Appellant's motion Appellant's motion to compel discovery, specifically to compel discovery, the identity specifically the of the identity of the confidential informant? confidential informant?
Appellant asserts Appellant asserts the the Court Court violated violated Appellant's state and Appellant's state and federal federal due due process process
rights when it denied Appellant's motion to compel discovery, rights when it denied Appellant's motion to compel specifically, the discovery, specifically, the
identity of the confidential informant. (Def.'s Statement of En-ors Complainedof identity of the confidential informant. (Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained of
onAppeal, on Appeal, 1,1,Mar. Mar. 19, 19,2023). 2023).At Atthe theOmnibus OmnibusPretrial PretrialMotion Motionhearing on hearingon
December21, December 2 1,2022, 2022,the theCourt Courtdenied deniedAppellant's motiontotocompel Appellant'smotion theidentity compelthe identityof of
theconfidential the confidentialinformant, informant,finding thatthis findingthat thisinformation informationwas wasimmaterial immaterialtoto
defense.(Omnibus Appellant'sdefense. Appellant's (OmnibusPretrial PretrialMot. Mot.Hr'g Tr.,28-30, Hr'gTr., 28-30,Dec. Dec.21, 21,2022). 2022).
Thestandard The standardofofreview reviewofofclaims claimsthat thataatrial trialcourt courterred erredinindenying denyingaarequest request
fordisclosure for disclosureofofananinformant's informant'sidentity identityisisconfined confinedtotoabuse abuseofofdiscretion. discretion.
Commonwealthv, •Washington. Commonwealth Washington,6363A.3d A.3d797, 797,801 801( Pa. (Pa.Super Super2013). 2013).To Toovercome overcome
the Commonwealth'squalifiedprivilege the Commonwealth's qualified to withhold the identity of a confidential privilegeto withhold the identity of aconfidential
source,aadefendant source, defendantmust mustshow show" that "thatthe theinformation informationsought soughtis ismaterial materialtotothe the
of the defendant and that the preparationof the defendant and that the request preparation is reasonable." Commonwealth v. requestis reasonable." Commonwealth v.
Watson,6969A.3d Watson, A.3d605, 605,607-608 607-608 (Pa.Super. ( Pa. 2013). Super.2013).
Here,Appellant Here, failedto tomeet Appellantfailed meetthethethreshold thresholdrequirement requirementofof materiality.ToTo materiality.
show that evidence is material, a defendant must demonstrate "that the confidential show that evidence is material, adefendant must demonstrate " that the confidential
informant informant possesses possesses relevant relevant information information that that will will materially materially aidaid thethe defendant defendant in in
presenting presenting his or her defense and that the information is not obtainable from his or her defense and that the information is not obtainable from
13 13 312, 317 (Pa. another source." Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312,317 (Pa. 2019). The
defendant ""must defendant must demonstrate at least aareasonable possibility the informant's
testimony testimony would would exonerate exonerate him." Washington, 63 A.3d at 801. him." Washington, 801. ""Only Only after the
defendant shows that the identity of the confidential informant is material to the
defense is the trial court required to exercise its discretion to determine whether the
information should be revealed by balancing relevant factors, which are initially initially
weighted toward the Commonwealth." Watson, 69 A.3d at 608.
The Court must apply apply a a balancing test when determining detennining whether the
identity of a a confidential informant should be disclosed. The test ""initially initially weighs weighs
in favor of maintaining confidentiality of the informant's identity in order to
preserve preserve the public's interest in effective law enforcement." Commonwealth v.
Baker, 946 A.2d 691, 694 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Pa. 2008) ((citing citing In re R.S., 847 A.2d 685, 688
(Pa. Super 2004)), 2004)). The Supreme Court explained that factors to be considered are
"the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime
crime crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's
testimony testimony and other relevant factors." Commonwealth v.v. Carter, 233 A.2d 284,
287 287 ((quoting quoting Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-62 60-62 ((1957)). 1957)). For example,
when when the the confidential informant infonnant was was the the only eyewitness to the entire transaction
aside aside from law law enforcement, enforcement, the Court Court found found this factor factor weighed in favor of
disclosure. disclosure. Commonwealth v.v. Roebuck, Roebuck, 681 681 A.2d A.2d 1279, 1279, 1284 1284 (Pa. (Pa. 1996).
14 14 The Court The Court does does not not find find the the confidential confidential informant's informant's identity identity materially materially relevant relevant
to Appellant's case. Appellant failed to demonstrate a possibility that a reasonable possibility
testimony would the confidential informant's testimony Appellant. Detective would exonerate Appellant.
Pelton testified that, that, prior to the controlled controlled buy, he searched searched the confidential
informant and found no contraband, money. The entirety of the contraband, drugs, or money. the
buy was surveilled by controlled buy by five officers with the York County Drug Task
Force, Force, four of which testified at trial regarding regarding their observations. observations. Particularly,
Officer Fatland testified that he witnessed the "hand-to-hand "hand-to-hand transaction" between
Appellant and the confidential informant. Appellant informant. (N.T., May 10, 2023) (N.T., 250, May 2023).
Additionally, Appellant called witness Jo'Nae Deshields, the driver of Chevy.
Jo'Nae Deshields Jo'Nae Deshields testified testified that that she she was present with was present with Appellant Appellant and the confidential and the confidential
informant, and that she observed the confidential informant hand Appellant Appellant
$200.00, but that she did not see the the confidential informant transfer any drugs to
Appellant. Id. at 356. Here, multiple Appellant. multiple witnesses, including aanon-law-enforcement non- law- enforcement
Jo'Nae witness, Jo 'Nae Deshields, testified regarding regarding their eyewitness eyewitness observations.
Roebuck, 681 A.2d at 1284.
Furthermore, the factors weigh in favor of maintaining confidentiality to
preserve preserve the public's interest in effective law enforcement. Baker, 946 A.2d at 694.
Detective Pelton testified that although this was the first time the confidential
participated in aacontrolled buy, he informant participated he later participated in multiple buys for later participated
15 15 separate, unrelated cases. cases. (N.T., (N.T., 168, May 9, 2023). 2023 ). As such, the Court did not
abuse its discretion when it found that, in balancing the factors, the confidential
informant's testimony was immaterial and thus denied Appellant's motion to
compel identity of the confidential informant.
IV. Whether the Court improperly improperly denied Appellant's motions to interview potential defense witnesses but rather rather directed conflict counsel to to secure secure an investigator investigator to interview said witnesses in violation of Appellant's right to self-representation? self-representation?
Appellant Appellant claims claims that that the the Court Court violated violated Appellants Appellants right right to to self-representation self-representation
by by denying denying Appellant Appellant his his right right to to interview interview potential potential defense defense witnesses witnesses at at York York
County County Prison Prison and and directing directing conflict conflict counsel counsel to to secure secure an an investigator investigator to to interview interview
said said witnesses. witnesses. ((Def.'s Def.'s Statement Statement of of Errors Errors Complained Complained of of on on Appeal, Appeal, 2, 2, Mar. Mar. 19, 19,
2024). 2024). At At the the status status hearing hearing on on March March 23, 23, 2023, 2023, the the Court Court addressed addressed Appellant's Appellant's
concerns concerns regarding regarding his his ability ability as as a apro se litigant prose litigant to to interview interview and and prepare prepare witnesses witnesses
for for trial trial while while housed housed in in York York County County Prison. Prison. In In response, response, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth
expressed expressed its its concerns concerns regarding regarding Appellant's Appellant's contact contact with with witnesses, witnesses, due due to to
Appellant's Appellant's prior prior conviction conviction for for Intimidation Intimidation of of a a Witness, Witness, a a first-degree first-degree felony. felony.
(Status (Status Hr'g Hr'g Tr. Tr. 9, 9, Mar. Mar. 23, 23, 2023). 2023).
A A lengthy lengthy discussion discussion took took place place on on the the record record concerning concerning Appellant's Appellant's ability ability to to
interview interview witnesses. witnesses. Deputy Deputy Warden Warden Michael Michael Cuti Cuti of ofthe the York York County County Prison Prison
discussed discussed the the concerns concerns about about how how to to best best meet meet Appellant's Appellant's need need to to prepare prepare his his
16 16 case, while also maintaining maintaining security security at York County County Prison. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the Court ordered that an investigator investigator from the York County County Office of
Conflict Counsel meet with Appellant Appellant and interview any any witnesses Appellant Appellant
wishes to interview to prepare for trial. ((Status Status Hr'g Hr'g Tr., 38, Mar. 23, 2023). 2023).
Accordingly, Accordingly, Appellant's Appellant's claim claim that that he he was was denied the ability denied the ability to to interview interview
witnesses witnesses for for trial trial is is without without merit. merit.
V. Whether the Court erred when it denied Appellant's request to call several witnesses on the basis that the witnesses were not relevant?
Appellant asserts the Court improperly improperly denied his request request to call several
witnesses at trial on the basis that they were not relevant. Specifically, Appellant
requested requested to to call call unnamed unnamed witnesses witnesses who who would would testify testify that that they they knew knew the the
confidential informant and that he would stage stage drug drug buys buys to ""save save himself from
prison." prison." ((Def.'s Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained Complained of on Appeal, Appeal, 2, Mar. 19, 2024).
At At the the status status hearing hearing on on March March 23, 23, 2023, 2023, Appellant Appellant requested requested to to call call these these
unnamed witnesses to show the confidential informant's informant's "habit," "habit," "routine," routine," and to
prove prove that that the the confidential confidential informant informant was was aa ""drug drug addict." addict." ((Status Status H'rg H'rg Tr., Tr., 27, 27,
Mar. Mar. 23, 23, 2023). 2023).
Additionally, Additionally, Appellant Appellant asserts asserts the the Court Court erred erred in in denying denying Appellant's Appellant's request request
to to call call forensic forensic psychologist psychologist Laura Brown Brown to provide provide expert expert testimony testimony "on "on habits,
routines, routines, and and traits traits of of addicts addicts and and to to potentially potentially inform inform the the jury jury the potential mental
17 17 drugs." (Def.'s state of an informant who actively uses drugs." (Def.'s Statement Statement of Errors
Complained of Appeal, 2, Mar. 19, 2024). of on Appeal, 2024).
Furthermore, Appellant asserts the Court erred denying Appellant's erred in denying Appellant's request request
to call aacorrections officer from York County County Prison who would provide provide expert expert
testimony that testimony that "new " new commits commits to the prison to the prison who who were previously searched were previously searched by by York York
police are found in possession of illegal contraband upon upon entry entry to prison." Id to prison."
Appellant asserts this testimony would have cast cast doubt on the Commonwealth's
evidence regarding the search of the confidential informant prior to the interaction
Appellant. Id. with Appellant. Id,
The Court found the proposed proposed testimony of these witnesses not relevant and
introduction. ((Status thus denied its introduction. Status H'rg Tr, Tr, 27, 27, Mar. 23, 2023). Pennsylvania
Rule of Rule of Evidence Evidence 401 401 provides provides that "[e]vidence is that "[evidence is relevant relevant if if ((a) a) it it has any has any
tendency tendency to make make aafact more or less probable than than it would be without without the the
evidence; and and ((b) b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." See
Pa.R.E., Rule 401. ""As As with all testimony must first be relevant to all evidence, expert testimony
the case in order to be admissible." Commonwealth v. Selenski, 158 A.3d 102, 106
Super. 2017). (Pa. Super.
Here, the entire controlled buy was testified to by officers with the York County
Drug Task Force. The Commonwealth did not not call the the confidential informant as aa
witness; witness; therefore, the confidential informant's credibility was not an issue in this
18 18 case. Appellant's proposed testimony regarding the confidential informant's
credibility, the general general "habits, routines, and traits of addicts," or expert testimony testimony
by aacorrections officer regarding searches of new commits to York County County Prison,
was not relevant. See Pa.R.E., Rule 401. 40 I. As such, the Court did not err in
precluding this testimony.
VI. Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by withholding that another individual had the same telephone number that the confidential informant called in Appellant ' scase? Appellant's Appellant argues the Commonwealth committed violations of Brady v. v.
Marvland Maryland5 when it withheld that another individual named Robert Huffmaster had
the same telephone number that the confidential informant called to purchase drugs
in Appellants Appe1lants case. case. (Def.'s (Def.'s Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 2-3,
Mar. 1.9, 19, 2023). To establish a a Brady violation, the burden is on the Appellant to
"demonstrate "demonstrate that exculpatory or impeaching evidence, favorable to the defense,
was suppressed suppressed by the prosecution, to the prejudice of the defendant."
Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d 61, 75 75 (Pa. (Pa. 2009) 2009) (citing (citing Commonwealth v.
Gibson, Gibson, 951 951 A.2d A.2d 1 l10, 1126 1110, 1126 ((2008)). 2008)). ""To To satisfy satisfy the prejudice inquiry, the
evidence evidence suppressed suppressed must must have have been been material to to guilt or or punishment." Id. Although
Brady Brady is is based based on on the due process process requirement, requirement, "[t]he "[t]he prosecutor prosecutor is not required to
Brach Brady . . ,v.• Rlar•yland Maryland, 373 373 U.S. U.S. 83 83 ((1963). 1963).
19 19 deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only only to disclose evidence favorable to
the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive deprive the defendant of aafair trial." Id.
(citing (citing United States States v. Bagley, 473 v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 667 ((1985)). 1985)).
Here, Appellant asserts the Commonwealth withheld the fact that the phone
number associated with Appellant at this trial, (717) 318-0931, was also used by (717)
officers to purchase drugs from a a man named Robert Hoffmaster at the same
location in this case, and that this phone number is also listed in Mr. Hoffmaster's
discovery. discovery. ((Status Status H'rg T., 7-8, Mar. 23, 2023). However, Appellant 7-8, Appellant did not raise
this issue in a a pretrial motion or at trial; nor does Appellant provide any evidence
showing that the phone number listed at (717) 318-0931 is associated with Mr. (717)
Hoffmaster's discovery. Appellant merely asserts that, after trial, he learned that
Detective Detective Pelton knew this information. The The Court does not find this assertion
sufficient sufficient to overcome Appellant's burden of demonstrating that the prosecution
withheld exculpatory or impeaching evidence in violation of Brady, or that
Appellant Appellant was prejudiced. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d at 75. Accordingly, Appellant's
Brady Brady claim claim fails.
VII. VII. Whether Whether the the Court improperly improperly denied Appellant's request request to call call Detective Pelton as as a a rebuttal rebuttal witness? Appellant argues argues that that the Court erred when it denied his his request to call
Detective Detective Pelton Pelton as a a rebuttal rebuttal witness. (Statement of (Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal, Appeal, 3, 3, Mar. Mar. 19, 19, 2024). 2024 ). It It is is well- settled that well-settled that "[t]he "[t]he admission admission of of evidence evidence is
20 20 within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will be reversed on appeal only
upon a a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Similarly, Similarly, the
admission or rejection of rebuttal evidence is also within the sound discretion of
the trial court." Commonwealth v. Miles, 846 A.— Id 132, 136 A.2d 136 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2004)
nternal citations omitted.) (internal ( omitted.) "[T]he "[T]he appropriate appropriate scope of rebuttal evidence is
defined by the evidence that it is intended to rebut. Where the evidence proposed
goes to the impeachment of the testimony of his opponent's witnesses, it is
admissible admissible as a a matter of of right. right. Rebuttal is proper where facts discrediting the the
proponent's proponent's witnesses witnesses have have been been offered." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Colon, Colon, 230 230 A.3d A.3d 368, 368,
379 3 79 ((Pa. Pa. Super Super 2020). 2020).
At At trial, trial, Appellant Appellant requested requested to to re- call Detective re-call Detective Pelton Pelton for for the the purpose purpose of of
rebutting rebutting Officer Officer Fatland's Fatland's testimony. testimony. (N.T., (N.T., 342-22, 342-22, May May 10, 10, 2023). 2023). Appellant Appellant
generally generally claimed claimed that that "[Officer "[Officer Fatland's Fatland's testimony] testimony] contradicted contradicted what what Officer Officer
Pelton Pelton testified testified to." to." Id. Id. at at 343. 343. Furthermore, Furthermore, Appellant Appellant asserted asserted he he wished wished to to elicit elicit
testimony testimony from from Detective Detective Pelton Pelton regarding regarding the the location location where where the the confidential confidential
informant informant entered entered the the Chevy, Chevy, and and that that this this testimony testimony would would rebut rebut whether whether
Detective Detective Fatland Fatland observed observed a a hand-to-hand hand-to-hand transaction. transaction. Id Id at at 342. 342. The The Court Court agreed agreed
with with the the Commonwealth Commonwealth that that Appellant Appellant had had the the opportunity opportunity to to cross-examine cross-examine
Detective Detective Pelton Pelton regarding regarding this this issue issue at at an an earlier earlier time, time, and and determined determined this this was was not not
proper proper rebuttal rebuttal testimony testimony but but rather, rather, an an argument argument Appellant Appellant was was permitted permitted to to
21 21 present to the jury. Id. Id at 344. Accordingly, the Court properly properly exercised its
discretion in denying Appellant's request to call Detective Pelton as aarebuttal
witness. Miles, 846 A.2d at 136.
VIII. Whether the Court improperly improperly removed Juror no. 158? Appellant argues that the Court improperly improperly excused Juror No. 158, the only only
black juror, ""without without further inquiring inquiring into why why the juror juror stated they they could no
longer deliberate during active deliberations." deliberations." ((Def.'s Def's Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal, 3, Mar. 19, 2024). 2024 ). The Pennsylvania Superior Court has
found that when the trial court substitutes an alternate juror after deliberations have
begun, begun, there is a a presumption presumption of prejudice prejudice against against defendant which which ""may may only only be
rebutted by evidence which establishes that sufficient protective protective measures were
taken to insure the integrity of the jury function." Commonwealth v. Saunders, 686
A.2d 25, 29 29 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 1996). The Court explained that that "the trial court's
instructions to the recomposed jury are of the uppermost importance." Id.
(emphasis ( emphasis added). First, the Court must instruct the recomposed jury that the
discharge discharge of the original original juror juror ""was was entirely personal and had nothing to do with
the the discharged discharged juror's juror's views on on the case or the juror's relationship relationship with fellow
jurors." jurors." Second, Second, "the "the recomposed recomposed jury must be be directed to to begin deliberations
anew." anew." Id.
1lere, while the Here, the jury jury was was deliberating deliberating in in this this case, case, the the Court was informed that that a a
22 22 juror believed juror believed he he could could no no longer longer participate in deliberations participate in deliberations and and wanted wanted to to be be
replaced with with one one of of the the alternate alternate jurors. jurors. (N.T., 411 May (N.T., 411 10, 2023). May 10, A discussion 2023). A discussion
took place took place on on the the record record with with Juror Juror No. No. 158, 158, in in the the presence of the presence of the parties but parties but
outside of outside of the the presence presence of ofthe the remaining remaining jurors. The Court jurors. The Court asked asked Juror Juror No. No. 158 158 if if
he could he could continue continue to to conscientiously deliberate in conscientiously deliberate in this this case, case, he responded "''IIdon't he responded don't
think I think I can." Id. atat 414. can." Id. 414. When When asked asked if ifitit was was due due to to a a concern concern for for his his emotional emotional
well-being, Juror well-being, Juror No. No. 158 158 responded responded"yes" and that "yes" and that"[e]motions [e]motions got the best got the best of of
[him]." Id. [him]." Id. The The Court Court asked asked Juror JurorNo. No. 158 158 ififhe he could could be be a a fair fair and and impartial juror impartialjuror
this case, ininthis case, and andhe he responded responded""no." no." Id. 419. Based Id. atat 419. Basedon onthis this response, the Court response, the Court
excused excusedJuror JurorNo. No. 158 158 and andreplaced replacedhim himwith withalternate alternateJuror JurorNo. No. 245. Id. 245.Id.
TheCourt The Courtsubsequently subsequentlyquestioned JurorNo. questionedJuror 245asasfollows: No.245 follows:
THECOURT: THE COURT:Okay.Okay.I Ijust wanttotomake justwant makesure surethat thatyou havebeen youhave been secludedororsequestered completelysecluded completely sequesteredorornot notaapart ofany partof ofthe anyof thejury jury deliberationsup deliberations uptotothis thispoint, point,isisthat thataccurate? accurate?
JUROR JURORNO. NO.245: 245:Correct. Correct.
(N.T., (N.T.,423, 423,May May1.1, 11,2023). 2023).
Furthermore,the Furthermore, therecomposed wasinstructed jurywas recomposedjury instructedthat thatbecause becauseJuror JurorNo. No. 158 158was was
wererequired theywere replaced,they replaced, requiredtotostart startdeliberations deliberationsanew. anew.(N.T., (N.T.,421, 421,434-35, 434-35,May May
10-11,2023), 10-11, 2023 ).The TheCourt Courtexplained explainedtotothe thejury twicethat jurytwice thatthey weretotocompletely theywere completely
startover start from" ground overfrom zero."Id.Id.As "groundzero." Assuch, such,the theCourt Courtemployed sufficientmeasures employedsufficient measures
totoprotect theintegrity protectthe integrityofofthe thejury functionininthis juryfunction thiscase. Saunders,686 case.Saunders, 686A.2d A.2datat29. 29.
2323 IX. Whether the Court erred in failing to order the Commonwealth to produce a a Bill of Particulars?
Appellant argues the Court erred when when itit failed failed to to order the Commonwealth to
produce a a bill of particulars at the the status hearing hearing on on September 12, 2022. The The
purpose of a a bill of of particulars particulars is is "to "to give give notice notice to the the accused of of the the offenses offenses
charged in the indictment indictment so so that that he he may may prepare prepare a a defense, defense, avoid avoid a a surprise, surprise, or or
intelligently intelligently raise raise pleas pleas of of double double jeopardy jeopardy and and the the statute statute of of limitations." limitations."
Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Champney, Champney, 832 832 A.2d A.2d 403, 412 ( 403,412 Pa. 2003) (Pa. 2003)((internal internal citations citations
omitted.). omitted.).
The The record record does does not not reflect reflect that that Appellant Appellant submitted submitted a a timely timely request request for for a a bill bill
of of particulars particulars pursuant pursuant to to Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 572. 572. Furthermore, Furthermore, even even if ifAppellant Appellant were were
to to have have submitted submitted a a timely timely motion, motion, Appellant Appellant was was in in possession possession of ofdiscovery discovery which which
contained, contained, in in greater greater depth, depth, the the same same information infonnation that that would would be be contained contained within within a a
bill bill of ofparticulars. particulars. ((Status Status Hr'g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 3,3, Sept. Sept. 12, 12, 2022). 2022). Therefore, Therefore, because because
Appellant had more Appellant had more extensive extensive information information detailing detailingthe the charges charges against against him him than than
what what would would have have been been contained contained within within a a bill bill of ofparticulars, particulars, the the Court Court did did not not err err
in in denying denyingAppellant's Appellant's request. request.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
Based Based upon uponthe the above above reasons, reasons, the the Court Courtrespectfully respectfullyrequests requeststhat thatthe the
Superior SuperiorCourt Courtaffirm affinn Appellant's Appellant'sconviction conviction and andjudgment judgmentof ofsentence. sentence.
The The Clerk Clerkof ofCourts Courts isisdirected directedtotoprovide providenotice noticeof ofthis thisentry entrypursuant pursuanttoto
24 24 Pa.R.A.P. §$ 1925(a) to the York County District Attorney's Office; and to Pa.R.A.P.
Appellant, Dashawn Dashawn Jamison, Jamison.
/, BYTHEC ,
/
AMBER A. AMBER A. KRAFT, KRAFT, JUDGE JUDGE /
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Jamison, D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-jamison-d-pasuperct-2025.