J-A07013-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MAURICE PORTER : : Appellant : No. 786 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 19, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000188-2022
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: MARCH 20, 2025
Maurice Porter appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of
thirty-six to seventy-two months of incarceration imposed upon his
convictions for possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”) methamphetamine
and possession of several other controlled substances and drug paraphernalia.
We affirm.
On November 17, 2021, Narcotics Agent Leo Securda of the
Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, joined by five other officers, including
Special Agent John Arruda of the Department of Homeland Security
Investigations, executed a search warrant of Appellant’s residence. His
girlfriend answered the door and called for Appellant, who emerged from the
basement. He became combative with the officers, who eventually had to
force him to the ground and place him in custody to conduct the search. J-A07013-25
Appellant declared that any items the officers would find were his and not
those of his girlfriend. See N.T. Jury Trial, 6/7/23, at 78.
Since Appellant had emerged from the basement, officers began their
search there. Agent Securda found three scales covered in drug remnants;
small bags consistent with those used to package drugs, some being empty
and others containing substances; trays with methamphetamine residue; five
plastic bags of methamphetamine; and a marijuana smoking device. Id. at
65-74. Agent Arruda discovered multiple small bags containing a crystalline
substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine. Id. at 103. On
Appellant’s person, officers found six suboxone strips, a snorting straw, and
one small bag each of “heroin/fentanyl,” marijuana, and methamphetamine.
Id. at 95.
Appellant was thereafter charged with PWID methamphetamine, and
one count each of possession of methamphetamine, heroin/fentanyl,
suboxone, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The matter proceeded to a
jury trial wherein Agents Securda and Arruda testified to the aforementioned
facts.
Additionally, the Commonwealth presented Ian Urbansky, a Narcotics
Agent with the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Narcotics
Investigation and Drug Control, as an expert witness in narcotics investigation
and drug trafficking. Upon reviewing the facts of this case, he “concluded to
a reasonable degree of certainty that [Appellant] possessed the
-2- J-A07013-25
methamphetamine with the intention to deliver it to another person.” Id. at
114. Agent Urbansky explained that Appellant had five grams of
methamphetamine in his basement, a street value of $500 at $100 per gram,
which was greater than the typical amount for personal use. Id. He attested
that the small, empty bags that the officers found, dubbed as “apple bags,”
were those often used to traffic drugs, and would serve little other purpose.
Id. at 115-17. Furthermore, the agent discussed how scales are commonly
utilized to measure the proper weight of narcotics to package for sale. Id. at
119-20. He confirmed that the scales discovered in the officer’s search
appeared to be covered in methamphetamine residue. Id. at 115.
Another witness, Erin C. Luck, a Forensic Supervisor with the Bethlehem
Regional Crime Lab, testified as an expert in drug recognition. She examined
the drugs found in this matter and confirmed the presence and weight of
methamphetamine. Id. at 140, 144-45.
Upon this evidence, the jury convicted Appellant of the aforementioned
offenses, and the court imposed the sentence specified above. After
Appellant’s direct appeal rights were reinstated, he timely appealed and
submitted a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the court issued
a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion. Appellant raises the following question for
our determination: “Was there sufficient evidence to prove the ‘intent to
deliver’ element of count [one, PWID] methamphetamine[?]” Appellant’s brief
at 3.
-3- J-A07013-25
We begin with the legal tenets that guide our review:
When reviewing a sufficiency claim, we face a question of law. Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, and we draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the Commonwealth’s favor. Through this lens, we must ascertain whether the Commonwealth proved all of the elements of the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the factfinder. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the factfinder, unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Ransom, 328 A.3d 1127, 1133-34 (Pa.Super. 2024)
(cleaned up).
The offense of PWID is defined as follows:
(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:
....
(30) Except as authorized by this act, the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance.
18 P.S. § 780-113. To sustain a conviction, “the Commonwealth must prove
both the possession of the controlled substance and the intent to deliver the
-4- J-A07013-25
controlled substance.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 317 A.3d 1053, 1060
(Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned up).
In assessing whether the intent to deliver element has been established,
“we must examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the possession.”
Commonwealth v. Bernard, 218 A.3d 935, 943 (Pa.Super. 2019) (cleaned
up). Intent to deliver “may be inferred from possession of a large quantity of
controlled substances.” Id. Additionally, we may analyze “the manner in
which the controlled substance was packaged, the behavior of the defendant,
the presence of drug paraphernalia, . . . the sums of cash found in possession
of the defendant[, and] . . . expert testimony.” Id.
Appellant argues that there was not a “large [enough] quantity of
meth[amphetamine]” to infer an intent to deliver, and the remaining
circumstances do not establish such. See Appellant’s brief at 12. He points
to the fact that the agents discovered two different devices to consume the
narcotics. Id. Thus, he maintains that the evidence demonstrates that he
only possessed the methamphetamine for personal use. Id. He also
challenges Agent Urbansky’s expert testimony that Appellant intended to
deliver based on the scales that were covered in drug residue, as Ms. Luck did
not confirm that the substance on the scales was methamphetamine, and it
was not concretely established that Appellant “was using the scales to weigh”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A07013-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MAURICE PORTER : : Appellant : No. 786 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 19, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000188-2022
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: MARCH 20, 2025
Maurice Porter appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of
thirty-six to seventy-two months of incarceration imposed upon his
convictions for possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”) methamphetamine
and possession of several other controlled substances and drug paraphernalia.
We affirm.
On November 17, 2021, Narcotics Agent Leo Securda of the
Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, joined by five other officers, including
Special Agent John Arruda of the Department of Homeland Security
Investigations, executed a search warrant of Appellant’s residence. His
girlfriend answered the door and called for Appellant, who emerged from the
basement. He became combative with the officers, who eventually had to
force him to the ground and place him in custody to conduct the search. J-A07013-25
Appellant declared that any items the officers would find were his and not
those of his girlfriend. See N.T. Jury Trial, 6/7/23, at 78.
Since Appellant had emerged from the basement, officers began their
search there. Agent Securda found three scales covered in drug remnants;
small bags consistent with those used to package drugs, some being empty
and others containing substances; trays with methamphetamine residue; five
plastic bags of methamphetamine; and a marijuana smoking device. Id. at
65-74. Agent Arruda discovered multiple small bags containing a crystalline
substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine. Id. at 103. On
Appellant’s person, officers found six suboxone strips, a snorting straw, and
one small bag each of “heroin/fentanyl,” marijuana, and methamphetamine.
Id. at 95.
Appellant was thereafter charged with PWID methamphetamine, and
one count each of possession of methamphetamine, heroin/fentanyl,
suboxone, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The matter proceeded to a
jury trial wherein Agents Securda and Arruda testified to the aforementioned
facts.
Additionally, the Commonwealth presented Ian Urbansky, a Narcotics
Agent with the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Narcotics
Investigation and Drug Control, as an expert witness in narcotics investigation
and drug trafficking. Upon reviewing the facts of this case, he “concluded to
a reasonable degree of certainty that [Appellant] possessed the
-2- J-A07013-25
methamphetamine with the intention to deliver it to another person.” Id. at
114. Agent Urbansky explained that Appellant had five grams of
methamphetamine in his basement, a street value of $500 at $100 per gram,
which was greater than the typical amount for personal use. Id. He attested
that the small, empty bags that the officers found, dubbed as “apple bags,”
were those often used to traffic drugs, and would serve little other purpose.
Id. at 115-17. Furthermore, the agent discussed how scales are commonly
utilized to measure the proper weight of narcotics to package for sale. Id. at
119-20. He confirmed that the scales discovered in the officer’s search
appeared to be covered in methamphetamine residue. Id. at 115.
Another witness, Erin C. Luck, a Forensic Supervisor with the Bethlehem
Regional Crime Lab, testified as an expert in drug recognition. She examined
the drugs found in this matter and confirmed the presence and weight of
methamphetamine. Id. at 140, 144-45.
Upon this evidence, the jury convicted Appellant of the aforementioned
offenses, and the court imposed the sentence specified above. After
Appellant’s direct appeal rights were reinstated, he timely appealed and
submitted a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the court issued
a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion. Appellant raises the following question for
our determination: “Was there sufficient evidence to prove the ‘intent to
deliver’ element of count [one, PWID] methamphetamine[?]” Appellant’s brief
at 3.
-3- J-A07013-25
We begin with the legal tenets that guide our review:
When reviewing a sufficiency claim, we face a question of law. Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, and we draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the Commonwealth’s favor. Through this lens, we must ascertain whether the Commonwealth proved all of the elements of the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the factfinder. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the factfinder, unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Ransom, 328 A.3d 1127, 1133-34 (Pa.Super. 2024)
(cleaned up).
The offense of PWID is defined as follows:
(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:
....
(30) Except as authorized by this act, the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance.
18 P.S. § 780-113. To sustain a conviction, “the Commonwealth must prove
both the possession of the controlled substance and the intent to deliver the
-4- J-A07013-25
controlled substance.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 317 A.3d 1053, 1060
(Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned up).
In assessing whether the intent to deliver element has been established,
“we must examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the possession.”
Commonwealth v. Bernard, 218 A.3d 935, 943 (Pa.Super. 2019) (cleaned
up). Intent to deliver “may be inferred from possession of a large quantity of
controlled substances.” Id. Additionally, we may analyze “the manner in
which the controlled substance was packaged, the behavior of the defendant,
the presence of drug paraphernalia, . . . the sums of cash found in possession
of the defendant[, and] . . . expert testimony.” Id.
Appellant argues that there was not a “large [enough] quantity of
meth[amphetamine]” to infer an intent to deliver, and the remaining
circumstances do not establish such. See Appellant’s brief at 12. He points
to the fact that the agents discovered two different devices to consume the
narcotics. Id. Thus, he maintains that the evidence demonstrates that he
only possessed the methamphetamine for personal use. Id. He also
challenges Agent Urbansky’s expert testimony that Appellant intended to
deliver based on the scales that were covered in drug residue, as Ms. Luck did
not confirm that the substance on the scales was methamphetamine, and it
was not concretely established that Appellant “was using the scales to weigh”
the controlled substance for sale. Id. at 13.
The court offered the following analysis of this issue:
-5- J-A07013-25
As far as the charge of [PWID], Appellant admitted the methamphetamine was his. The jury believed the testimony of the Commonwealth[’s] expert witness that Appellant possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. Also[,] the amount of drugs and the other indicia of selling drugs found in the residence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/24, at 9 (some articles omitted).
We agree with the court that, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth, the record supports Appellant’s conviction for PWID.
Appellant confirmed that the drugs were his when he pleaded with the agents
not to place blame on his girlfriend. See N.T. Jury Trial, 6/7/23, at 78.
Further, the amount of methamphetamine recovered was greater than a
typical street user would possess, according to the expert testimony of Agent
Urbansky. Id. at 114. The expert also explained that the empty bags in
Appellant’s basement, as well as the scales, which he attested were covered
in methamphetamine residue, were indicia of packaging for distribution. Id.
at 115-20. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to uphold Appellant’s
conviction for PWID methamphetamine, and we affirm Appellant’s judgment
of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-6- J-A07013-25
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 03/20/2025
-7-