Com. v. Scott, N.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 18, 2025
• Docket: 2400 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S23034-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NAFIS SCOTT : : Appellant : No. 2400 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 16, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004193-2022

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2025

Nafis Scott (“Scott”) appeals from his judgment of sentence following

his conviction of two counts of persons not to possess firearms. 1 We affirm.

Pennsylvania State Parole Agent Humphrey Jones (“Agent Jones”)

supervised Scott’s state parole for convictions of persons not to possess

firearms and related offenses, and regularly visited Scott’s home. In February

2022, for reasons not clear from the record, Agent Jones received a text from

Scott that he was selling ounces of drugs and then found an Instagram post of

Scott sitting at his kitchen counter with a gun and an extended magazine of

ammunition. Agent Jones obtained a warrant to search Scott’s home, resulting

in the discovery of a loaded Smith and Wesson SD40 and a loaded Glock 9mm

above a cabinet in the kitchen of the house Scott shared with Pennsylvania

Correction Officer Cinnamon Woods (“Officer Woods”). ____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105. J-S23034-25

On appeal, Scott raises the following issue for our review:

1. Whether the evidence put forth at trial was sufficient to demonstrate that [Scott] possessed a firearm and thus sustain his conviction for 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105[?]

See Scott’s Brief at 5.

This Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence under the following

standard:

A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. . ..

Commonwealth v. Stahl, 175 A.3d 301, 303-04 (Pa. Super. 2017).

A person commits the offense of persons not to possess firearms where

he possesses a firearm having been convicted of a disqualifying offense,

including persons not to possess firearms. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1),

(b).

Instantly, the trial court has written a thorough and well-reasoned

opinion explaining its denial of relief. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/15/24, at

4-10. The trial court: (1) found sufficient evidence proved Scott’s residence

in the house; (2) noted Scott had a prior disqualifying conviction; (3) reviewed

the law governing constructive possession and joint constructive possession;

and (4) concluded the evidence amply established Scott’s constructive

possession of a firearm.

-2- J-S23034-25

Because the record supports the trial court’s factual findings and legal

conclusions, we adopt its October 15, 2024, opinion and affirm the judgment

of sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Date: 7/18/2025

-3-