Commonwealth v. Lacey

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWYN ST CHARLES LACEY Appellant

No. 626 WDA 2023

No. J-S13021-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

August 8, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 9, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000352-2021

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

BECK J.

Edwyn St Charles Lacey ("Lacey") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by the Venango County Court of Common Pleas ("trial court") after a jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter, drug delivery resulting in death, criminal use of a communication facility, and delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine).^[1] We affirm.

This case arises from the drug overdose death of William Zeigler ("Zeigler"). On the night of July 9, 2020, Zeigler told Douglas Baker ("Baker"), Zeigler's friend and roommate, that he wanted to buy a half a gram of cocaine to smoke. Baker then texted Lacey and requested the drugs for himself, Zeigler, and Tasia Tate ("Tate"), who was with Baker and Zeigler at their residence on the night in question. Roughly a half an hour later, Lacey arrived at Baker's and Zeigler's residence in a rented U-Haul truck, handed over the drugs in exchange for cash, and then quickly left. Shortly thereafter, Baker began to smoke the drugs he had received from Lacey. As he began to smoke the drugs, Baker noticed that it did not taste like cocaine and that it did not give him the same rush or sense of euphoria that it normally did and that instead it made him weak and unable to see. Baker attempted to stop Zeigler from smoking the drugs but was too late, as Zeigler had already began smoking from his own pipe. Baker then became unconscious and later awoke to EMTs administering NARCAN to him. At this time, Baker also saw Zeigler lying unconscious on the floor with EMTs performing CPR on him.

Zeigler was pronounced dead at the scene. Dr. Eric Vey, the forensic pathologist who conducted Zeigler's autopsy, determined that Zeigler died because of combined drug toxicity with fentanyl toxicity being a substantial factor in his cause of death. Police did not recover any drugs or drug paraphernalia from the scene.

Lacey was charged with involuntary manslaughter, drug delivery resulting in death, criminal use of a communication facility, delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine), and delivery of a controlled substance (fentanyl). Following a two-day jury trial on November 14 and 15, 2022, the jury found Lacey guilty on all counts except delivery of a controlled substance (fentanyl). On December 9, 2022, the trial court sentenced Lacey to an aggregate term of eight to sixteen years of incarceration.

On December 19, 2022, Lacey filed post-sentence motions in which he also requested an extension of time to file supplemental post-trial motions pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 720(B)(3)(b). On March 8, 2023, the trial court granted a thirty-day extension and on March 30, 2023, Lacey filed supplemental post-trial motions.^[2] On April 21, 2023, Lacey's trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the case citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. On May 8, 2023, the trial court entered orders denying Lacey's post-trial motions and granting trial counsel's motion to withdraw. On June 1, 2023, Lacey filed a timely notice of appeal, pro se, to this Court. Both the trial court and Lacey complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

On June 26, 2023, because there was no indication in the trial court docket as to whether Lacey had waived his right to counsel on direct appeal after the trial court permitted trial counsel to withdraw, this Court issued an order directing the trial court to clarify whether Lacey knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988). The trial court responded by letter dated August 1, 2023, and indicated that Lacey had not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and that consequently, the trial court appointed counsel to represent Lacey for this appeal. Response Letter, 8/1/2023. Appellate counsel subsequently filed an advocate's brief on Lacey's behalf. We therefore turn our attention to the merits of Lacey's appeal. Lacey presents the following questions for review:

1. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion, when denying the claim of insufficiency of the evidence for [c]ount 1 of the trial jury verdict, drug delivery resulting in death[,] when there was no evidence that [Lacey] was a substantial cause [sic] of death.

2. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion, when denying the claim of insufficiency of the evidence for [c]ount 5 of the trial jury verdict, [i]nvoluntary [m]anslaughter, where [Lacey] was found not guilty of deliver[y] of [f]entanyl so there is no evidence of his actions being reckless or grossly negligent.

3. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion, when denying the claim of insufficiency of the evidence for [c]ount 2 of the trial jury verdict, [c]riminal [u]se of a [c]ommunication [f]acility[,] due to the time frame of [Lacey]'s arrival being different than the delivery of drugs.

4. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion, when denying the claim of insufficiency of the evidence for [c]ount 4 of the trial jury verdict, [d]elivery of [a controlled substance], [because] no cocaine was found at the scene and the delivery occurred after [Lacey] left.

5. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion, when permitting prejudicial evidence of Officer [Josh] Wheeling testifying to seeing [Lacey] at the residence before and for drug dealing out of Ohio.

6. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion[] when denying [Lacey]'s submission of a police report showing that the witness did not know what the victim had taken[.]

7. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion[] when denying [Lacey]'s motion that the jury instruction on the delivery of cocaine/fentanyl was given a[s] "cocaine and fentanyl" and the [C]ommonwealth's argument was "cocaine mixed with fentanyl."

8. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion, when denying the claim [of] prosecutorial misconduct when in the closing argument[,] the district attorney expressed his personal opinion of the guilt of [Lacey], why a witness was cleaning the crime scene, and the meaning of the correspondence in text messages.

9. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion[] when calculating his prior record score, the court gave one point for his State of Ohio offense of "[b]reaking and [e]ntering" calculating it as a [c]riminal [t]respass where the breaking and [e]ntering is a[n] unoccupied structure.

Lacey's Brief at 7-9.^[3]

Lacey's first four issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support each of his convictions. Our Court's standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well settled:

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all elements of the offense. Additionally, we may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder. The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

For his first and second issues, Lacey argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions of drug delivery resulting in death and involuntary manslaughter. Lacey's Brief at 15-17, 20-22. Specifically, Lacey contends that the Commonwealth failed to present evidence that Lacey caused Zeigler's death because the drug that Dr. Vey determined was a substantial factor in Zeigler's overdose death was fentanyl and the jury acquitted Lacey of delivery of a controlled substance (fentanyl). Id. Consequently, Lacey asserts, the Commonwealth did not establish that his actions were either reckless or grossly negligent. Id.

Before outlining the individual elements for each of the specific offenses Lacey challenges, we address the common element of the two crimes Lacey contends the Commonwealth did not prove, causation. For our purposes, the Pennsylvania Crimes Code provides that "[c]onduct is the cause of a result when … it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred[.]" 18 Pa.C.S. § 303(a)(1). The statute "requires a 'but-for' test of causation ... [with the caveat that] the results of the defendant's actions cannot be so extraordinarily remote or attenuated that it would be unfair to hold the defendant criminally responsible." Commonwealth v. Kakhankham, 132 A.3d 986, 993 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The crime of drug delivery resulting in death occurs if a "person intentionally administers, dispenses, delivers gives, prescribes, sells or distributes any controlled substance or counterfeit controlled substance in violation of section 13(a)(14) or (30) of … The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and another person dies as a result of using the substance." 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506(a). Thus, drug delivery...