Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Rosado

258 A.3d 516 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.William Duane MALDONADO-ROSADO, Appellant

No. 1411 MDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed June 10, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:

Appellant William Duane Maldonado-Rosado appeals from the May 27, 2020 entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County ("trial court"), following his jury convictions for possession with intent to deliver ("PWID") (heroin and fentanyl), possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and false identification to law enforcement.¹ Upon review, we affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. Following a traffic stop, Appellant was charged with the foregoing crimes. The case eventually proceeded to a jury trial,² summarized by the trial court as follows:

On April 13, 2019, the Lebanon County Drug Task Force was told that a vehicle registered to Vivian Hummel would be returning to Lebanon from Philadelphia with a large amount of heroin. Because of this tip, officers positioned themselves near the exit of the Lebanon-Lancaster Interchange of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. They observed the anticipated Dodge Caravan vehicle leaving the Turnpike and turning on Route 72 in the direction of Lebanon. [Appellant] was the operator of the vehicle. Police undertook a traffic stop in southern Lebanon County. When originally approached by police, [Appellant] provided a false name. Eventually, [Appellant] was placed under arrest because of a warrant that had been issued for him on an unrelated matter. Prior to being removed from the scene of the traffic stop, [Appellant] acknowledged that he had heroin in his possession. [Appellant] was transported to the Lebanon Central Booking facility. A strip search was conducted by Detective Ryan Mong at that facility. During the search, heroin baggies fell from [Appellant's] socks and pants. A large bundle of heroin was discovered inside [Appellant's] buttocks. Ultimately, ninety-four (94) bags of heroin were recovered from [Appellant]. Photographs were presented of all of the bags of heroin.

Several were packaged within distinctively emblazoned bags. Detective Mong packaged the heroin seized from [Appellant] in a large manila envelope. That envelope was placed in a temporary storage locker pending transport to the Pennsylvania State Police Crimes Laboratory. The envelope was sealed with evidence tape. No one other than Drug Task Force officers had access to the storage locker.

Detective Lawrence Minnick of the Lebanon City Police Department was tasked with processing the drugs for transportation to the Pennsylvania State Police Crimes Laboratory. At some point, Detective Minnick mistakenly logged the drugs seized from [Appellant] as having been recovered from an individual named "Rodriguez". Other than a singular reference to the name "Rodriguez", all other documentation regarding the manila envelope packaged by Detective Mong referenced [Appellant's] name. Police characterized the reference to "Rodriguez" as a typographical error and they vociferously denied that the evidence seized from [Appellant] was ever co-mingled with evidence from any other case.

Gabriel Llinas was a forensic technician employed by the Pennsylvania State Police. Mr. Llinas performed the drug identification analysis of the substances packaged by Detective Mong. The packages that Mr. Llinas evaluated were identical in description to those that were packaged by Detective Mong. Both the items recovered from [Appellant] and the items tested by Mr. Llinas were packaged in bags emblazoned with "Walking Dead" and "Fendi". Mr. Llinas testified that the substances contained in the bags included heroin, fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl. Mr. Llinas also testified that the weight of the substances exceed one (1) gram but not ten (10) grams.

At trial, the defense attorney did not object to the admission of the drugs seized from [Appellant] (Exhibit 1) or the photograph of those drugs taken shortly after they were discovered. (Exhibit 1A). Moreover, the Commonwealth offered the envelope used to transport the drugs as Exhibit 5. There was no objection from the defense to the admission of Exhibit 5. Moreover, the conclusions rendered by Forensic Technician Llinas about the contents of Exhibit 1 were set forth in a report marked as Exhibit 4. The defense lodged no objection to the admissibility of Exhibit 4.

At trial, [Appellant] did not contest his own possession of heroin. In his testimony, [Appellant] admitted that he used ten (10) to fifteen (15) bags of heroin each day. [Appellant] did not deny that the substance found on his person was in fact heroin. Rather, [he] argued that all of the heroin he possessed was for personal use rather than for delivery or sale to others.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/2/20, at 2-4 (record citations omitted). Following trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of PWID, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and false identification to law enforcement.³ On May 27, 2020, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 60 to 120 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied on October 2, 2020. Appellant appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to meet "its burden to establish the so-called ‘chain of custody.’ "⁴ Appellant's Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalizations omitted). In support, Appellant claims that the chain of custody report lists Detective Minnick, instead of Detective Mong, as the officer who initially collected and placed the drugs into evidence. Id. at 8. Appellant also claims that the report contains a singular reference to someone named "Rodriguez" who is not Appellant (or associated with Appellant). Id. at 9. Finally, Appellant points out that Detective Michael Dipalo accessed the seized evidence on May 21, 2019 for purposes of transporting the drugs to the Pennsylvania State Police Crime Laboratory ("PSP Lab"), but did not do so until the following day, May 22, 2019. Id.

At the outset, we note that Appellant's claim that the Commonwealth failed to establish the chain of custody is not preserved for our review. As we explained in Commonwealth v. Russell , 209 A.3d 419 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied , 218 A.3d 862 (Pa. 2019) :

In order to preserve a claim for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the trial court, or the claim is waived. On appeal, the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected. The princip[al] rationale underlying the waiver rule is that when an error is pointed out to the trial court, the court then has an opportunity to correct the error. By specifically objecting to any obvious error, the trial court can quickly and easily correct the problem and prevent the need for a new trial. Additionally, the appellate court should not be required to waste judicial resources correcting a problem that the trial court could have easily corrected if it had been given the opportunity to avoid the necessity of granting a new trial.

Russell , 209 A.3d at 429 (citations and quotation omitted); see Commonwealth v. Baumhammers , 960 A.2d 59, 73 (Pa. 2008) (to preserve issue for appellate purposes, party must make timely and specific objection to ensure trial court has opportunity to correct alleged error); Keffer v. Bob Nolan's Auto Service, Inc. , 59 A.3d 621, 645 (Pa. Super. 2012) ("one must object to errors, improprieties or irregularities at the earliest possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the jurist hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter.") (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Pa.R.E. 103(a) (providing that an "[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling that admits or excludes evidence unless ... a timely objection ... appears of record.").

Here, upon reviewing the record, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that Appellant failed to lodge a timely objection to the Commonwealth's alleged failure to establish chain of custody. Although Appellant generally alluded to some concerns about this issue at trial, he failed to make a timely and specific objection to any exhibit introduced into evidence or the chain of custody report when he questioned the Commonwealth's witnesses.⁵ Regardless, even if this issue were not waived, Appellant still would not be entitled to relief.

"[C]hain-of-custody is an evidentiary principle that refers to the manner in which evidence was maintained from the time it was collected to its submission at trial." In re D.Y. , 34 A.3d 177, 185 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted), appeal denied , 47 A.3d 848 (Pa. 2012). It is well-settled that "any issue regarding gaps in the chain of custody relate to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility."⁶ Commonwealth v. Witmayer , 144 A.3d 939, 950 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied , 169 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2017) ; accord Commonwealth v. Copenhefer , 719 A.2d 242, 256 (Pa. 1998). Although the Commonwealth "bears the burden of demonstrating some reasonable connection between the proffered exhibits and the true evidence," Commonwealth v. Pedano , 405 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super. 1979), it need not "establish the sanctity of its exhibits beyond a moral certainty." Commonwealth v. Bennett , 827 A.2d 469, 481 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied , 847 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 2004). Thus, "[a] complete chain of custody is not required so long as the Commonwealth's evidence, direct and circumstantial, establishes a reasonable inference that the identity and condition of the exhibits have remained the same from the time they were first received until the time of trial." Commonwealth v. Alarie , 547 A.2d 1252, 1255 (Pa. Super....