Com. v. Rondon Villegas, S.

J-S43044-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SAIBEL RONDON VILLEGAS : : Appellant : No. 129 MDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 5, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0005016-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2019 Appellant, Saibel Rondon Villegas, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County after a jury found her guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit fraud and acquisition of a controlled substance. Sentenced to five and one-half to 15 years’ incarceration, Appellant raises alternative challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and she claims the court abused its sentencing discretion in imposing what she labels a manifestly excessive sentence. We affirm. The trial court has aptly summarized the factual history of this case by describing how Appellant used her position as a medical assistant in a physician’s office to supply prescription papers to other actors involved in a fraudulent prescription drug distribution scheme. See generally, Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/19, at 1-7. As noted, supra, a two-day jury trial resulted in ____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S43044-19 guilty verdicts on all counts against Appellant, and, on December 5, 2018, the court sentenced her to five and one-half to 15 years of imprisonment, plus fines and costs, with RRRI eligibility commencing at 55 months into her sentence. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Appellant raises the following three issues for our consideration. 1. Whether the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial was insufficient to prove acquisition of a controlled substance by fraud and conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s post sentence motion based on the weight of the evidence? 3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a five and a half to fifteen years sentence where Appellant’s conduct was not so egregious to warrant such a sentence? Appellant’s brief, at 9. Initially, we set forth the standard of review applicable to each of Appellant’s three issues. With respect to Appellant’s sufficiency claim, we apply the following standard: A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law, subject to plenary review. When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the appellate court must review all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner. Evidence will be deemed to support the verdict when it establishes each element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence or establish the -2- J-S43044-19 defendant's guilt to a mathematical ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals