No. 2962 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Honorable Richard S. Lowe, President Judge, dated November 20, 1978, In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division at No. 4277-77.
Arthur J. King, Assistant Public Defender, Norristown, for appellant.
John J. Burfete, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Spaeth, Stranahan and Sugerman, JJ.*fn*
[ 281 Pa. Super. Page 337]
On March 21, 1978, appellant was convicted after a non-jury trial of possession of heroin with intent to deliver.*fn1 He received a sentence of two and one-half to seven years imprisonment and appeals from the Judgment of Sentence.
Appellant broadly alleges that the verdict was "against the evidence." Under this caption, he specifically asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, the finder of fact erred on weighing issues of credibility and the trial court erred in receiving his confession absent proof of the corpus delecti by independent evidence.
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
It is well settled in Pennsylvania that when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the reviewing court must, after a verdict of guilty, accept as true all of the evidence, direct or circumstantial and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom upon which the trier of fact could have based the verdict. If the evidence and inferences are sufficient as a matter of law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed on review. Comm. v. Rambo, 488 Pa. 334, 412 A.2d 535 (1980). Comm. v. DeCampli, 243 Pa. Super. 69, 364 A.2d 454 (1976).
As noted above, appellant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to deliver, in violation of 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(30) which prohibits:
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 . . .
[ 281 Pa. Super. Page 338]
The Commonwealth may prove either actual or constructive possession of the drugs with proof of constructive possession requiring evidence of the defendant's intent and power to control the contraband. ...