NO. 738 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal, No. 1830 of 1979.
William J. Furber, Jr., Norristown, for appellant.
Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wickersham, Wieand and McEwen, JJ.
[ 307 Pa. Super. Page 67]
We here consider an appeal from the conviction of appellant by a jury of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.*fn1 The appellant was sentenced by the learned Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Judge Mason Avrigian to pay a fine of $5,000 and to serve a term of imprisonment of from five years to ten years. We affirm.
The evidence presented by the Commonwealth included testimony by an enforcement agent that he paid $1,000 to appellant and in return for this payment received from appellant a white substance which a chemist later identified as cocaine.
Appellant asserts "the verdict was against the evidence and the weight thereof" and that, therefore, the trial court
[ 307 Pa. Super. Page 68]
erred when it denied the motions of appellant for a new trial and an arrest of judgment. As we reiterated in Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 290 Pa. Super. 182, 185, 434 A.2d 191, 192 (1981), a court will not grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence unless the verdict of the jury was such as to shock our sense of justice. Our study of the record compels the conclusion that the jury performed its duty in quite proper fashion. It might even be said that this contention of appellant is frivolous in view of the fact that the testimony of the enforcement agent regarding the delivery and the payment was uncontradicted by the defense.
As for the contention of appellant that the evidence was insufficient, we held in Commonwealth v. Anderson, 265 Pa. Super. 494, 402 A.2d 546 (1979), that the uncorroborated testimony of the police officer who positively and unequivocally identified the appellant as the individual who sold him a quantity of heroin was sufficient to prove the appellant guilty of selling heroin in violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.*fn2 Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Lane, 236 Pa. Super. 462, 345 A.2d 233 (1975), we held that the uncorroborated testimony of an undercover agent was sufficient evidence upon which to base convictions for possession and delivery of controlled substances.
In Commonwealth v. Anderson, supra 265 Pa. Super. at 499, 402 A.2d at 548, we stated:
'Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the identity of the accused as the person who committed the crime is essential to a conviction.' Commonwealth v. Hickman, 453 Pa. 427, 430, 309 A.2d 564, 566 (1973). Where a witness' opportunity to identify the accused is good and his identification remains positive and unshaken even after cross-examination, his testimony is clearly ...