S-19-1137 State v. Jeremiah Warlick (Appellant)
York County District Court, Hon. James C. Stecker
Attorneys: Nathan A. Liss (Office of the Attorney General, for Appellee) --- Kevin V. Schlender (Attorney for Appellant)
Criminal: Evidence; Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; Habitual criminal
Proceedings below: On May 1, 2019, following a bench trial, the court found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Count 1, possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) with intent to distribute; Count 2, possession of a controlled substance (marijuana, more than one pound); Count 3, no drug tax stamp; Count 4, possession of a deadly weapon (firearm) during commission of a felony; Count 5, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, second or subsequent offense; Count 6, possession of a stolen firearm; and Count 7, carry concealed weapon. On November 25, 2019, the court held an enhancement and sentencing hearing and found there was sufficient evidence for enhancement on Count 5 as a habitual criminal. Appellant was sentenced on Count 1 to 1 to two years’ imprisonment; no sentence on Count 2 due to double jeopardy concerns with Count 1; Count 3 for 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment; Count 4 for 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment; Count 5 for the mandatory minimum of 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment; Count 6 for 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment; and Count 7 for 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment. The court ordered that the sentence imposed on Count 4 shall be served consecutively to the concurrent sentences of Counts 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Appellant was given 159 days for time served.
Issues on Appeal: Whether the district court erred in 1) proceeding with the trial in Appellant’s absence and without counsel, and without a knowing and intelligent waiver of appearance by Appellant; 2) proceeding with trial without appointing an attorney or stand by counsel for Appellant; 3) finding that Exhibits 14 and 15 were sufficient to establish felony convictions; 4) finding there was sufficient evidence to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the possession of marijuana charges; 5) finding there was sufficient evidence to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the possession of firearms charges; and 6) finding Appellant guilty when the district court lacked jurisdiction due to improper venue.