Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Ford Elliott](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10826352/com-v-dyches-t/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Dyches, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 52 EDA 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Ford Elliott

• Opinion

• Authorities (18)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (206)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Kate Ford Elliott](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8229/kate-ford-elliott/)

J-S41037-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TAUHEED DYCHES :
:
Appellant : No. 52 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 27, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003289-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., BECK, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 27, 2026

Tauheed Dyches appeals from the judgment of sentence, amounting to

two-to-four years of incarceration, to be followed by four years of probation,

imposed following a non-jury trial in which the trial court found him guilty of

possessing a firearm as a prohibited person and fleeing or attempting to elude

a police officer.1 Dyches challenges the sufficiency of evidence underpinning

his convictions as well as the court’s discretion in imposing its judgment of

sentence. We affirm.

The trial court recounted the factual history of this case as follows:

On June 29, 2021, Officer [Kyrece] Davis of the Philadelphia Police
Department conducted narcotics surveillance [on] the three-
thousand block of North 15th Street. There[,] he observed Dyches

---

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) and 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733(a), respectively.
J-S41037-25

sitting in a lawn chair underneath a tree. On two occasions, Officer
Davis watched an individual approach [Dyches] and exchange
United States currency for unknown small items. After the second
transaction, [Dyches] entered a Ford Taurus bearing a
[Pennsylvania] tag[, “]LMM2006[,”] and left the area. Officer
Davis radioed to another officer, [Jeffrey] Holden, the description
of [Dyches], the car, and [Dyches’] direction of travel.

Officer Holden came upon [Dyches’] vehicle and activated his
lights to initiate a traffic stop. The driver immediately exited the
vehicle and fled. Officer Holden testified that the individual who
took off running matched the description of [Dyches] as relayed
to him by Officer Davis. Officer Holden exited his patrol car,
peered into the vehicle to ensure that [Dyches] was the only
occupant of [the vehicle], and then pursued [Dyches] on foot.
[Dyches] evaded capture.

Officer Davis then returned to the [police] narcotics headquarters
and ran the tag number of the vehicle driven by [Dyches]. The
results showed that a female owned the vehicle, but during an
unrelated traffic stop in April of 2021, the occupants of the vehicle
had been [Dyches] and the female owner. Officer Davis
subsequently ran [Dyches’] name in the police mug shot system.
He testified that the individual pictured matched the same
individual he had observed during the narcotics investigation.

Officer Davis then obtained a search warrant for the vehicle and
recovered a black handgun with an extended magazine, U.S.
currency, a Citi Bank benefit check, and multiple used and unused
checks all in [Dyches’] name. An arrest warrant was issued, and
[Dyches] was subsequently arrested and charged with possession
with intent to deliver and violations of the Uniform Firearms Act.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/24, at 1-2 (record citations and unnecessary wording

omitted).

After his arrest, but prior to trial, Dyches, “through counsel, moved to

suppress the recovered firearm, arguing that law enforcement’s search of the

vehicle was without probable cause and that the search warrant was

unlawfully issued and executed.” Id. at 2. The trial court ultimately denied the

-2-
J-S41037-25

suppression motion, and the case proceeded to trial, resulting in Dyches being

convicted of the two above-mentioned crimes.

Following sentencing, Dyches filed a pro se post-sentence motion

asserting, inter alia, violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution pertaining to the search of the car and ineffective assistance of

counsel throughout his proceedings. 2 The court did not respond to the

motion’s contents. Thereafter, Dyches’ trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw,

which, through our review of the record, was not formally granted.

Nevertheless, trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal on December 26,

2023, and the court directed Dyches to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate

Procedure 1925(b). Later, and without any docket activity in the interim, the

court appointed new counsel, Dyches’ counsel in the present appeal, on April

8, 2024.3

---

2 As Dyches was represented by counsel, this filing was a legal nullity.
See
Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Moreover, absent narrow exceptions not applicable here, “ineffective
assistance of counsel claims must be deferred to [Post Conviction Relief
Act] review.” Commonwealth v. Watson, 310 A.3d 307, 313 (Pa. Super.
2024) (emphasis in original).

3 New counsel filed what amounts to a second notice of appeal on April 24,

2024, five months after the judgment of sentence had been imposed, and the
court correspondingly issued another order directing Dyches to file a concise
statement pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. New
counsel complied with this second directive by filing said statement. On June
28, 2024, we sua sponte dismissed, as duplicative, the appeal that was
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-3-
J-S41037-25

On appeal, Dyches presents two issues for review:

1. Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient, beyond a
   

   reasonable doubt, for every element of the crimes for which
   he was convicted?

2. Did the sentencing court abuse its discretion by imposing a
   

   sentence that was not based upon the gravity of the
   violation, the extent of his record, his prospect of
   rehabilitation, nor an assessment of the mitigating and
   aggravating factors as noted in Pennsylvania’s Sentencing
   Code?

Appellant’s Brief at 7 (questions reformatted). 4

Dyches’ first claim challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his

convictions for the firearms offense as well as fleeing or attempting to elude

---

initiated by the notice appeal that present counsel filed. See Superior Court
Order, 6/28/24, 1 (1209 EDA 2024).

4 We note with disapproval that Dyches’ brief is wholly single spaced in
violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 124(a)(3), which
provides that text in briefs must be double spaced, with the exception of
footnotes and quotations that are more than two lines long. We additionally
note that two of the three judges on this panel, and one additional sitting
judge of our Court, have previously reminded Dyches’ counsel of this
particular briefing obligation on prior occasions. See Commonwealth v.
Cunningham, 2025 WL 3688166, 5 n.4 (Pa. Super., filed Dec. 19, 2025)
(unpublished memorandum) (2425 EDA 2024); Commonwealth v. Ferst,
2023 WL 315620, *3 n.6 (Pa. Super., filed Jan. 19, 2023) (unpublished
memorandum) (2391 EDA 2021); Commonwealth v. Pagan, 2022 WL
39547, 3 n.4 (Pa. Super., filed Jan. 5, 2022) (unpublished memorandum) (322
EDA 2021). For the benefit of our Court’s ease of review, we strenuously
insist that Dyches’ counsel adhere to strict compliance with Rule 124(a)(3) in
all future briefs filed with this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs . . . shall
conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly
as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be
suppressed[.]”).

-4-
J-S41037-25

a police officer.

For challenges to the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal

conviction, we employ a well-settled standard of review:

the standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In
addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by
the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be
resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and
inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be
drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proof of proving every element of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the
entire record must be evaluated and all the evidence actually
received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact[,] while
passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the
evidence produced, is free to believe all, part[,] or none of the
evidence.

Commonwealth v. Kim, 888 A.2d 847, 851-52 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation

and brackets omitted). Moreover, we “consider all of the testimony that was

presented . . . without consideration as to the admissibility of that

evidence.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 568 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa. 1989).

“Because evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review

is de novo[,] and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v.

Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 330 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

Dyches’ brief does not delve into any of the discrete elements of either

of his convictions. Instead, he is first alleging that the Commonwealth “failed

-5-
J-S41037-25

to sufficiently establish beyond a reasonable doubt the necessary proof of the

commission of the crimes by . . . Dyches.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. Specifically,

he asserts that “[t]he Commonwealth based [its] entire case on the

identification of [Dyches] by [O]fficer Davis, and that identification was based

on hearsay evidence about [Dyches] obtained from a police database.” Id.

Dyches then identifies the “48A database system” used by the Philadelphia

Police Department, which produced a document, introduced at his trial,

containing “information about a prior vehicle stop . . . involving the Ford

Taurus [where Dyches was a passenger] that [O]fficer Davis claims he [later]

observed [Dyches] enter [on the date the vehicle was recovered,] June 29,

2021.” Id. Based on this document, Officer Davis then conducted a further

database search of Dyches, which led to the uncovering of Dyches’ prior

mugshot, connecting him to the June 29, 2021 incident, and issuance of an

arrest warrant. See id. at 14. Dyches also asserts that the database

document’s authenticity was never established. See id.

Dyches’ identity-based contentions necessarily fail because they are

predicated on arguments that invoke the admissibility of evidence, e.g.,

hearsay and authenticity. As, on sufficiency review, we do not consider

whether “some of the evidence was wrongly allowed,” Commonwealth v.

Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 332 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), there is no basis

-6-
J-S41037-25

to reverse on these evidentiary grounds through the lens of sufficiency. 5

Dyches next suggests that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate

constructive possession of the firearm that was recovered from the vehicle.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) prohibits “[a] person who has been convicted of

[certain offenses from] possess[ing] . . . a firearm in this Commonwealth.”

This Court has held that “[p]ossession can be found by proving
actual possession, constructive possession, or joint constructive
possession.” Commonwealth v. Heidler, 741 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa.
Super. 1999). Where a defendant is not in actual possession of
the prohibited items, the Commonwealth must establish that the
defendant had constructive possession to support the conviction.
[See] Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa.
Super. 2013) (conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a) supported
by a finding of constructive possession). See also
Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(same). “Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic
construct to deal with the realities of criminal law enforcement.”
Hopkins, supra at 820 (citation and quotation omitted). “We
have defined constructive possession as conscious dominion,”
meaning that the defendant has “the power to control the
contraband and the intent to exercise that control.” Id. (citation
and quotation omitted). “To aid application, we have held that
constructive possession may be established by the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36 (Pa. Super. 2018). Moreover,

[i]t is well established that, “[a]s with any other element of a

---

5 In any event, Officer Davis identified Dyches in court, indicating that he
encountered him on June 29, 2021, exchanging “unknown small items” for an
unknown amount of United States currency and later saw him get into the
Ford Taurus, with an identified license plate number, to which Officer Davis
then relayed that information, including a description of Dyches, to Officer
Holden. See N.T. Trial, 9/20/23, at 6-7, 9. Consistent with this information,
Officer Holden initiated a traffic stop of that Taurus, and a person matching
Dyches’ description thereafter fled on foot. See id. at 33.

-7-
J-S41037-25

crime, constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial
evidence.” Commonwealth v. Haskins, [ ] 677 A.2d 328, 330
([Pa. Super.] 1996) (citation omitted). In other words, the
Commonwealth must establish facts from which the trier of fact
can reasonably infer that the defendant exercised dominion and
control over the contraband at issue. See, e.g., Commonwealth
v. Davis, 743 A.2d 946, 953–54 (Pa. Super. 1999) (holding that
evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession over
drugs found in common areas of an apartment where the
defendant entered the apartment using his own key, and
possessed $800 in cash on his person, and police recovered
defendant’s identification badge, size-appropriate clothing, and
firearms from a bedroom).

Parrish, at 36-37 (parallel citation omitted).

Nevertheless, mere presence at a place where contraband is found,

standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate constructive possession. See,

e.g., Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548, 551 (Pa. 1992). While

spatial nexus, in a vacuum, is not conclusive of guilt, see Commonwealth v.

Juliano, 490 A.2d 891, 893-94 (Pa. Super. 1985), “knowledge of the

existence and location of the contraband is a necessary prerequisite to proving

the defendant’s intent to control, and thus, his constructive possession.”

Parrish, 191 A.3d at 37. Stated differently, a conjecture-laden “suspicion of

possession” is insufficient to demonstrate constructive possession, see id.;

instead, there must be some sort of tether or nexus between a defendant’s

actions or inactions and the object, itself. See Commonwealth v. Peters,

218 A.3d 1206, 1209 (Pa. 2019).

Upon review, there was sufficient evidence for the court, sitting as fact-

finder, to conclude that Dyches, prior to fleeing from the vehicle, had both the

power and intent to control the recovered firearm. Dyches was the sole

-8-
J-S41037-25

occupant of the vehicle,6 a vehicle he had been seen in prior. Providing further

evidence of his association with the vehicle, on June 29, 2021, Dyches’

personal items were found therein, some of which contained his name. See,

e.g., N.T. Trial, 9/20/23, at 17 (identifying that “checks for items with . . .

Dyches’[] name on it and his address” were recovered from the vehicle). After

Dyches, who was its sole occupant, fled and abandoned the vehicle, the police,

upon the execution of a search warrant, recovered the firearm from

“underneath the driver’s seat” where the “butt of the extended magazine”

could be seen by looking under the seat. Id. at 28-29. As such, given, inter

alia, the firearm’s proximity to Dyches while he was driving the vehicle, there

was a reasonable inference that could be made, when looking at the totality

of the circumstances, regarding his dominion and control over that weapon.

Under both theories presented, Dyches’ challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence is meritless.

---

6 Although Dyches argues that the vehicle was not registered to him, see
Appellant’s Brief at 16, he provides no authority establishing that vehicle
ownership, or lack thereof, renders constructive possession an impossibility.
Indeed, ownership of a vehicle is not necessary to prove constructive
possession of contents therein. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wright, 255
A.3d 542, 553 (Pa. Super. 2021) (establishing that the circumstantial
evidence showed that contraband was within that appellant’s “knowledge,
control, and dominion . . . [d]espite [his] lack of ownership interest in the”
vehicle). Furthermore, Dyches provides no support for his contention that the
concealment of the weapon, underneath the seat, and not in plain view,
eliminates the possibility of any intent to control the firearm. See Appellant’s
Brief at 16. Although the spatial nexus is relevant, the firearm was still within
arms’ reach of Dyches, as the driver of the vehicle.

-9-
J-S41037-25

With respect to his second issue, a challenge to the discretionary aspects

of his sentence, we find such a contention waived for lack of preservation.

Dyches did not raise such a claim at his sentencing hearing. See

Commonwealth v. Clary, 226 A.3d 571, 579 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“To properly

preserve an issue challenging the discretionary aspects of sentencing, a

defendant must object and request a remedy at sentencing, or raise the

challenge in a post-sentence motion.”); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised

in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on

appeal.”). Moreover, although Dyches’ pro se post-sentence motion did not

reference the discretionary aspects of his sentence, it was, in any event, a

nullity. See Nischan, 928 A.2d at 355. Therefore, in the absence of either a

contemporaneous objection at the sentencing hearing or a post-sentence

motion, raising a discretionary sentencing challenge, we find the issue waived.

See Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042-43 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(en banc) (holding that appellant waived discretionary aspects of sentence

claim by failing to preserve it in a post-sentence motion or at sentencing). 7

---

7 In any event, Dyches’ brief does not provide any record citations to the
sentencing hearing. However, as the court indicates, the recommended
sentence for his lead offense, consistent with Pennsylvania’s Sentencing
Guidelines, was 84-102 months of incarceration, whereas he, in fact, received
24-48 months. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/24, at 6. Additionally, where, as
here, a pre-sentence report exists, we presume “that the sentencing judge
was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and
weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. A pre-
sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself.” Commonwealth
v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 761 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Dyches
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

• 10 - J-S41037-25

As neither of Dyches’ two issues warrant relief, we affirm his judgment

of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/27/2026

---

has provided nothing to overcome this presumption. The court clearly also
considered Dyches’ rehabilitative needs by requiring, in its sentencing order,
that he obtain a G.E.D. and “attend an educational institution or participate in
a course of vocational training.” Sentencing Order, 11/27/23. Even assuming
arguendo that Dyches had preserved his instant sentencing claim, we would
not find an abuse of discretion.

• 11 -