Opinion
J-S67015-19 No. 1200 MDA 2019
01-07-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD LEE POE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 18, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003989-2018 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Ronald Lee Poe, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 18, 2019, following his jury trial conviction for persons not to possess a firearm. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
[O]n June 24, 2018, at approximately 4:00 p.m., [Trooper Timothy Richartz ("Richartz") of the Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP")] and other troopers arrived at [a residence on] Tanning Yard Hollow Road in Drumore Township for service of a warrant on Lisa McCall ("McCall"). When Appellant came out of the house, Richartz asked if McCall was at the residence. Initially, Appellant stated he just woke up and did not know where she was. When Richartz informed Appellant that PSP received a tip that McCall was at his residence, Appellant invited Richartz into the house where McCall was located. Once McCall was in custody, [the PSP] left the residence.
During a subsequent interview, McCall told Richartz she arrived at Appellant's residence at 4:30 p.m. When Richartz noted that was not possible because [the PSP] arrived at 4:00 p.m., McCall stated she arrived at 3:30 p.m. McCall told Richartz that she bought three bags of heroin from Appellant for $30[.00], and he gave her some methamphetamine for free. McCall said they used some of the narcotics in Appellant's room. McCall further stated the heroin was in three white bags with a money symbol on them, and she threw the empty bags in the trash can in Appellant's room.
Based on information provided by McCall, Richartz obtained a search warrant for the residence. According to the search warrant, McCall told Richartz that while they were in Appellant's bedroom she saw heroin in raw form which Appellant placed into three bags for her. McCall also saw methamphetamine the size of a golf ball from which Appellant removed a small piece and gave it to her. McCall further stated that Appellant ke[pt] his narcotics in a black bag in his bedroom next to the dresser, she [] observed him hide narcotics in vehicles on his property to avoid police detection, she believed he cook[ed] methamphetamine in his basement, and she was told he may have a firearm. During a subsequent search of the residence, Richartz located a black bag containing heroin, methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia just outside Appellant's room in a stack of brown boxes. A .32 caliber gun was located in a green bag inside Appellant's bedroom behind the door. At the completion of the search, Appellant was taken into custody and transported to the Troop J Barracks.
At the police station, Richartz used a written form to read Appellant his Miranda rights, and he gave Appellant a copy to follow along. After reading Appellant his Miranda rights Richartz asked, "[d]o you understand your rights I've explained to you?" Appellant responded, "yes." Richartz then asked whether Appellant wished to make a statement. Appellant responded by shaking his head no and stating, "no, I haven't thought about it." Richartz then clarified by asking, "do you want to answer some questions? If you don't want to, that's fine." Richartz testified that he interpreted Appellant's response as him shrugging yes. Richartz further testified that at no time did Appellant mention the word lawyer.
Thereafter, Appellant wrote his initials beside each "yes" mark that Richartz had checked on the Miranda rights form, acknowledging he understood his rights and he wanted to give a statement. Richartz testified that at no time during the interview did Appellant say he wanted to stop the interview or get a lawyer. Richartz noted that because Appellant appeared to answer all of his questions willingly, he never thought Appellant did not want to speak with him.Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/2019, at 3-5 (footnote incorporated).
While they were together, Richartz did not threaten Appellant, engage in a show of force, or yell at him. Appellant was not handcuffed during the interview. Richartz believed Appellant's behavior was normal during the interview based on their prior interactions. Appellant was alert, coherent, did not appear intoxicated, understood what was happening, and his decision to talk with Richartz appeared to be made freely and voluntarily. If Richartz believed that Appellant did not understand what was happening, Richartz would have discontinued the interview.
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with the aforementioned offense, as well as possession with intent to deliver narcotics (PWID), conspiracy to commit PWID, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Prior to trial, Appellant filed motions to suppress the physical evidence recovered after executing the search warrant, as well as his subsequent statement to police. Appellant claimed there were material omissions contained in the affidavit of probable cause and that he invoked his rights to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney pursuant to Miranda. The trial court held a suppression hearing on November 8, 2018, following which it denied Appellant relief. On April 10, 2019, a jury trial found Appellant guilty of persons not to possess a firearm offense. Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth nol prossed the remaining crimes. On June 18, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to five to ten years of incarceration. This timely appeal resulted.
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31), and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32).
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 18, 2019 and a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on August 5, 2019. The trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on August 28, 2019.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in not granting the suppression of the search warrant for [the residence] on Tanning Hollow Road on June 24, 2018, as the affidavit of probable cause contained material omissions/misstatements of fact relied upon by the magisterial district judge in making a finding of probable cause and approving the warrant. Specifically, Lisa McCall did not know when she arrived at [the subject residence] on June 24, 2018, and Lisa McCall was under the influence of methamphetamines and heroin when she spoke to the Pennsylvania State Police Trooper on June 24, 2018. This information was omitted by the affiant of the search warrant.Appellant's Brief at 4.
2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in not suppressing [Appellant's] custodial statement given to the police on June 25, 2018, as [Appellant's] Miranda waiver was not intelligent, knowing and voluntary. Specifically, [Appellant] shook his head in the negative when the police asked him whether he wished to answer questions. Moreover, [Appellant] told the police after Miranda warnings were given and he was asked whether he wished to answer questions, he responded "no, I haven't thought about it" and references the word lawyer. In response to these verbal and body responses, Trooper Richartz did not engage in clarification questions but immediately proceeded with the custodial interrogation. This was done in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This Court's well-settled standard of review of a denial of a motion to suppress evidence is as follows:
An appellate court's standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, the appellate court is bound by those findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to plenary review.Commonwealth v. Jones , 121 A.3d 524, 526-527 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal citation, original brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the parties, and the thorough opinion issued by the trial court on August 28, 2019. Based upon our review, we are satisfied that the affidavit of probable cause did not contain material omissions to invalidate the search warrant at issue. Here, the trial court determined that a minor discrepancy regarding McCall's arrival time at the subject residence was not a material fact. Additionally, the trial court determined that McCall did not appear intoxicated when making statements to police, but even if she had been, it was not material to whether there were illegal items located inside Appellant's residence. Moreover, the affidavit of probable cause, introduced into evidence at the suppression hearing, specifically states that McCall and Appellant used drugs together prior to McCall's interview with police. Thus, the trial court determined that the police properly apprised the issuing authority of all of the material facts of this case before authorization of the search warrant. We discern no error.
Regarding Appellant's subsequent statements to police, the trial court noted that while Appellant was not prepared to make a full statement to police, he was willing to answer their questions. Furthermore, police verbally explained Appellant's Miranda rights to him and provided him with a copy of written Miranda rights prior to interviewing him. Appellant reviewed the written copy and signed the document, thereby waiving his Miranda rights, before answering police questions. Moreover, the trial court credited Trooper Richartz testimony that despite receiving Miranda warnings, Appellant never invoked his right to an attorney. Finally, we note that upon review of the certified record, the trial court viewed a video and audio recording of the entire interaction between the police and Appellant before ultimately denying suppression. Based upon all of the foregoing, the trial court determined that Appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel prior to giving his statement to police. Again, we discern no error.
Because the trial court's opinion adequately and accurately addresses the claims Appellant presents on appeal, we adopt the trial court's August 28, 2019 opinion as our own. The parties are hereafter directed to include a copy of the trial court's August 28, 2019 opinion with all future filings pertaining to our disposition of this appeal.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/07/2020
Image materials not available for display.