Opinion
J-S09021-17 No. 2821 EDA 2016
05-26-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. FRANK A. WASHINGTON IV Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 3, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Criminal Division at No: CP-15-CR-0003427-2015 BEFORE: SHOGAN, STABILE, and PLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Frank A. Washington, IV appeals from the August 3, 2016 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County ("trial court"), following his jury convictions for two counts of possession of a controlled substance (phencyclidine and cocaine, respectively), and possession of drug paraphernalia. Upon review, we affirm.
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16) and (a)(32).
Following a traffic stop on August 1, 2015, Appellant was charged with, inter alia, the above-referenced offenses. Appellant filed an omnibus motion to suppress all evidence obtained because he alleged that Corporal Jonathan Shave did not have probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The trial court conducted a hearing on the suppression motion, at which the Commonwealth offered the testimony of the arresting officer. The trial court summarized the suppression testimony as follows:
On August 1, 2015, at approximately 11:26 p.m., Corporal Jonathan Shave of the City of Coatesville Police Department was in a marked vehicle on patrol in the 300 block of Chestnut Street, at the intersection of North 3rd Avenue in the City of Coatesville, Chester County, PA. Corporal Shave was travelling westbound in the 300 block of East Chestnut Street rdwhen he approached a traffic light at the intersection of North 3rd Avenue and Chestnut Street. Corporal Shave was stopped behind the second car at the light. When the light changed to green, the lead vehicle did not move.Trial Court Opinion, 9/27/16, at 2-4 (internal record citations omitted). On February 24, 2016, the trial court denied Appellant's suppression motion. The case proceeded to a jury trial, following which Appellant was convicted of two counts of possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. On August 3, 2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of 7 to 23 months' imprisonment for possession of PCP and a concurrent term of 7 to 23 months' imprisonment for possession of cocaine. The trial court also sentenced Appellant to one year of probation for possession of drug paraphernalia to be served consecutively to the two possession counts.
Corporal Shave operated his overhead lights and drove around the second vehicle and pulled up on the driver's side of the lead vehicle. Corporal Shave made contact with the driver, who was identified as [Appellant]. When Corporal Shave first exited his vehicle, before making contact with [Appellant], he "was struck with a very strong odor of Phencyclidine or PCP." Corporal Shave testified that there was no question that what he smelled was the controlled substance PCP, because there is no other substance that smells like that. When Corporal Shave made contact with [Appellant], he observed that [Appellant] had a cigarette in his hand, burned down to the filter, emanating the smell of PCP. Corporal Shave testified that in his experience, this is consistent with someone smoking PCP.
Corporal Shave further observed that once he began communicating with [Appellant], he would ask [Appellant] a question and he did not immediately get a response from [Appellant]. Corporal Shave testified that this was consistent with someone using PCP. [Appellant] was also crying. Corporal Shave called for back-up because he was unsure of how [Appellant] would act being under the influence of PCP.
After the second officer arrived, Corporal Shave asked [Appellant] to exit the vehicle. Corporal Shave observed that [Appellant] was unsteady on his feet. Corporal Shave placed [Appellant] in handcuffs because in his experience, individuals who use PCP can become violent and Corporal Shave was uncertain as to how [Appellant] would act. Corporal Shave arrested [Appellant] for driving under the influence based upon his observations and experience, concluding that [Appellant] was under the influence of PCP and unfit to operate the vehicle.
Appellant timely appealed. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant complied, raising a single issue. Specifically, Appellant challenged the trial court's findings of fact rendered in support of its denial of his suppression motion. In response, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, concluding that Appellant's assertion of error did not merit relief.
Appellant challenged the trial court's legal conclusions only to the extent that they were based on findings of fact unsupported by the record.
On appeal, Appellant repeats the same argument. After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant's claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/27/16, at 5-10. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that Corporal Shave had probable cause to arrest Appellant for DUI when he observed Appellant's vehicle blocking a lane of traffic, smelled a strong odor of PCP, observed Appellant with a cigarette in his hand that emanated a smell of PCP, did not receive prompt responses to his questions, and observed Appellant crying. Therefore, Corporal Shave's subsequent inventory search of the car and the search of Appellant incident to arrest were valid. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's August 3, 2016 judgment of sentence. We further direct that a copy of the trial court's September 27, 2016 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
In reviewing appeals from an order denying suppression, our standard of review is limited to determining
whether [the trial court's] factual findings are supported by the record and whether [its] legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. When reviewing the rulings of a [trial] court, the appellate court considers only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. When the record supports the findings of the [trial] court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.Commonwealth v. Griffin , 116 A.3d 1139, 1142 (Pa. Super. 2015). Our scope of review is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. In the interest of L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1088-89 (Pa. 2013).
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/26/2017
Image materials not available for display.