Opinion
J. S69025/16 No. 152 MDA 2016
10-19-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SIDNEY LAMONT WATERS APPELLANT
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001250-2015 BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Retired Senior Judge Assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Sidney Lamont Waters, appeals from the December 23, 2015 Judgment of Sentence of two concurrent terms of two to five years' incarceration imposed after the court found him guilty of one count each of Firearms not to be Carried without a License and Possession of a Firearm with Altered Manufacturer's Number., Appellant alleges specifically that the trial court erred when it denied his pre-trial suppression motion. After careful review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2, respectively.
The Commonwealth also charged Appellant with Possession of Marijuana, 35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(3), but did not present any evidence at trial in support of this charge. Accordingly, the trial court found Appellant not guilty of Possession of Marijuana.
The trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and complete narrative of the facts and procedural history in this case, which we adopt for purposes of our disposition. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/7/16, at 1-3, 5-9.
Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant's] motion to suppress, where police did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk [Appellant] initially, and therefore, any observations of the police after that or any evidence taken from [Appellant] should have been suppressed as the fruit of the illegal stop and frisk?Appellant's Brief at 4.
Our standard of review in an appeal from an order denying a Motion to Suppress is as follows:
Our 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, we are bound by these findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous.Commonwealth v. Jones , 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
A police officer may conduct an investigative detention, otherwise known as a Terry stop, of an individual if he or she has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Commonwealth v. Bryant , 866 A.2d 1143, 1146 (Pa. Super. 2005). That suspicion must be based on "specific, articulable facts" known to the officer at the time and "reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of the officer's experience." Commonwealth v. Jackson , 698 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa. 1997).
Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned Opinion of the trial court we conclude that the issue Appellant has raised on appeal lacks merit. The trial court Opinion properly disposes of the question presented. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3-5, 9-12 (concluding: (1) the officer reasonably suspected, based upon specific and articulable facts and the reasonable inferences drawn from those facts and their experience, that the three men he observed running in the street shortly before a dispatch for shots fired, and who were subsequently stopped by police were the same men involved in the shooting; (2) based on the temporal and spatial proximity to the area where shots were reportedly fired, the officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect that Appellant was armed; and (3) the search performed was limited to what was necessary to ensure officer safety, and the firearm was readily apparent). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion.
The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court's March 17, 2016 Opinion to all future filings.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/19/2016
Image materials not available for display.