Opinion
No. 1877 C.D. 2010
06-05-2013
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. $2,720.00 Seized From Troy Blocker-Bey Appeal of: Troy Blocker-Bey
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT
On December 18, 2012, this Court remanded the above-captioned matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for preparation of a new opinion pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a). The trial court filed a Supplemental Opinion on January 30, 2013, in compliance with our order. Now ripe for disposition is the appeal of Troy Blocker-Bey from the trial court's order of June 7, 2010, which granted the Commonwealth's petition for forfeiture of $2,720 in cash under the act commonly known as the Controlled Substances Forfeitures Act (Forfeiture Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§6801-6802. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history as recited in the Court's previous opinion are as follows. Between December 2005 and March 2006, the Philadelphia Police Department investigated heroin sales originating from an apartment in the northeast section of the city. The investigation included three controlled buys, in which an undercover officer provided purchase money to a confidential source, who then called the supplier to purchase heroin. The informant consummated the transactions in one of two delivery cars and then turned the heroin over to police. Through surveillance the police determined that the rear first floor apartment at 4638 North Penn Street was the distribution point for the heroin.
On the afternoon of March 22, 2006, police officers executed a search warrant for the apartment and the two delivery vehicles. Blocker-Bey was stopped and searched when he left the apartment. The officers seized keys to the apartment, keys to the delivery cars, and $2,720 in cash that they found on Blocker-Bey. Inside the apartment, officers found 84 packets of heroin, two unloaded firearms, methadone pills, and "baggies" containing marijuana and crack cocaine. Blocker-Bey ultimately pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver; criminal conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs; and two counts of possessing a prohibited firearm. On April 26, 2007, the trial court sentenced Blocker-Bey to concurrent terms of four to eight years imprisonment for each conviction, which he did not appeal.
On September 22, 2009, Blocker-Bey, seeking the return of the $2,720 that had been seized from him at the time of his arrest, filed a pro se motion for return of property pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588. On December 4, 2009, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responded by filing a petition for forfeiture pursuant to the Forfeiture Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §6801(a)(6)(i), alleging that the money was forfeitable because it "was furnished or intended to be furnished in an illegal exchange for a controlled substance, is a proceed of such an exchange, and/or was used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Pennsylvania [Controlled] Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act." Petition for Forfeiture ¶3. The trial court conducted a "stipulated trial based on the paperwork" presented by the parties. Commonwealth's Brief at 5. Following this so-called "paperwork hearing," the trial court denied Blocker-Bey's motion for return of property, granted the Commonwealth's forfeiture petition, and ordered the money transferred to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office on June 7, 2010.
Rule 588 provides, in relevant part:
(A) A person aggrieved by a search and seizure, whether or not executed pursuant to a warrant, may move for the return of the property on the ground that he or she is entitled to lawful possession thereof. Such motion shall be filed in the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the property was seized.PA. R. CRIM. P. 588.
(B) The judge hearing such motion shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision thereon. If the motion is granted, the property shall be restored unless the court determines that such property is contraband, in which case the court may order the property to be forfeited.
Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, as amended, 35 P.S. §§780-101 - 780-144.
The trial court considered the Philadelphia Police Department's Arrest Report and Property Receipt, the Commonwealth's Petition for Forfeiture, Blocker-Bey's Motion for Return of Property and Blocker-Bey's Answers to Interrogatories.
Blocker-Bey appealed to the Superior Court. The trial court ordered Blocker-Bey to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). In his Rule 1925(b) Statement, Blocker-Bey asserted that the Commonwealth "failed to sustain its burden to prove that the $2,720.00 in cash seized during investigative stop of Appellant on the street was contraband subject to forfeiture, considering no criminal charges were filed in relation to seized cash and there was no other nexus between cash and any identifiable crime." PA. R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement at 1. Blocker-Bey framed the ultimate issue as "[w]hether the $2,720.00 that police seized from Appellant . . . should be returned to him. . . ." Id.
On August 6, 2010, the Superior Court transferred the appeal to this Court, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 751(a), which requires a court to transfer an improperly filed appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction.
Rule 1925(b) states, in relevant part:
If the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal ("judge") desires clarification of the errors complained of on appeal, the judge may enter an order directing the appellant to file of record in the trial court and serve on the judge a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal ("Statement").PA. R.A.P. 1925(b).
The trial court issued an opinion in support of its order pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained that it was unable to address the merits of Blocker-Bey's motion for return of property because he had not presented the motion either as a post-verdict motion or at sentencing. In support, the trial court cited Commonwealth v. Setzer, 392 A.2d 772 (Pa. Super. 1978), in which the Superior Court held that claims for return of property are waived if not raised during the criminal proceeding. The trial court offered no analysis or explanation for why it had granted the Commonwealth's forfeiture petition.
Rule 1925(a)(1) states, in relevant part:
[U]pon receipt of the notice of appeal, the judge who entered the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, if the reasons for the order do not already appear of record, shall forthwith file of record at least a brief opinion of the reasons for the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained of, or shall specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found.PA. R.A.P. 1925(a)(1).
In our previous opinion in this matter filed December 18, 2012, this Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of Blocker-Bey's motion for return of property under Pa. R.Crim.P. 588. In doing so, we applied Commonwealth v. Allen, 59 A.3d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), decided the same day, and held that Blocker-Bey's motion was timely because he had filed it within the applicable six-year statute of limitations in 42 Pa. C.S. §5527(b). Commonwealth v. $2,720 Seized From Troy Blocker-Bey (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1877 C.D. 2010, filed December 18, 2012), slip op. at 5-6. We remanded the matter to the trial court for a decision on the merits of Blocker-Bey's return motion and for issuance of an opinion in support of the trial court's order granting the Commonwealth's forfeiture petition. As noted, the trial court complied with our order by filing a Supplemental Opinion on January 30, 2013.
On appeal, Blocker-Bey argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove the requisite nexus between the $2,720 and illegal activity. He also contends that he was an innocent owner of the cash because he obtained it from legitimate sources.
This Court's review of the trial court's decision on a motion for the return of property is limited to examining whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed legal error. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 931 A.2d 781, 783 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). The same standard applies to the review of a trial court's decision on a forfeiture petition. Commonwealth v. $6,425.00 Seized From Esquilin, 583 Pa. 544, 554, 880 A.2d 523, 529 (2005). --------
Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments of the parties, we agree with the trial court that Blocker-Bey is not entitled to relief. Because the trial court accurately articulated and thoroughly analyzed the issues, this Court affirms its order on the basis of the well-reasoned Supplemental Opinion issued by the Honorable Frank Palumbo in Commonwealth v. $2,720 Seized From Troy Blocker-Bey (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Trial Division, No. CP-51-MD-0011016-2009, No. CP-51-MD-0013527-2009, filed January 30, 2013).
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2013 the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Trial Division, in the above-captioned matter, dated June 7, 2010, is AFFIRMED, for the reasons set forth in the Supplemental Opinion of the Honorable Frank Palumbo in Commonwealth v. $2,720 Seized From Troy Blocker-Bey (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Trial Division, No. CP-51-MD-0011016-2009, No. CP-51-MD-0013527-2009, filed January 30, 2013).
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge