Opinion
J-A05003-16 No. 2830 EDA 2014
04-14-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. BOHDAN CHAC, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of May 19, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008766-2012 BEFORE: OLSON AND OTT, JJ. and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Bohdan Chac, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on May 19, 2014, as made final by the denial of Appellant's post-sentence motion on September 29, 2014. We affirm.
The able trial court has thoroughly summarized the evidence that was presented during Appellant's jury trial. As the trial court explained:
On May 6, 2012, at around 10:00 p.m., [Appellant] shot and killed Linda Raudenbush as she came down the stairs from the second floor of 3302 Fairdale Road in Philadelphia. [Appellant] shared this residence with Ms. Raudenbush, his common-law wife, and their [26-year-old] son, David Chac. In November 2011, [18-year-old] Sara Ayyash moved into this residence as [Appellant's] girlfriend against the wishes of her mother, Angela Garland. Ms. Ayyash had been communicating with [Appellant] on Facebook since May 2010. At that time, [Appellant] was around [55] years old and Ms. Ayyash was [16] years old. Their relationship turned sexual in November 2010 when Ms. Ayyash began to electronically send [Appellant] pornographic photographs and videos. [Appellant] was partially paralyzed and Ms.
Ayyash helped care for him during the period they lived together.
During the period she lived with [Appellant], Ms. Ayyash was permitted to visit her mother about three [or] four times. In fact, she had visited her mother the weekend before the murder. On May 6, 2012[,] Ms. Ayyash returned to [Appellant's] residence and found him and Ms. Raudenbush in the middle of an argument. At some point[,] Ms. Ayyash got involved in the argument and threw a book at [Appellant] after he insulted her. When Ms. Ayyash approached [Appellant], he pulled her hair. Ms. Raudenbush then approached [Appellant] and bit his foot. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ayyash and Ms. Raudenbush retreated upstairs. Later, Ms. Raudenbush went back downstairs to continue the argument. When Ms. Raudenbush reached the bottom of the stairs, she leaned toward [Appellant] and yelled at him. In response, [Appellant] sat upright in his hospital bed, extended his right arm, pointed his gun at Ms. Raudenbush and shot her in the left chest. Ms. Raudenbush fell forward on the stairs.
On May 6, 2012, at about 10:22 p.m., Police Officer Robert Francisco responded to a radio call about a person screaming at 3302 Fairdale Road. Within minutes, Officer Francisco arrived on location and encountered Rowena Wolfe-Paupst, who had called 911 after observing Ms. Ayyash waiving a white rag from inside the second floor bedroom window of the residence. Officer Francisco exited the vehicle, looked up at the window and saw Ms. Ayyash screaming and waiving the white rag. He attempted to communicate with Ms. Ayyash while she was in the window, but he could not understand her responses. Given the apparent urgency, Officer Francisco opened the unlocked front door and went inside. He announced his presence as he walked into the hallway, but did not receive any response.
As Officer Francisco continued to walk down the hallway[,] he saw [Appellant] who was sitting upright in his hospital bed inside the living room, wearing a green Phillies T-shirt. Officer Francisco stated: "[t]here is a woman waving a rag upstairs at the window for help. What's going on here?" [Appellant] stated that he did not know what happened
because he had been asleep. Once inside the living room, Officer Francisco saw the deceased, Ms. Raudenbush, lying on the stairs with blood all over the front of her dress. Ms. Raudenbush's body was at the bottom of the stairs leading to the second floor, about five or six feet away from [Appellant's] bed. Her feet were touching the stairs, and her upper body was wedged between the wall and a second hospital bed which was covered with clutter. Officer Francisco immediately called rescue.
Officer Francisco then saw Ms. Ayyash standing at the top of the stairs and asked her to come downstairs to tell him what happened. She replied that the victim shot herself. Ms. Ayyash told Officer Francisco that she did not see Ms. Raudenbush shoot herself, but that she had heard the gunshots. Officer Francisco then asked Ms. Ayyash why she had not called [the] police, and she replied that she was too scared to call. Later, when Detective Gross responded to the scene and asked Ms. Ayyash if she had heard gunshots, she told him no. Officer Francisco then confronted Ms. Ayyash about this inconsistency, and she responded that she did hear gunshots. Immediately after Ms. Ayyash's reply, [Appellant] said: "[y]ou didn't hear a gunshot. I had the movie Scarface on and that's what you heard. You didn't hear any gunshot." Officer Francisco again asked [Appellant] if he had heard or seen anything and [Appellant] cavalierly responded: "[n]o, I don't know anything about it." [Appellant's] son was not home and Officer Francisco did not see anyone else inside the house. At trial, Detective Joseph McDermott, the assigned homicide investigator, stated that a video obtained from a Rite Aid store located at Academy Avenue and Byberry Road showed the son entering [the Rite Aid] at 9:53 p.m. and exiting at 10:02 or 10:06 p.m. Detective McDermott [testified] that David Chac then walked "quite a distance" to return home.
When the medics arrived to care for the victim, Officer Francisco observed a black gun, later identified as a CZ75 [nine-millimeter] semi-automatic black pistol, lying upside down on the second hospital bed on the room. Officer Francisco secured the gun while Ms. Raudenbush received medical attention. The gun was later submitted to the Firearms Identification Unit for examination. . . .
At 10:45 p.m., Linda Raudenbush was pronounced dead inside the residence. At trial, Dr. Marlon Osbourne testified as an expert in forensic pathology. After performing an autopsy on the victim's body, Dr. Osbourne concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the cause of death was one gunshot wound to the chest. The bullet perforated Ms. Raudenbush's left lung, heart, and aorta. The bullet entered her left chest cavity and fractured her fourth and fifth rib anteriorly. The bullet then lacerated the upper lobe of her left lung and traveled through the left ventricle of her heart. The bullet further lacerated her thoracic aorta and traveled into her eighth thoracic vertebra, where a fragment was retrieved. There was no exit wound on her body. Due to these injuries, Ms. Raudenbush was bleeding internally and she had one liter of clotted and liquid blood inside her left chest cavity.
After performing the autopsy, Dr. Osbourne further concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the manner of death was homicide, and not suicide or accident. Dr. Osbourne opined that the path of the bullet in the victim's body was consistent with testimony that the victim went to the bottom of the stairs and leaned over toward [Appellant] before she was shot. Dr. Osbourne also observed that the gunshot wound was an irregular ovoid shape and had no soot, stipple[,] or muzzle imprint around it. He explained that soot, a black stain, is present when the muzzle of a gun is within six inches to one foot from the victim's body. Stipple, an abrasion on the skin or hole in the clothing, is present when the muzzle of the gun is within two and one-half to three feet from the victim's body. A muzzle imprint is present once a gun has been pressed against the victim's skin. Because there was no soot, stipple[,] or muzzle imprint around Ms. Raudenbush's gunshot wound, Dr. Osbourne concluded that the muzzle of the gun was farther than two and one-half to three feet away from the victim because one or all three of these indicators would have been present had the victim committed suicide. For these reasons, Dr. Osbourne concluded that a suicide had not occurred in this case.
During the autopsy, Dr. Osbourne performed a toxicology test on Ms. Raudenbush and discovered 70 micrograms per deciliter of ethanol, less than 50 micrograms per liter of
codeine, and less than 30 micrograms per liter of alprazolam (Xanax). Dr. Osbourne found that the alcohol in the victim's body was less than the legal driving limit and that the levels of alprazolam and codeine were minimal. Consequently, Dr. Osbourne concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the drugs and alcohol found in Ms. Raudenbush's body did not contribute to her death.
On May 7, 2012, at about 7:00 a.m., Police Officer Terry Tull arrived at the crime scene and began to take photographs. When Officer Tull went inside the residence, he encountered a cluttered living room containing two hospital beds. [Appellant] was sitting on one hospital bed, about seven feet away from the foot of the stairs where the victim's body was located. The other hospital bed was covered with clutter. Ms. Raudenbush's body had been slightly repositioned by responding medics who had attempted to resuscitate the victim. The dining room was impassable because it was piled high with clutter. Officer Tull further observed two bullet holes in the first floor ceiling of the main hallway that led to the living room. Given the cluttered state of [Appellant's] house, Officer Tull used trajectory probes to determine the path the bullets traveled. Based on his training and experience, Officer Tull determined that the trajectory probes pointed toward [Appellant's] bed. As a result, Officer Tull concluded that the gun was fired from [Appellant's] bed.
A search warrant was obtained for the residence. However, both Ms. Ayyash and David Chac, who arrived at some point after the murder, were transported to Northeast Detectives to be interviewed before it was executed. [Appellant] was transported to Aria Torresdale Hospital due to his medical condition. Before [Appellant] was transported to the hospital, Detective John Hopkins retrieved the green Phillies T-shirt and the red shorts that [Appellant] had worn on the day of the murder. These items were bagged separately and submitted to the forensics laboratory for gunshot reside testing. After [Appellant] was transported to the hospital, Detective Hopkins recovered one blue comforter, two bed sheets, and one pillow from [Appellant's home] hospital bed. These items were bagged separately and submitted to the forensics laboratory for gunshot residue testing. He also recovered a black Action Arms pistol case for the CZ75
[nine-millimeter] pistol and one metal magazine containing a [nine-millimeter] round. Officer Tull then moved [Appellant's] bed and the surrounding clutter and began to search for projectiles. Officer Tull found three fired cartridge casings under the rear of [Appellant's] bed. Two of the fired cartridge casings were about one and one-half feet apart from each other. No other fired cartridge casings were recovered from the residence.
On May 7, 2012, at 11:54 a.m., Detective Tim Lynch interviewed [Appellant] while he was inside an emergency room treatment cubicle. Detective Hopkins and Sergeant Hendershot were also present. During this interview, [Appellant] appeared alert and answered the detective's questions. He did not appear to be under the influence of drugs. After the interview, Detective Lynch provided [Appellant] the opportunity to review the written statement. However, [Appellant] refused to sign the statement. . . .
On May 14, 2012, at 11:50 a.m., Detective McDermott interviewed [Appellant] inside his residence. Although [Appellant] was not under arrest, [] Detective McDermott read him his [ Miranda ] rights. [Appellant] indicated that he understood the warnings. He also appeared coherent, alert, and able to understand English. [Appellant] did not
state at any point during this interview that he wished to invoke his right to a lawyer or right of silence. When the detectives first arrived at the residence, [Appellant] paid them no attention. Instead, [Appellant] used his computer until he was asked to focus on the interview. While [Appellant] used his computer, Detective McDermott observed that [Appellant] had full use of the right side of his body. He moved the computer mouse and wrote inside a notepad with his right hand and pulled himself upright with his right arm. [Appellant] also used his right hand when he pointed and told Detective McDermott where he kept his gun. During the interview, [Appellant] closed his eyes when he was asked about the murder. He also had no explanation for the bullet holes in the ceiling. Conversely, [Appellant] responded to questions pertaining to what occurred before and after the murder. Detective McDermott interviewed [Appellant] for about one hour. When Detective McDermott returned to his office, he memorialized this interview in a memorandum. During the informal
interview, [Appellant] denied the detective's request to submit to a formal interview.
Ms. Ayyash provided five different statements to police concerning this incident. On May 7, 2012, at 3:00 p.m., Ms. Ayyash was interviewed by Detective Lynch at Northeast Detectives. In that statement, Ms. Ayyash asserted that she did not know what happened and that she did not hear anything. During that interview, the detectives confiscated Ms. Ayyash's gray short sleeve T-shirt, sweatpants, and underwear. These items were bagged separately and submitted for gunshot residue testing. On that same day, at 2:30 p.m., Ms. Ayyash was interviewed a second time by Detective Lynch. In that statement, Ms. Ayyash told Detective Lynch about the argument that occurred before the shooting. Ms. Ayyash also told Detective Lynch that she heard two "quick pops" after Ms. Raudenbush went down the stairs. Ms. Ayyash stated that she was at the top of the stairs when she heard this noise. Ms. Ayyash also stated that she asked [Appellant] "What did you do?" after observing the decedent half standing and half slumped at the base of the stairs. She told Detective Lynch that [Appellant] stated to her: "Shut the fuck up." In response, she told [Appellant] that she would not say anything and asked him why he did it. She then ran into a bedroom, shut the door and waved the white rag out of the second floor window for help.
At 6:55 p.m., Ms. Ayyash gave a third statement. During this interview, she provided details about her relationship with [Appellant] and identified [Appellant] from a photograph. On May 17, 2012, at 2:50 p.m., Ms. Ayyash gave a fourth statement to Detective McDermott, and Detective (now Sergeant) Vince Rodden. After being shown a photograph from the crime scene, Ms. Ayyash marked "X" where [Appellant] normally kept his semi-automatic gun and marked "G" where [Appellant's] gun was found after the shooting. On October 26, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., Ms. Ayyash gave a fifth statement to Detective McDermott. In that statement, Ms. Ayyash said that she saw sparks fly from the gun. On July 25, 2012[,] Ms. Ayyash testified at [Appellant's] preliminary hearing that she and Ms. Raudenbush drank alcohol after they retreated upstairs following the argument. At trial, Ms. Ayyash stated for the
first time that she saw [Appellant's] arm extended before hearing gunshots and seeing Ms. Raudenbush fall forward on the stairs. She also stated that [Appellant] threatened her when she was at the top of the stairs, telling her that she was next. Ms. Ayyash explained that she had received counseling after providing the detectives her statements and testifying at the preliminary hearing and that she now wanted to "tell the whole truth."
At trial, Police Officer Ronald Weitman testified as an expert in firearms and ballistics testing. He received the ballistics evidence and prepared a report after conducting an examination. The CZ75 semi-automatic [nine-millimeter] Luger gun contained 12 live [nine-millimeter] Luger cartridges inside even though it had the capacity to hold [17] cartridges. In addition to confirming the gun's operability, Officer Weitman found that it loudly fired bullets in close quarters. Officer Weitman also received the three [nine-millimeter] Luger fired cartridge casings expelled from the CZ75 gun when it was test-fired. He found that the fired cartridge casings were similar to each other. He also discovered that the fired cartridge casings ejected to the right and to the rear when the gun was fired. After analyzing this evidence, Officer Weitman concluded to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the three fired cartridge casings recovered from [Appellant's] residence were fired from the CZ75 semi-automatic gun.
Officer Weitman further concluded to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the ballistics evidence was consistent with testimony that [Appellant] extended his right hand, held the gun, and shot the victim. Officer Weitman based his conclusion on the trajectory probes that pointed toward [Appellant's] bed, the location of the three fired cartridge casings found behind [Appellant's] bed, and the way that the fired cartridge casings ejected from the gun. Officer Weitman further opined that the fired cartridge casings would have been found within the area of the body if the killing had been self-inflicted.
Officer Weitman also received the bullet jacket fragment and fragment pieces that the medical examiner retrieved from Ms. Raudenbush's body. Officer Weitman opined that a bullet can fragment when it penetrates two hard ribs.
Although the bullet jacket was torn, Officer Weitman was still able to determine that it was [nine-millimeter] because the base diameter was intact. After comparing the bullet jacket fragment to the recovered fired cartridge casings, Officer Weitman concluded that the bullet jacket had been fired from the same gun because they had the same projectile design. On June 13, 2012, Officer Tull manually examined the CZ75 gun and found no fingerprints. Although the gun was not submitted for DNA testing, [Appellant] admitted his ownership of the weapon to the police.
At trial, Gamal Emira testified as an expert in gunshot residue testing and forensic science. Mr. Emira reviewed the criminalistics report prepared by Francis Padayatty, who received and examined [Appellant's] green Phillies short sleeve T-shirt, one blue twin comforter, one light blue bed sheet, one yellow bed sheet, and one pillow. These items were stubbed and a scanning electron microscope was used to search for gunshot residue particles on the bedding and the clothing. A stub is aluminum, rounded and covered with double-sided carbon tape, which easily transfers any particle from a garment. The scanning electron microscope uses an electron beam and magnifies each particle up to 100,000 times. Mr. Emira explained that the presence of gunshot residue particles on a person's clothing indicated either that the person fired the gun, that the person was within six or seven feet of the fired gun, or that the person touched a surface covered with gunshot residue particles.
[Appellant's] T-shirt was stubbed four times. The first stub from the front right sleeve contained nine gunshot residue particles. The second stub from the back right sleeve contained [13] gunshot residue particles. The third stub from the front left sleeve contained eight gunshot residue particles. The fourth stub from the rear left sleeve contained eight gunshot residue particles. [Appellant's] shorts were not tested. The stub from [Appellant's] comforter contained one particle. The stub from [Appellant's] light blue bed sheet contained nine gunshot residue particles. The stub from [Appellant's] yellow bed sheet contained two gunshot residue particles. The stub from [Appellant's] pillow contained one particle. Ms. Ayyash's T-shirt was also examined and stubbed four times.
The first stub from the front right sleeve of the T-shirt contained four particles. The second stub from the rear right sleeve contained six particles. The third stub from the left front sleeve contained [12] particles. The fourth stub from the left rear sleeve contained six particles. Because the gunshot residue particles were discovered on the T-shirt, the other two items retrieved from Ms. Ayyash were not tested for gunshot residue particles.
Mr. Emira noted that it is more reliable to test someone's clothing rather than their hands. He explained that gunshot residue particles remain on clothing longer than a person's hands. The gunshot residue particles can be easily removed from a person's hands if the person wipes their hands on themselves, on another person or on a surface[,] or if the person sweats. A person's hands could be tested for the presence of gunshot residue particles only if they were immediately covered with an evidence bag. However, if the recovered clothing is properly stored in an evidence bag, then it can be submitted to the forensics laboratory for later analysis because the gunshot residue particles will not disappear.
Mr. Emira opined that the presence of gunshot residue particles on [Appellant's] bedding and clothing was consistent with testimony that [Appellant] fired a gun from his hospital bed. Mr. Emira noted that gunshot residue particles could be found within seven feet from where the shooting occurred. Mr. Emira further opined that the presence of gunshot residue particles on Ms. Ayyash's T-shirt was consistent with testimony that Ms. Ayyash came downstairs after the shooting, stepped over the victim's body, sat at the foot of [Appellant's] bed, and touched [Appellant]. Mr. Emira explained that a person can easily transfer gunshot residue particles to another person by touching the person or the person's clothing. Mr. Emira made these conclusions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.
On May 24, 2012, [Appellant] was arrested. On June 5, 2012, Detective McDermott executed a search warrant on the computers inside [Appellant's] house and submitted them to the forensics laboratory for examination. The forensics laboratory discovered that [Appellant's] computer
hard drive contained pornographic videos sent from Ms. Ayyash.Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/15, at 1-14 (some internal citations omitted).
. . .
On May 13, 2014, [the trial court] heard a motion to suppress [Appellant's] statements and denied same. Thereafter, on May 19, 2014, the jury [found Appellant guilty of] first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime [(hereinafter "PIC")]. On that same day, [Appellant] was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
On May 7, 2014, the following questions were asked by Detective Lynch and answered by [Appellant]:
Detective Lynch: What happened last night in your home?[N.T. Trial, 5/14/14, at 146-150 (some internal brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth's Exhibit 27].
[Appellant]: Sara got home around 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. My wife tried to grab some of my pills. It was some of my Ambien and my Tylenol 4. I was getting a bath from my son at that time. She came to get the pills and I pushed her away with my right foot. She bit my foot. My son told her to go away. She went upstairs. She had hit me in the face with something. After she left I noticed that I had a bloody nose. I yelled up to her that I was going to act on a letter that I got from the 8th District. The letter said the police knew I was being abused. I also told her I was going to call the [D.A.] I took [two] Xanax [and] an Ambien. I tried to get YouTube on to put me to sleep. I just woke up a while later. I noticed a Scarface clip was playing and music playing. I was trying to go back to sleep. I got woken up by a police officer who was knocking and he came in. Before I fell asleep I sent my son to Rite Aid. I had [two] guns near me when I went to sleep. As far as I know neither had bullets in them. I took the bullets out.
Detective Lynch: Which guns did you unload?
[Appellant]: Smith [and] Wesson Bodyguard .38 (snub nose, shroud hammer, nickel, brown wood handle) C[Z]75 []9mm (black auto).
Detective Lynch: Did you unload the guns yourself?
[Appellant]: Around [two] weeks ago I pulled out the clip of the CZ75. If I felt danger at night sometimes I put the clip back in.
Detective Lynch: Are you able to unload the gun and clear the chamber by yourself?
[Appellant]: I can unload it, but not clear the chamber. My left hand doesn't work.
Detective Lynch: Was the CZ75 loaded last night?
[Appellant]: I thought it was unloaded. It's possible I may have put the clip in [two] days ago.
Detective Lynch: When was the last time you saw Linda alive?
[Appellant]: When she went upstairs.
Detective Lynch: What time was that?
[Appellant]: Early evening. I'm not sure.
Detective Lynch: Where did you put the CZ75 magazine when you remember taking it out?
[Appellant]: On the left of the bed. Down in a drawer thing.
Detective Lynch: Where was the CZ75?
[Appellant]: In a box on my right side on the bed next to me.
Detective Lynch: Was it within reach?
[Appellant]: Yes.
Detective Lynch: Did you hear any gunshots last night?
[Appellant]: Yes. When I woke up I heard them on YouTube. There were a lot of shots at the end of the movie.
Detective Lynch: How do you think Linda was shot?
[Appellant]: I have no idea. I don't know if someone came in and tried to shoot her and maybe she got shot.
Detective Lynch: Did you fire your CZ75 last night?
[Appellant]: No.
Detective Lynch: When was the last time you did fire a gun?
[Appellant]: Years ago.
Detective Lynch: Is there anything else that you want to add?
[Appellant]: No.
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Detective McDermott summarized [Appellant's] account of what happened before the incident:
He had said that him and Linda were fighting all day, and that Linda and Sara went upstairs. And then he used to keep his CZ pistol next to him for protection. And then next thing he remembers was the police waking him up. He doesn't know - the police officer says there is a woman laying over here. This is what the police officer - I don't think that's in here - that the police officer woke him up and said something about a woman laying there, and he couldn't see over there.[N.T. Trial, 5/15/14, at 119-120; see also Commonwealth's Exhibit 29].
Then I said something about Sara saying something about him hollering up. That's when he closed his eyes. Then he was saying about the Scarface movie being on, and he doesn't remember how it got on, and that must have been the gunshots. Then I asked him about the bullet holes that were in the ceiling and he didn't know nothing about that.
The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve a concurrent term of two-and-a-half to five years in prison for PIC.
Following the denial of Appellant's post-sentence motion, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises four claims on appeal:
1. Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant's] motion to suppress his statement given on May 7, 2012 because (1) he was in custody and interrogated without Miranda warnings when he was transported to and held in the hospital at police direction, then surrounded by police, heavily medicated, and not permitted to leave; and (2) the statement was not voluntary as he was medicated, not able to leave, exhausted, and was viewed and treated as a suspect?
2. Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress [Appellant's] statement given to police on May 14, 2012 because both the statement and the waiver of his Miranda rights were involuntary as the conditions surrounding the interrogation showed he was medicated, treated like a suspect, unable to leave, and had already been coerced to provide an earlier involuntary and un- Mirandized statement?
3. Was the verdict of first degree murder against the weight of the evidence where the Commonwealth's primary witness gave separate and significantly conflicting statements, had gun powder residue on her shirt, the firearm was found in a position in which [Appellant] was incapable of leaving it, and none of the other evidence presented by the Commonwealth established [Appellant's] guilt?Appellant's Brief at 5.
4. Where the undisputed evidence established that the decedent attacked, stole from and injured the [Appellant] over the course of a mostly uninterrupted violent fight and initiated the final confrontation, was the evidence insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of first degree murder rather than a voluntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Sandy L. V. Byrd. We conclude that there has been no error in this case and that Judge Byrd's opinion, entered on June 26, 2015, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Byrd's opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filings with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/14/2016
Image materials not available for display.