Opinion
J-S03009-18 No. 1000 EDA 2016
04-16-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. DERRICK LEE JORDAN, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0006259-2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Derrick Lee Jordan, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 4-8 years' incarceration followed by 5 years' probation, following his conviction for aggravated assault, robbery of a motor vehicle, and related offenses. Herein, Appellant challenges the denial of his suppression motion, the denial of his motion to strike the jury panel without a hearing, the denial of his Batson challenge, and the trial court's admission of medical records evidence. After careful review, we affirm on the basis set forth in the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
See Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
The trial court thoroughly summarized the facts of this case in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion ("TCO"), 7/18/17, at 2-14. Briefly, Appellant called a cab driver, Victim, in the early morning hours of August 12, 2014. Id. at 2-3. When Victim informed Appellant that a deposit was required due to the distance to the requested destination, Appellant punched and stabbed Victim while saying, "die motherfucker." Id. at 3. After a brief struggle, Victim exited the cab through the driver's side window while it was still moving. Id. Appellant then drove away in the abandoned vehicle. Id. at 4.
Appellant quickly became a suspect when the police traced the phone call made to the cab company, and Victim soon thereafter identified him from a photo array. Id. at 5. The police immediately arrested Appellant and subjected him to a custodial interrogation. Id. at 5-6. The police read Appellant his Miranda warnings, and obtained his verbal consent to proceed with questioning. Id. at 6. However, on the written Miranda rights waiver colloquy, Appellant answered "no" to the following questions: "Do you understand your Constitutional Rights that were read and explained to you?" and "With these Constitutional Rights in mind, are you willing to talk with us and give us a voluntary statement?" Id. In Appellant's statement, he claimed to have acted in self-defense. Id. at 7.
See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with, inter alia, aggravated assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, robbery of a motor vehicle, simple assault, and possession of an instrument of crime., Appellant filed a motion seeking to suppress his statement to police on May 4, 2015. The trial court then promptly held a suppression hearing on May 29, 2015. The court denied Appellant's motion to suppress on June 30, 2015.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with numerous other crimes; however, the unlisted charges were either withdrawn, nolle prossed, or resulted in acquittal.
Appellant's three-day jury trial commenced on August 11, 2015. On August 13, 2015, the jury found Appellant guilty of all the aforementioned offenses. On November 10, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 4-8 years' incarceration and five years' consecutive probation for aggravated assault; 3-6 years' incarceration for robbery of a motor vehicle, concurrent to the term of incarceration imposed for aggravated assault, with a consecutive term of 5 years' probation; and 5 years' probation, concurrent to the term of probation imposed for aggravated assault, for possession of an instrument of crime. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on March 2, 2016. He then timely filed a notice of appeal on March 29, 2016.
Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the pre-trial suppression motion was erroneously denied[?]Appellant's Brief at 7.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to strike the jury panel based on the lack of a representative sample of African-Americans on the panel[?] It is Appellant's contention that the trial court should have scheduled the matter for a hearing.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's Batson/Johnson v. California challenge[?]
4. Whether the trial court erred where defense counsel objected to the medical records being admitted because the originally agreed upon stipulation did not comport with the stipulation the prosecutor drew up to be read at trial to the jury.
See Johnson v. California , 545 U.S. 162 (2005).
After a thorough review of the record, Appellant's brief, the applicable law, and the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal, and do so based on the reasons set forth in that opinion. See TCO at 23-24 (rejecting Appellant's first claim, concerning the denial of the motion to suppress his statement to the police); id. at 24-27 (rejecting Appellant's second and third claims, concerning matters that arose during jury selection); id. at 27-29 (rejecting Appellant's fourth claim, concerning the court's admission of medical records).
This section of the trial court's opinion is supplemented by the court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated June 30, 2015, which is also attached hereto immediately following the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/16/18
Image materials not available for display.