From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Lashley

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 17, 2018
No. J-S05012-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018)

Opinion

J-S05012-18 No. 534 WDA 2017

04-17-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL ASFIELD LASHLEY Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 20, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0016003-2015 BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

Appellant, Michael Asfield Lashley, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on March 20, 2017, following his bench trial convictions for persons not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and six counts each of access device fraud and possessing an instrument of crime. On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion because there was no evidence "the police had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain [Appellant], remove him from his vehicle, frisk him, or arrest him[.]" Appellant's Brief at 3. We affirm.

18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105, 6106, 4106, and 907, respectively.

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court's denial of a suppression motion is

limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.

We may consider 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. Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts.

Moreover, it is within the lower court's province to pass on the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to be given to their testimony.

Furthermore, our Supreme Court clarified that the scope of review of orders granting or denying motions to suppress is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.
Commonwealth v. Williams , 176 A.3d 298, 315-316 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

We have reviewed the certified record, the parties' briefs, the relevant law, and the trial court's opinion entered on October 24, 2017. In this case, police were investigating claims of credit card fraud, which were in progress, at multiple GameStop electronic stores in Robinson Township, Pennsylvania. Appellant's co-defendant attempted to purchase a new game console and prepaid credit cards for gasoline with several fraudulent credit cards, while communicating with another person via text message. A store clerk provided video surveillance and a description of Appellant's co-defendant to police. Police proceeded to the parking lot of another nearby GameStop location shortly thereafter where they encountered Appellant sitting in the driver's seat of an out-of-state rental car. Police observed Appellant's co-defendant, whom they recognized from the clerk's description and the video surveillance, exit the GameStop and enter the vehicle operated by Appellant. The trial court found that these facts provided the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention of Appellant. Thereafter, Appellant admitted to police that he had an extensive criminal record and suggested there was illegal contraband in the vehicle. The trial court found these facts supported a protective frisk. Police asked Appellant to get out of the vehicle, noticed a small handgun in Appellant's front pocket, and arrested him. In the search incident to arrest, police recovered 21 fraudulent credit cards with Appellant's name on them. Based on the foregoing, the trial court denied suppression. We are bound by the undisputed evidence presented at the suppression hearing and conclude that there has been no error or abuse of discretion in this case. Because the October 24, 2017 opinion meticulously, thoroughly, and accurately disposes of Appellant's issue on appeal, we affirm it and adopt it as our own. Accordingly, we direct the parties to include the trial court's opinion in all future filings relating to our examination of the merits of this appeal, as expressed herein.

The trial court credited police testimony that individuals involved in credit card fraud typically utilize rental cars to engage in criminal misconduct.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/17/2018

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Lashley

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 17, 2018
No. J-S05012-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Lashley

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL ASFIELD LASHLEY Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 17, 2018

Citations

No. J-S05012-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018)