From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Orr

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 22, 2016
No. 825 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 22, 2016)

Opinion

J-S08011-16 No. 825 WDA 2015

09-22-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL VINCENT ORR Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No: CP-26-CR-0001708-2014 BEFORE: STABILE, DUBOW, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:

Appellant, Michael Orr, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County following Appellant's conviction for persons not to possess firearms and firearms not to be carried without a license. Upon review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the background of the case as follows.

On May 24, 2014, at approximately 1:29 A.M., Pennsylvania State trooper Adam Janosko and Trooper Patrick Biddle were on patrol in full uniform and driving a marked police vehicle when they observed a white Ford Escort station wagon parked in the Park Memorial Cemetery, on Coolspring Street, North Union Township, Fayette County. Trooper Janosko made contact with the driver of the vehicle, and determined that Appellant was the driver. Trooper Janosko observed that Appellant's eyes were bloodshot, his pupils were dilated, he was
overly anxious and nervous, had rapid body movements and confused speech. When Trooper Janosko asked Appellant why he was in the cemetery at that time, Appellant stated that he was attempting to turn around. Trooper Janosko observed a burnt crochet needle, and he communicated to Appellant that such an object was commonly used for drug use. Appellant stated that he had been smoking crack out of an empty "Mountain Dew" soda can and directed Trooper Janosko to the location of the can in the back of Appellant's vehicle. A further search of Appellant's vehicle led to the discovery and seizure of a .25 caliber Phoenix Arms pistol, syringes and a pill marked 2064 over "V", as well as the "Mountain Dew" can allegedly used by Appellant to smoke crack.
Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 8/21/15, at 1-2. Additionally, Appellant attempted to justify the presence of the firearm in his vehicle, claiming that he placed it in his glove box to hide it from his cousin who had been brandishing the weapon at work while intoxicated. N.T. Jury Trial, 4/8-9/15, at 64-65. Knowing that he was not supposed to possess a firearm, Appellant directed the troopers' attention to the aforementioned drug paraphernalia to attempt to "lure" them away from the firearm in the glove box. Id. at 68.

Appellant filed a pretrial omnibus motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, to suppress evidence, and as a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied Appellant's pretrial motion, "finding that physical evidence was properly seized from [Appellant's] vehicle, the statements made by Appellant prior to being Mirandized were spontaneous and without custodial interrogation, and the Commonwealth sufficiently established a prima facie case for the charges brought against Appellant." T.C.O., 8/21/15, at 3.

Following trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of persons not to possess firearms and firearms not to be carried without a license. Id. at 1. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Appellant timely appealed. Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises three issues for our review.

1) Whether the evidence presented at trial sufficiently established that the defendant possessed or controlled the firearm?

2) Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's post-sentence motion for a new trial as the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

3) Did the suppression court err in denying defendant's omnibus pre-trial motion in the nature of a motion to dismiss; motion to suppress physical evidence and statements; and a writ of habeas corpus?
Appellant's Brief at 7.

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we determine "whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Stevenson , 894 A.2d 759, 773 (Pa. Super. 2006). "[W]here the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim." Commonwealth v. Sanders , 42 A.3d 325, 331 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). "In reviewing appeals from an order denying suppression, our standard of review is limited to determining whether [the trial court's] factual findings are supported by the record and whether [its] legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. When reviewing the rulings of a [trial] court, the appellate court considers 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. When the record supports the findings of the [trial] court, [we are] bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Commonwealth v. Frederick , 124 A.3d 748, 753-54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). Our scope of review from a suppression ruling is limited to the evidentiary record that was created at the suppression hearing. In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1087 (Pa. 2013). In evaluating a trial court's decision regarding a pre-trial habeas corpus motion, our standard of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Dantzler , --- A.3d ---, No. 681 EDA 2014, 2016 WL 910149, at *2 (Pa. Super. Mar. 9, 2016).

After careful review of the parties' briefs, the record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion, authored by Judge Linda R. Cordaro, thoroughly and adequately disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. See T.C.O., 8/21/15, at 3-13. We, therefore, affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence. We direct that a copy of the trial court's August 21, 2015 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.

We note the trial court relied on pre Commonwealth v. Gary , 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) cases for the definition and identification of the elements of the "limited automobile exception," which required both probable cause and exigent circumstances for a warrantless search of a vehicle. However, as also acknowledged by the trial court later in its opinion, in Gary , the Supreme Court abolished the exigency prerequisite in the context of the automobile exception. T.C.O., 8/21/15, at 8 (quoting Gary , 91 A.3d 102, 138 (Pa. 2014)) ("[t]he prerequisite for a warrantless search [or seizure] of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search; no exigency beyond the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle is required.").

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/22/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Orr

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 22, 2016
No. 825 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 22, 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Orr

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL VINCENT ORR Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 22, 2016

Citations

No. 825 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 22, 2016)