Opinion
J-S83036-17 No. 3032 EDA 2016
01-30-2018
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order September 16, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008677-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the suppression motion of Appellee, Jamual Overby., We affirm.
Appellant's first name is spelled variously throughout the certified record as both "Jamual" and "Jamaal."
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d), the Commonwealth has certified in its notice of appeal that the trial court's suppression order substantially handicapped or terminated the prosecution of the Commonwealth's case. Accordingly, this appeal is properly before us for review. See Commonwealth v. Cosnek , 575 Pa. 411, 421 836 A.2d 871, 877 (2003) (stating Rule 311(d) applies to pretrial ruling that results in suppression, preclusion or exclusion of Commonwealth's evidence). --------
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE, INCLUDING A FIREARM AND DRUGS FOUND IN THE MINIVAN [APPELLEE] WAS DRIVING, WHERE THE POLICE SAW SOME OF THE DRUGS IN PLAIN VIEW DURING A LAWFUL TRAFFIC STOP AND, THUS, HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VAN AND ARREST [APPELLEE]?(Commonwealth's Brief at 4).
Our scope and standard of review when the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order are as follows:
[T]his Court may consider only the evidence from the defendant's witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. In our review, we are not bound by the suppression court's conclusions of law, and we must determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. We defer to the suppression court's findings of fact because, as the finder of fact, it is the suppression court's prerogative to pass on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.Commonwealth v. Hudson , 92 A.3d 1235, 1241 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 630 Pa. 734, 106 A.3d 724 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Glynnis D. Hill, we conclude the Commonwealth's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed February 27, 2017, at 4-9) (finding: officers observed Appellee's vehicle had broken brake light, which justified lawful traffic stop; during stop, Officer Scott noticed Appellee had pocketknife tucked into his waistband and asked Appellee to step out of vehicle for officer safety; Officer Scott testified that he had no intent to arrest Appellee for possession of pocketknife; while Appellee exited vehicle, Officer Scott observed in plain view three loose pills in driver's side-door compartment; Officer Scott unequivocally testified that he could not immediately identify pills with any certainty as over-the-counter, prescription, legal, or illegal, based on appearance alone; Officer Scott did not know incriminating nature of pills until after he seized and inspected them, reported their description to poison control, and received confirmation that pills were contraband; absent probable cause or warrant, search of Appellant's vehicle was unconstitutional; all evidence recovered from illegal search was properly suppressed). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/30/2018
Image materials not available for display.