Opinion
J-S11043-21 No. 758 WDA 2020
04-30-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DONTAE RAMONE PATRICK Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 19, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0000557-2019 BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Dontae Ramone Patrick, appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of four to nine years of confinement, which was imposed after his jury trial conviction for persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms ("possession of firearm prohibited"). We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, dated September 21, 2020, at 1-16. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which were denied on June 24, 2020. On July 22, 2020, Appellant filed this timely direct appeal. Appellant filed his statement of errors complained of on appeal on August 18, 2020. The trial court entered its opinion on September 21, 2020.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1.) Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying the Appellant, Dontae Patrick's, Pre-trial Motion to Suppress. The firearm seized as evidence in this case should have been suppressed due to the unreliability of the confidential informant and the materially defective affidavit of probable cause attached with the search warrant. Further, the aforementioned affidavit of probable cause was based on "stale" information. This "stale" information should have caused the Trial Court to find the search warrant to be unconstitutional.Appellant's Brief at 3.
2.) Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by overruling the Appellant's objection to the Commonwealth's peremptory strike of Potential Juror No. 1 - 105. The Appellant established, prima facially, that the circumstances of the peremptory strike inferred a strike based on race. The record does not reflect that the Commonwealth established a racially neutral reason for the aforementioned peremptory strike.
3.) Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by sustaining the Commonwealth's objection during trial relating to the Appellant's cross-examination of the arresting officer as that cross-examination pertained to missing witnesses.
4.) Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove the elements of Possession of [] Firearm Prohibited.
5.) Whether the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial.
We begin by considering our standards of review for each specific issue raised by Appellant. "In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, our role is to determine whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct." Commonwealth v. Yim , 195 A.3d 922, 926 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted).
"The decision whether to disqualify a venireman is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a palpable abuse of that discretion." Commonwealth v. Ingber , 531 A.2d 1101, 1103 (Pa. 1987) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Wiggins , No. 1668 EDA 2015, unpublished memorandum at 11-12 (Pa. Super. filed July 19, 2019) (en banc).
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(2) (effective May 1, 2019): "Non-precedential decisions . . . may be cited for their persuasive value."
"The determination of the scope and limits of cross-examination are within the discretion of the trial court, and we cannot reverse those findings absent a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law." Commonwealth v. Handfield , 34 A.3d 187, 210 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted).
This Court's standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is as follows:
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been
established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.
Commonwealth v. Izurieta , 171 A.3d 803, 806 (Pa. Super. 2017).
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez , 141 A.3d 523, 525 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Tarrach , 42 A.3d 342, 345 (Pa.Super. 2012)).
Finally, "[w]hen reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we review the trial court's exercise of discretion." Commonwealth v. Roane , 204 A.3d 998, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Mitchell P. Shahen, we conclude that Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those questions. See Trial Court Opinion, dated September 21, 2020, at 16-42 (finding: (1)(a) the facts averred in the affidavit of probable cause in the current case concerning the execution of the controlled buys are analogous to those in Commonwealth v. Dean , 693 A.2d 1360 (Pa. Super. 1997) (basis for search warrant was information supplied by a confidential informant who had made a controlled buy from the appellant less than 48 hours prior to the execution of the search warrant), and, since this Court found the confidential informant in Dean to be reliable, the informant in the current action must be found to be reliable as well; (b) based upon the totality of circumstances, the affidavit of probable cause set forth sufficient information to provide a substantial basis for the issuing authority to conclude that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant and that the warrant was not stale; (2) Appellant failed to make out a case of purposeful discrimination in the jury selection and the proper course of action in this instance was to deny the challenge under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (3) the trial court was justified in refusing to permit Appellant to continue to cross-examine the arresting officer with regard to SWAT team members who were present when the search warrant was executed and Appellant arrested, because counsel for the Appellant had made that same point and asked the same question with slightly different phrasing on a number of occasions; (4) viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that Appellant violated possession of firearm prohibited; and (5) the direct and circumstantial evidence was not so ambiguous and uncertain that the jury verdict somehow shocks the conscience, and Appellant has thus not demonstrated that the guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion. The parties are instructed to attach the opinion of the trial court in any filings referencing this Court's decision.
In Batson , the United States Supreme Court "upheld the constitutional limitations on a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to purposely exclude members of a defendant's race from participating as jurors." Commonwealth v. Dinwiddle , 542 A.2d 102, 104 (Pa. Super. 1998).
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/30/2021
Image materials not available for display.