Opinion
J-S59012-17 No. 710 EDA 2017
12-01-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JUSTIN E. TAYLOR, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 18, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0006515-2016 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellant, Justin E. Taylor, appeals from the judgment of sentence of a $500 fine, imposed following his conviction for possession of small amount of marijuana. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the seized physical evidence. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the operative facts of this case as follows:
On July 5, 2016 Officer Michael Taylor and Officer Garay of the Upper Darby Police Department were working as tactical narcotics officers patrolling the area of 2020 Garrett Road in Upper Darby. N.T.[,] 1/18/17[, at] 5-6. Complaints about marijuana usage in the parking garage of this apartment complex led the officers to park their vehicle and patrol the area on foot. Id. at 7, 23. Officer Taylor testified credibly that as they were walking through an alley that led to the parking
garage he saw [Appellant] exit the apartment complex with his head down holding what the officer believed to be a "marijuana cigar" between his fingers. At the same time Officer Taylor detected the strong odor of marijuana. Id. at 7-8. [Appellant] was, at this point, about twenty feet away from the officers. Id. at 9-10. Officer Taylor observed that [Appellant] looked up and "cupped" his hand when he saw the police officers, thereby concealing the cigar within his hand. Id. at 9-11.Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 4/3/17, at 3-4.
The officers continued to approach [Appellant] and Officer Taylor asked, "What's that?" [Appellant] replied, "it's just a little bit of weed." Id. at 12. Officer Taylor asked [Appellant] for the cigar and he handed it over. He was then handcuffed and arrested. In a search incident to the arrest[,] Officer Taylor found a grinder and a bag of marijuana in a backpack that [Appellant] was carrying. Id. at 12. Before the inquiry that led to [Appellant]'s admission[,] the officers did not ask [Appellant] to stop, they did not ask him to come to them and they did not impede[] his progress or obstruct his path. Id. at 12.
Aspects of [Appellant]'s testimony added credibility to Officer Taylor's testimony. [Appellant] testified that he was surprised when he came upon the officers in the alleyway and that he had been walking along with the "marijuana cigar" in his hand. When he saw the officers he hid it from view by cupping it in his hands. See id. at 38-44. [Appellant] testified that during the initial interaction he was not told that he was under arrest and that the officers did not threaten or yell at him. Guns were not displayed. Id. at 42-43. He maintained that he was immediately stopped and was not free to leave. Id. at 41. He admitted[,] however, that he was not arrested and searched incident to that arrest until after he admitted that he was holding "weed." Id. at 42.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with possession of a small amount of marijuana (PSAM), 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(31), and possession of drug paraphernalia, 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(32), the latter of which was subsequently withdrawn. Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion on November 28, 2016, in which he sought, inter alia, suppression of the seized contraband. Appellant filed a supplemental suppression motion on January 9, 2017, and a suppression hearing was held on January 18, 2017. After denying the motion to suppress, the trial court immediately proceeded to a stipulated, non-jury trial, where the court found Appellant guilty of PSAM and ordered him to pay a $500 fine. No other penalties were imposed.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued is Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 3, 2017. Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
I. Did the lower court err by refusing to suppress the physical evidence obtained when the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop, search or detain Defendant without warrant?Appellant's Brief at 6.
II. Did the lower court err by refusing to suppress the physical evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant whose Affidavit of Probable Cause lacked sufficient information to establish probable cause on its face?
III. Did the lower court err by refusing to suppress the physical evidence where the court considered information outside of the affidavit in support of the search warrant to justify a finding of probable cause?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P. Bradley, we conclude Appellant's claims merit no relief. In its opinion, the trial court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the issues presented. See TCO at 4-7. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/1/2017
Image materials not available for display.