Com. v. Taylor, T. ( 2015 )

J. S64015/15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
TIAMAK McLEAN TAYLOR, : No. 629 MDA 2015
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, March 10, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No. CP-22-CR-0004897-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT AND FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 06, 2015
Tiamak McLean Taylor appeals from the judgment of sentence of
March 10, 2015, following his conviction of possession with intent to deliver
a controlled substance and paraphernalia.1 We affirm.
The trial court provided the following relevant facts:
On the evening of August 1, 2014, patrol officer
Daniel Antoni (“Officer Antoni”) of the Harrisburg
Bureau of Police (“HBP”) was dispatched to
1535 Hunter Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania where
he met Parole Agents Mary Persing, Peter Hans,
Joe Mullen and David Harris. The parole agents had
been at that location searching for Latsha Ross, a
parolee wanted for parole violations. Ms. Ross was
not found but, heroin was found and seized which is
the reason Officer Antoni was dispatched for
assistance. The roommate/ex-girlfriend of Ms. Ross
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113(a)(30) & (32), respectively.
J. S64015/15
said the heroin found in the house was located where
she had been sitting before leaving the residence.
The roommate provided a description of Ms. Ross
and indicated that she may possibly be at Queenies
Bar on the 1500 block of Swatara Street, Harrisburg.
Officer Antoni and a parole agent spoke to Ross on
the phone; however, she refused to return to the
residence and stated she would not cooperate with
them any longer.
Officer Antoni and the parole agents proceeded
to Queenies in an attempt to find Ms. Ross. Parole
Agent [Mullen] spotted a female matching Ms. Ross’
description at South 14th and Swatara Streets, which
location was visible from Queenies [B]ar. As they
pursued the female they believed to be Ms. Ross,
Parole Agent [Mullen] saw her run into a house at
332 South 14th Street. Officer Antoni and the agents
arrived at the house, covered the back and front
doors but[] no one ran out of the residence.
Individuals on the porch of 332 South 14th Street
told Officer Antoni that the person described ran into
the house and up to the second floor.
Antoni and the agents entered the open front
door of the residence. The house was divided into
three apartments on three separate floors with a
common hallway for each. They proceeded to the
second floor apartment and knocked on the door.
The door was opened by a female later identified as
Riquita Wilson who gave consent to Antoni and the
parole agents to enter the apartment. Ms. Wilson
was told that the officer and agents were searching
for a wanted parolee who was reported to have run
into the residence. Ms. Wilson gave consent to
search the apartment. [The] team entered the
apartment without guns drawn. When Antoni and
the others swept the apartment, they discovered
Appellant in a bedroom laying [sic] on the bed
surrounded by what appeared to be crack cocaine on
a digital scale, some crack cocaine that had been
-2-
J. S64015/15
weighed, portioned and bagged, and a large amount
of money.[2]
[Appellant] called Cinnamon Brown
(“Ms. Brown”) as a witness during the suppression
hearing. Ms. Brown was present in the second floor
apartment when Officer Antoni arrived. She testified
that while cooking in the kitchen, she heard running
in the hallway outside the apartment then banging
on the door. Ms. Brown woke Ms. Wilson who had
been sleeping on a couch near the door and told her
to answer the door. When Ms. Wilson got up, they
heard a voice announce Harrisburg Police.
Ms. Brown stated that as Ms. Wilson got to the door,
it was pushed open without anyone asking her if
they could enter; however, she also said the door
was not broken in[,] so[] Ms. Wilson might have
opened the door. Ms. Brown described being scared
when this occurred, so when Ms. Wilson went to the
door she ran out the back door of the apartment and
proceeded down the stairs where she was stopped
by additional police officers. Ms. Brown also said
that she saw Antoni and the agents enter with guns
drawn as she “left out.”
Trial court opinion, 8/13/15 at 2-4 (citations omitted). The trial court also
provided the following procedural history:
Appellant, Tiamak Taylor was arrested and
charged with a single count each of Possession with
Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, and
Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. An
Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion to Suppress was filed on
November 14, 2014 and a hearing [was held on
February 5, 2015]. At the conclusion of the
suppression hearing, [the suppression court] denied
Taylor’s motion and the matter was set for trial.
Following a stipulated waiver trial on March 10,
2015, Appellant was found guilty at both counts.
Sentencing took place directly after the trial during
which [the trial court] imposed the following:
2
Appellant apparently resided at this address.
-3-
J. S64015/15
Count 1--a term of incarceration of not less
than 30 months nor more than 60 months, a fine of
$500 and the payment of costs of prosecution;
Count 2--a term of incarceration of not less
than 6 months nor more than 12 months concurrent
with Count 1, and a fine of $100.
....
On April 8, 2015, Taylor filed the instant appeal to
the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In compliance with
[the trial court’s] order, he timely filed a Statement
of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) raising a single issue for
review. . . .
Id. at 1-2. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court has filed an
opinion.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s
Motion to Suppress Evidence where law enforcement
officers conducted a warrantless search of
th
332 S. 14 Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
without the homeowner’s consent, in violation of
Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
and the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution?
Appellant’s brief at 5.
Our standard of review for challenges to the denial of a suppression
motion is as follows:
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to
the denial of a suppression motion is limited to
determining whether the suppression court’s factual
findings are supported by the record and whether
the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are
-4-
J. S64015/15
correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed
before the suppression court, we may consider only
the evidence of the Commonwealth 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 suppression court's
factual findings are supported by the record, we are
bound by these findings and may reverse only if the
court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where . . .
the appeal of the determination of the suppression
court turns on allegations of legal error, the
suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding
on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine
if the suppression court properly applied the law to
the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts
below are subject to our plenary review.
Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781, 783-784 (Pa.Super. 2012),
quoting Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358, 361-362 (Pa.Super.
2012) (citations omitted).
Because appellant does not challenge the validity of Ms. Wilson’s
consent to search the apartment, rather he only challenges whether consent
was given at all, appellant raises a purely factual issue on appeal. The
Commonwealth presented testimony from Officer Antoni, who testified that
Ms. Wilson gave permission to Officer Antoni and the parole agents to search
the apartment. Ms. Brown testified on behalf of appellant, indicating that no
such permission had been given, and that the parole agents and
Officer Antoni entered the apartment with their guns drawn.
As noted in Jones, this court is bound by the factual findings of the
suppression court so long as there is support for the suppression court’s
findings in the record. The suppression court stated, on the record, that it
-5-
J. S64015/15
found the Commonwealth’s evidence to be more credible than the evidence
presented by appellant. Officer Antoni’s testimony that Ms. Wilson granted
the parole agents and Offer Antoni consent to search the apartment provides
ample support within the record for the suppression court’s factual
determination. We are bound to that determination, and therefore find that
the suppression court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress
evidence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/6/2015
-6-