Com. v. Wall, C. ( 2016 )

J-A01034-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
COREIK WALL
Appellant No. 974 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 21, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011423-2013
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 18, 2016
Coreik Wall appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following a non-jury trial in
which he was convicted of prohibited possession of a firearm,1 carrying a
firearm without a license,2 and carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia.3
On appeal, Wall challenges the court’s denial of his motion to suppress
evidence. Upon review, we affirm Wall’s judgment of sentence.
The trial court set forth the relevant facts of this matter as follows:
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01034-16
On August 15, 2013, Police Officer [Colin] Goshert testified he
was working in the 14th police district with five years[’]
experience when his tour of duty took him to the 7200 block of
Forest Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At approximately
6:15 p.m. Officer Goshert responded to a radio call for narcotics
sales “in the rear of 7200 Forrest Avenue, males on the steps.”
Upon arrival to the location[,] Officer Goshert observed [Wall] on
the steps with three or four other males, one of whom was at
the bottom in a wheelchair. Upon approaching the group the
officer smelled burnt marijuana and saw “blunt guts” on the
ground and “ash.”
Officer Goshert further testified that he observed [Wall] place a
duffel bag behind him towards his left. Officer Goshert asked to
whom the duffel bag belonged and none of the group responded
or acknowledged ownership. The bag was behind [Wall] who
was on the top step. Everyone else was seated below [Wall] on
the steps. The bag was within arm’s reach of [Wall].
After no one claimed ownership, Officer Goshert then secured
the duffel bag and reviewed its contents. Inside the duffle bag
was a pair of shoes, headphones, and a silver revolver. [Wall]
was subsequently arrested and taken into custody. Police
[O]fficer Goshert also testified [that] none of the other males
were seen handling the duffle bag.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/3/15, at 1-2 (citations omitted).
Wall was charged with the aforementioned firearms offenses. He
subsequently filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by Officer
Goshert in searching the duffle bag. The court held a hearing on January 2,
2014, and denied the suppression motion. A non-jury trial was held
immediately thereafter before the Honorable Roxanne E. Covington, who
found Wall guilty of all charges. Wall was sentenced on February 21, 2014,
to 12 to 24 months’ incarceration followed by three years’ probation. This
timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Wall raises the following issue for our review:
-2-
J-A01034-16
Should not the evidence seized from [Wall’s] bag have been
suppressed, where [Wall] had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the bag and police had neither probable cause to
search the bag nor a search warrant, and no exception to [the]
warrant requirement applied?
Brief for Appellant, at 3.
When reviewing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion, our
standard of review is as follows:
The standard and scope of review for a challenge to the denial of
a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions
drawn from those facts are correct. When reviewing the rulings
of a suppression court, this 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
suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse
only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.
Commonwealth v. Downey, 39 A.3d 401, 405 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations
omitted).
Regarding a motion to suppress, “in order to prevail, the defendant, as
a preliminary matter, must show that he had a privacy interest in the area
searched.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 434 (Pa. Super.
2009) (en banc). An “individual must demonstrate that he sought to
preserve something as private.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 928 A.2d
1092, 1098 (Pa. Super. 2007). However, where property has been
abandoned, a defendant has no standing to contest its search and seizure.
Commonwealth v. Windell, 529 A.2d 1115, 1117 (Pa. Super. 1987). Our
Supreme Court has stated that
-3-
J-A01034-16
[a]bandonment is primarily a question of intent, and intent may
be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective
facts. All relevant circumstances existing at the time of the
alleged abandonment should be considered. Police pursuit or the
existence of a police investigation does not of itself render
abandonment involuntary. The issue is not abandonment in the
strict property-right sense, but whether the person prejudiced by
the search had voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise
relinquished his interest in the property in question so that he
could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with
regard to it at the time of the search.
Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 366 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Pa. 1976) (citations
omitted).
Instantly, Wall asserts that when he placed the duffel bag containing
the gun behind him, he demonstrated an intent to exercise control over it.
Alternatively, however, Wall’s movement of the bag can be viewed as an
attempt to physically distance the bag from himself. Moreover, when Officer
Goshert questioned Wall regarding the bag, Wall remained silent rather than
asserting his ownership of it. Wall argues that constitutionally he was
permitted to remain silent when confronted by police. While this is true, it
does not alter the fact that when Wall chose not to assert his ownership of
the bag when questioned directly, he thereby failed to demonstrate an
attempt to preserve the bag and its contents as private. Moore, supra.
Thus, Wall voluntarily relinquished his interest in the bag at the time of the
search. Shoatz, supra. The trial court therefore did not err in denying
Wall’s suppression motion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-4-
J-A01034-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/18/2016
-5-