Com. v. Hadlock, T. ( 2016 )

J-S47038-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TROY LEE HADLOCK
Appellant No. 2082 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 19, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-SA-0000070-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016
Troy Lee Hadlock appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County following his conviction of
driving while suspended1 and failure to have proper rear lighting2 of the
Pennsylvania Vehicle Code.3 Hadlock’s counsel also seeks to withdraw
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we
grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Hadlock’s judgment of
sentence.
____________________________________________
1
75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a).
2
75 Pa.C.S. § 4303(b).
3
75 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-9910.
J-S47038-16
The trial court stated the facts as follows:
In the early morning hours of August 6, 2015, Officer
Rosenberger, of the Cumberland Township Police Department,
was on patrol in full uniform and driving a marked police vehicle.
At approximately 1:23 a.m. Officer Rosenberger was traveling
westbound on Boyd School Road near the Table Rock Road
intersection. Officer Rosenberger observed a black in color
Mazda four-door coupe traveling eastbound on Boyd School
Road. As the black Mazda passed, Officer Rosenberger observed
in his rear facing mirrors that the vehicle had no taillights and no
license plate lights illuminated. Officer Rosenberger then turned
around and began to follow the vehicle, [and] in doing so he
observed that no lights were illuminated on the rear of the black
Mazda that was directly in front of him. Officer Rosenberger did
observe that whenever the operator went to stop[,] his brake
lights illuminated. After continuing to follow the vehicle, Officer
Rosenberger effectuated a motor vehicle stop for the failure to
have the back lights illuminated.
Immediately prior to the traffic stop[,] Officer Eiker, also of the
Cumberland Township Police Department, was patrolling in a
marked police car at the four-way stop intersection at Table
Rock Road and Boyd School Road. . . . Officer Eiker observed
that the taillights and license plate light of the vehicle were not
illuminated. Officer Eiker observed Officer Rosenberger directly
behind the vehicle and pulled in behind Officer Rosenberger and
assisted him on the vehicle stop. At the time of the initial traffic
stop Officer Eiker observed that the rear taillights and license
plate light were still not illuminated. [Officers Eiker and
Rosenberger] stated that later in the traffic stop, while waiting
for a tow truck, the rear taillights and license plate light
eventually came on.
Upon approaching the black Mazda, Officer Rosenberger
identified [Hadlock] as the operator of that motor vehicle. As
part of the traffic stop, Officer Rosenberger ascertained the
status of [Hadlock’s] driving privileges. According to PennDot’s
records[,] [Hadlock’s] license was suspended in Pennsylvania.
Officer Rosenberger issued [Hadlock] two summary citations (1)
Driving While Suspended in violation of Section 1543(a) of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; and (2) Required Lighted
Lamps in violation of Section 4303(b) of the Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Code.
-2-
J-S47038-16
Trial Court Opinion, 1/28/16, 1-2.
Magisterial District Judge Mark Beauchat found Hadlock guilty of the
above offenses on October 2, 2015. On October 6, 2015, Hadlock appealed
his conviction for driving while suspended. On November 19, 2015, after a
de novo summary appeal hearing, Hadlock was found guilty of driving while
suspended. This was Hadlock’s seventh conviction for driving while
suspended, and he was sentenced to 45 days’ partial confinement at the
Adams County Adult Correctional Complex.
Hadlock filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Specifically, Hadlock raises the following issues:
[1.] Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately
question the Police Officers during the Summary Appeal hearing?
[2.] Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence
to support probable cause for the stop?
Brief for Appellant, at 6.
Counsel has filed a petition to withdraw pursuant to the standard set
forth in Anders and the requirements established by Santiago. Our
Supreme Court in Santiago held:
[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed
counsel’s petition to withdraw, counsel must: (1) provide a
summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to
the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel
believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth counsel’s
conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state counsel’s
reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous.
Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.
-3-
J-S47038-16
After counsel has satisfied the above procedures and furnished the
defendant with a copy of counsel’s brief, the court performs an independent
examination to determine if the proceedings are wholly without merit.
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. However, the Court must first consider the
Anders brief and petition to withdraw before reviewing the merits of the
underlying issues. Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa.
Super. 2005).
Counsel’s petition to withdraw satisfies all the necessary requirements
and procedures. He states that he has thoroughly examined the record and
concluded the appeal was frivolous. He has further “provided a summary of
the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record.” Santiago,
978 A.2d at 361. Counsel has also filed a brief in which he re-states the
conclusion that both claims are frivolous and without merit and do not
support an appeal. Lastly, he has notified Hadlock of the request to
withdraw and provided Hadlock with a copy of the brief and a letter
explaining Hadlock’s right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se as to any
issues he believes might have merit. Accordingly, we find that the
requirements of Anders and Santiago have been satisfied.
Once counsel has satisfied the procedural requirements for withdrawal,
this Court performs an independent examination to determine if the appeal
is, in fact, wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Commonwealth v.
Wright, 846 A.2d 730, 736 (Pa. Super. 2004).
-4-
J-S47038-16
Hadlock’s first claim asserts ineffectiveness of trial counsel. As a
general rule, ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised during
collateral review. Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726, 738
(Pa. 2002). The instant appeal is a direct appeal of Hadlock’s judgment of
sentence, rather than a petition seeking collateral review. Moreover, this
appeal does not involve an exception to the general rule such as an alleged
breach of loyalty or complete denial of counsel. See id. at 738, n.14 (listing
exceptions to the general rule). Therefore, Hadlock’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel is not properly before us, and we cannot consider this
issue in the instant appeal.
Hadlock next contends that the Commonwealth did not present
sufficient evidence to support probable cause for his traffic stop.
As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency
claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution
the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from
the evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to
support the verdict when it establishes each material
element of the crime charged and the commission thereof
by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706, 707-08 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
“The legislature has vested police officers with the authority to stop
vehicles whenever they have ‘articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect
a violation’ of the Vehicle Code.” Commonwealth v. Gleason, 785 A.2d
983, 989 (Pa. 2001) (quoting 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b)). Therefore, police
-5-
J-S47038-16
officers must be able to articulate the specific facts that created the probable
cause to believe that there was a violation of the Vehicle Code. Gleason,
785 A.2d at 989. The Vehicle Code provides that every vehicle must be
equipped with, inter alia, rear lamps and a license plate light. 75 Pa.C.S.
§ 4303(b). Thus, failing to have a working taillight and license plate light
are violations of the Vehicle Code.
Hadlock testified as the only defense witness. He claimed that his
taillights and license plate lights were both operational after leaving his
home that morning and when he went through the intersection of Table Rock
Road and Boyd School Road. Hadlock further testified that he took a picture
of his rear lights about ten minutes after the stop and the lights were
operating. However, at the time of the stop, the lights were not working. 4
Instantly, Officer Rosenberger testified that he observed in his rear
view mirror a four-door black Mazda driving without operating taillights and
license plate light as he drove in the opposite direction. At the outset, this is
a violation of the Vehicle Code. Officer Rosenberger proceeded to turn
around and follow the Mazda, verifying the taillights and license plate lights
were out. Furthermore, Officer Eiker testified that from his stationary post
at the intersection of Table Rock Road and Boyd School Road he could see
that no right taillight was illuminated. In totality, sufficient evidence existed
____________________________________________
4
Both Officers testified that the rear lights had come back on while waiting
for a tow truck.
-6-
J-S47038-16
to support the Officers’ belief that the Vehicle Code was being violated;
therefore, probable cause existed to justify stopping Hadlock. 5 Gleason,
supra.
Counsel has satisfied all the requirements for withdrawal.
Furthermore, after this Court’s own review of the record and the transcript
of the summary appeal hearing, we find Hadlock’s claims to be meritless and
affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/9/2016
____________________________________________
5
Hadlock makes no argument that the Officers conducted the stop
inappropriately after it was initiated.
-7-