Com. v. Figuereo-Martinez, V. ( 2017 )

J-S79044-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
VICTOR MANUEL FIGUEREO- :
MARTINEZ,
:
Appellant : No. 811 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 29, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-48-CR-0001884-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 19, 2017
Victor Manuel Figuereo-Martinez (“Figuereo-Martinez”) appeals from
the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of possession
with intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”). See 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(30). We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and
procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial
Court Opinion, 1/28/16, at 3-9.
Figuereo-Martinez filed a Motion to suppress, inter alia, the physical
evidence obtained following his arrest, on the basis that the evidence was
the fruit of an illegal arrest and search. The suppression court conducted an
evidentiary hearing, and subsequently denied Figuereo-Martinez’s Motion to
suppress.
J-S79044-16
Following a bench trial, Figuereo-Martinez was convicted of PWID. The
trial court sentenced Figuereo-Martinez to 5 to 10 years in prison.
Figuereo-Martinez filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement.
On appeal, Figuereo-Martinez raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in denying [Figuereo-Martinez’s]
Motion to [s]uppress physical evidence, specifically [Figuereo-
Martinez’s] gym bag and the contents contained therein, as well
as items recovered inside [Figuereo-Martinez’s] apartment, all of
which were obtained in violation of [Figuereo-Martinez’s] rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution[?]
Brief for Appellant at 3.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, our
responsibility is to determine whether the record supports the
suppression court’s factual findings and legitimacy of the
inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings. If
the suppression court held for the prosecution, we consider only
the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the
evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the
record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. When the factual
findings of the suppression court are supported by the evidence,
the appellate court may reverse if there is an error in the legal
conclusions drawn from those factual findings.
Commonwealth v. Arnold, 932 A.2d 143, 145 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation
omitted).
Figuereo-Martinez argues that the trial court erred in denying his
Motion to suppress the contents of his gym bag because the police officers
did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to support the search.
Brief for Appellant at 8. Figuereo-Martinez contends that he was seized
-2-
J-S79044-16
when he was placed in handcuffs, seated on the sidewalk, and detained until
a canine search could be conducted. Id. at 9-10. Figuereo-Martinez asserts
that the police officers subsequently obtained a search warrant because they
did not believe they had probable cause at that time. Id. at 9-10, 11.
Additionally, Figuereo-Martinez claims the officers did not observe him
engaging in any illegal activity. Id. at 10. Figuereo-Martinez also argues
that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion because it was
based on “stale” information (controlled purchases of cocaine at Feliz Auto
and Repair by a confidential informant six months prior to Figuereo-
Martinez’s arrest). Id. at 12-13.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant law, and
determined that Figuereo-Martinez was subjected to an investigative
detention, rather than a custodial detention; the investigative detention was
supported by reasonable suspicion; and the drugs recovered from Figuereo-
Martinez’s gym bag did not need to be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous
tree” because the evidence was not obtained in violation of his constitutional
rights. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/28/16, at 9-22. We agree with the sound
reasoning of the trial court, and adopt its Opinion for the purpose of this
appeal. See id.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-3-
J-S79044-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/19/2017
-4-