Com. v. Coles, K. ( 2016 )

J-A12035-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
KEISHA COLES,
Appellant No. 1964 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001201-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 14, 2016
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the
Honorable George A. Pagano of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
County after convicting Appellant Keisha Coles of False Identification to Law
Enforcement Authorities.1 Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to
support her conviction. We affirm.
On February 13, 2015, at approximately 9:35 p.m., Pennsylvania
State Trooper Matthew Gibson conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle after
noticing one of the vehicle’s taillights was not illuminated. Appellant was
riding as a passenger in the front seat of the vehicle. After Trooper Gibson
approached the vehicle, he noticed Appellant was not wearing her seatbelt.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 4914(a).
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A12035-16
Trooper Gibson then asked Appellant for identification and provided
her with an index card for her to write personal information such as her first,
middle, and last name, date of birth, current address, the last four digits of
her Social Security number, and her signature. Trooper Gibson specifically
explained to Appellant that her signature on the index card was an
attestation that everything on the card was true and accurate as to her
identity under the penalty of law insomuch as she was under investigation
for not wearing her seatbelt. Appellant provided Trooper Gibson with a fake
name, Lakeisha Wright, that could not be found in his computer database.
At this point, Trooper Gibson’s partner, Trooper Walter Crump arrived
on the scene. After Trooper Gibson briefed Trooper Crump on the
circumstances of the stop, Trooper Crump approached the vehicle.
Appellant told Trooper Crump her name was Nagima Coles, which was also a
fake name. Trooper Gibson again was unable to find this name in the
computer database. The troopers then placed Appellant under arrest for
providing false information. As soon as Appellant was informed of her
arrest, she provided the troopers with her actual identity and personal
information. When she was asked to step out of the vehicle, the troopers
discovered an open beer bottle at her feet.
Appellant waived her right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench
trial. On May 27, 2015, the trial court convicted Appellant of False
Information to Law Enforcement but acquitted her of Restrictions on
-2-
J-A12035-16
Alcoholic Beverages, and Failure to Use Safety Belt.2 The trial court
sentenced Appellant to six months probation. This timely appeal followed.3
Appellant frames her argument with the following language:
Whether the evidence is insufficient to support the bench
trial guilty finding on False Identification to police because
Trooper Gibson exceeded his authority and acted without
jurisdiction by questioning [Appellant] Keisha Coles, an innocent
mere passenger, on matters wholly unrelated to the enforcement
of the Vehicle Code? 75 Pa.C.S. [§] 6308(b).
Appellant’s Brief, at 5.
Although Appellant couches her argument in terms of the sufficiency of
the evidence, she actually challenges Trooper Gibson’s authority to ask for
her identification and claims Trooper Gibson “intruded on her right to be left
alone.” Appellant’s Brief, at 11. Essentially, Appellant claims that she was
subject to an illegal seizure when questioned by Trooper Gibson. This
argument should have been raised in a pretrial suppression motion pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 323, which provides in relevant part:
Rule 323. Suppression of Evidence
(a) The defendant or his attorney may make a motion to the
court to suppress any evidence alleged to have been obtained in
violation of the defendant's rights.
____________________________________________
2
75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3809(a), 4581(a)(2)(ii), respectively.
3
Appellant’s counsel admittedly filed an untimely concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). However,
the trial court granted Appellant’s request for a time extension due to per se
ineffectiveness of defense counsel. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39
A.3d 335 (Pa.Super. 2012) (finding defense counsel per se ineffective for
failing to file a 1925(b) statement within the court ordered deadline)).
-3-
J-A12035-16
(b) Unless the opportunity did not previously exist, or the
interests of justice otherwise require, such motion shall be made
only after a case has been returned to court and shall be
contained in the omnibus pretrial motion set forth in Rule 306. If
timely motion is not made hereunder, the issue of suppression of
such evidence shall be deemed to be waived.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 323. This Court has held that the “failure to raise a
suppression issue prior to trial precludes its litigation for the first time at
trial, in post-trial motions or on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Collazo, 654
A.2d 1174, 1176 (Pa.Super. 1995) (citation omitted). As Appellant did not
file a pretrial motion, but first suggested this challenge in defense counsel’s
closing statement, we find this issue waived for our review.
To the extent that Appellant is claiming that her conviction is not
supported by sufficient evidence, her claim fails. Section 4914 provides that
an individual may be convicted of providing False Information to Law
Enforcement Authorities if he “furnishes law enforcement authorities with
false information about his identity after being informed by a law
enforcement officer who is in uniform or who has identified himself as a law
enforcement officer that the person is the subject of an official investigation
of a violation of law.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4914(a).
Appellant concedes that Trooper Gibson approached her in uniform
and asked for her personal information after informing her that she was
under investigation for not wearing her seatbelt. Trooper Gibson specifically
explained to Appellant that her signature on the index card with her
identification information was an attestation that everything on the card was
true and accurate as to her identity under the penalty of law. Appellant
-4-
J-A12035-16
admits to giving the troopers two false names to identify herself.
Accordingly, we find the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to
convict Appellant of providing False Information to Law Enforcement
Authorities.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/14/2016
-5-