Com. v. Shuler, J. ( 2017 )

J-A31038-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JOHN SHULER
Appellant No. 3246 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 6, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014260-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MOULTON , J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2017
Appellant John Shuler appeals from his judgment of sentence of thirty
to sixty months’ imprisonment followed by four years’ probation for robbery,1
conspiracy to commit robbery,2 attempted theft by unlawful taking,3
possession of an instrument of crime,4 simple assault5 and filing a false
report.6 Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress pants recovered from his car, a BB gun recovered from his house
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c).
3 18 Pa.C.S. § 901(a).
4 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a).
5 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a).
6 18 Pa.C.S. § 4906(a).
J-A31038-16
and multiple statements that he gave to a detective at the police station.
Appellant also challenges the legality of his sentence. We affirm in part,
vacate in part and remand for resentencing.
On August 27, 2013, Appellant was arrested and charged with the
foregoing offenses. On June 12, 2014, the trial court held a suppression
hearing, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, and denied Appellant’s
motion to suppress. N.T., 6/12/14, at 109-115. The trial court held a bench
trial and found Appellant guilty of the above-mentioned offenses. The trial
court sentenced Appellant to concurrent terms of thirty to sixty months’
imprisonment for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, a consecutive
four years’ probation for attempted theft, and four years’ probation each for
simple assault, false reports, and possessing an instrument of crime, all to run
concurrently with his sentence for attempted theft. Appellant filed this timely
appeal, and both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues in this appeal:
1. Did not the trial court err in denying [A]ppellant’s motion
to suppress the pants recovered from his car, the BB gun
recovered from his house, and his second and third
statements as impermissible fruit of violations under the 4th
and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Art. I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because
the police:
(a) unlawfully arrested [A]ppellant without probable
cause when they took him from the hospital, without
obtaining his consent, and transported him to the East
Detective District; and
-2-
J-A31038-16
(b) unlawfully seized [A]ppellant’s car without probable
cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the car was
evidence or contained evidence of a crime?
2. Did not police unlawfully search [A]ppellant’s home in
violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United
States Constitution and Art. I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution because the affidavit of probable cause lacked
sufficient probable cause that evidence of a crime would be
found inside; and even assuming the affidavit of probable
cause was facially sufficient to justify issuance of the
warrant, the police intentionally and recklessly omitted the
fact that [A]ppellant was licensed to carry a firearm, making
the items recovered inside [A]ppellant’s home and the third
statement unlawfully obtained fruit?
3. Did not the lower court impose an illegal sentence
because:
(a) [A]ppellant’s sentence for attempted theft under 18
Pa.C.S. § 901[] and 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921, should merge
with his conviction for robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. §
3701(a)(1)(ii), and;
(b) [A]ppellant’s sentence for simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 2701, should merge with his sentence for robbery
under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii); and even if it did not
merge, a sentence of [four] years of probation exceeds
the statutory maximum sentence of [two] years as the
offense is graded as a misdemeanor of the second
degree, and;
(c) [A]ppellant’s sentence of [four] years of reporting
probation for false reports to law enforcement exceeds
the statutory maximum as the offense is graded a
misdemeanor of the second degree, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4906?
Appellant’s Brief at 3-4.
APPELLANT’S CHALLENGE TO TRIAL COURT’S SUPPRESSION RULING
In his first two arguments, which we review together, Appellant
challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress the evidence
-3-
J-A31038-16
seized during the warrantless search of his car, his statements to Detective
Gonzalez at East Detectives, and the search of his residence. The trial court
properly denied Appellant’s motion to suppress.
When the defendant files a motion to suppress, “it is the
Commonwealth’s burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s
rights.” Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040, 1047-48 (Pa. 2012)
(citations omitted). In an appeal challenging the denial of a suppression
motion,
[we are] 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
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, [the appellate court
is] bound by [those] 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 the
courts below are subject to [ ] plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526–27 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
omitted). We must only consider the suppression record when reviewing the
suppression court’s rulings. See In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1085 (Pa. 2013)
(“it is inappropriate to consider trial evidence as a matter of course, because
-4-
J-A31038-16
it is simply not part of the suppression record, absent a finding that such
evidence was unavailable during the suppression hearing”).
In its Rule 1925 opinion, the trial court summarized the evidence at the
suppression hearing as follows:
On August 27, 2013, Detective David Sherwood was
alerted that [Appellant] had been shot while allegedly being
robbed by two offenders. [On that date], [Appellant] was
admitted to Episcopal Hospital with a gunshot wound.
[Appellant] was then transferred to Temple Hospital
Emergency Room for treatment. Detective Sherwood
ordered [Appellant]’s vehicle be towed from Episcopal
Hospital to a police garage as a matter of standard
procedure. The garage created a property receipt for the
vehicle, with a timestamp and description [of] the vehicle
indicating “for investigation pending search warrant.”
Detective Sherwood interviewed [Appellant] at Temple
Hospital, believing [Appellant] to be the victim of a robbery.
[Appellant] told the detective he had been fishing near 2400
Bea[ch] Street with a friend when two Hispanic males
approached them and one pulled out a gun. [Appellant] said
he ran and then heard a gunshot, but it was not until he was
nearly home that he realized he was bleeding. [Appellant]
told Detective Sherwood he had driven from his home to
Episcopal Hospital. Detective Sherwood’s interview lasted
approximately twenty minutes.
After this initial interview with [Appellant], Detective
Sherwood went to Bea[ch] Street and interviewed Cody
Laine, who said he was in the area for several hours since
the prior evening. He reported that he never heard
gunshots, nor saw two men fishing. Around the same time
that morning, Detective Samuel Gonzalez began the day
shift at East Detectives District, Special Investigations, and
Detective Sherwood called to inform him he had found no
evidence of a shooting at Bea[ch] Street.
-5-
J-A31038-16
Three hours later,[7] [Appellant] came to East Detectives
District for a second interview with Detective Gonzalez.
When he arrived, [a police] employee let him into the office.
After a conversation lasting five to ten minutes, Detective
Gonzalez checked police radio for reports of gunshots in the
area of Bea[ch] Street but found none. Considering this
information and the report from Detective Sherwood,
Detective Gonzalez began to doubt [Appellant]’s story.
Detective Gonzale[z] returned to the interview room,
verbally gave [Appellant] Miranda[8] [w]arnings, and
confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. [Appellant]
then alleged he had accidently shot himself at home while
taking a black [.380 caliber automatic glock] out of his pants
pocket. The detective and [Appellant] walked to the
detective’s cubicle so that he could type [Appellant]’s
statement. Detective Gonzalez read [Appellant] his rights
once more, provided a form to acknowledge that he
understood them, and then interviewed [Appellant] again.
Within an hour of arriving, [Appellant] willingly signed the
Miranda statement advising him of his rights. [Appellant]
told Detective Gonzalez the gun was not registered to him,
but that he did have a license to carry. He told [Appellant]
the gun was still in his apartment. Detective Gonzalez
confirmed [Appellant] had a permit to carry.
Shortly after Detective Gonzalez typed up [Appellant]’s
statement and explained that consent to search his vehicle
was voluntary, [Appellant] filled out a consent form for the
detectives to perform an investigative search of his car.
Detective Gonzalez’s partner, Detective John Perfidio,
proceeded to type up a search warrant to look for the
handgun that [Appellant] said he had shot himself with at
home on Richmond Street. The search warrant application
contained [Appellant]’s first and second versions of the
night’s events as well as the inconsistent facts discovered
by the detectives.
7 Viewed in context, it appears that Appellant was receiving treatment at the
hospital during this three-hour period and then accompanied the police to the
station following his release from the hospital.
8 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1965).
-6-
J-A31038-16
After obtaining consent, Detective Gonzalez conducted a
search of [Appellant]’s car. The detective recovered a pair
of black pants with what appeared to be a clean bullet hole,
free of burns or residue, in the rear left pocket. The
detective then went to [Appellant]’s home, where they
found a silver and black 9 millimeter BB gun in the kitchen.
In the bathroom where [Appellant] had allegedly shot
himself, Detective Gonzalez noted the absence of a [.]380
caliber automatic gun, blood, or any other indication that a
shooting had occurred. The BB gun was logged by creating
a property receipt.
After conducting the search, both detectives returned to
question [Appellant] who had remained at East[] Detectives
without handcuffs. The detectives again reviewed
[Appellant]’s Miranda warnings with him and [Appellant]
signed again and gave a third statement. [Appellant]
admitted, in his third statement, that he attempted to
commit a robbery when he was shot by another male while
running away. [Appellant] was subsequently arrested.
Police later learned the shooter was the victim of
[Appellant]’s robbery.
Trial Ct. Op., 1/30/16, at 2-4.
Additionally, we note that several hours before Appellant arrived at the
hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound, two men wearing ski masks
attempted to rob a man named Richard Fike near 401 East Girard Avenue in
Philadelphia. Police officers brought Fike to Temple Hospital, and Fike looked
at Appellant but could not identify him as one of the assailants. N.T., 6/12/14,
at 31-33. Later that day, Appellant admitted in his third statement to police
detectives that he had attempted to rob another male. The robbery attempted
failed, and Appellant was shot as he ran away. Fike was the victim of the
attempted robbery and shot Appellant as he fled from the scene.
-7-
J-A31038-16
The trial court held that the police properly impounded Appellant’s car,
because “the reasonable procedure here was to tow a vehicle when a gunshot
victim[] came to the hospital in it.” Trial Ct. Op. at 11. The court further held
that (1) Appellant was not under arrest when he arrived at the police station,
(2) Appellant voluntarily consented to the search of his car, and (3) the search
warrant for Appellant’s home was supported by probable cause. Id. at 11-
15.
We hold that the impoundment of Appellant’s car was unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, the trial court’s error was harmless in nature, because the police
obtained all other evidence against Appellant through lawful means, and this
admissible evidence firmly established his guilt.
We divide our analysis of the suppression issues into the following
sections: (1) the impoundment of Appellant’s car; (2) Appellant’s
transportation to East Detectives and first two statements at East Detectives;9
(3) Appellant’s consent to search his car and the ensuing search; (4) the
search warrant for Appellant’s residence; and (5) Appellant’s third statement
at East Detectives.
I. Impoundment of Appellant’s Car
The Commonwealth submitted the following evidence with regard to the
impoundment of Appellant’s car: at about 4:50 a.m. on August 27, 2013,
Appellant drove himself to Episcopal Hospital with a gunshot wound in his left
9 We also refer to East Detectives as the “police station.”
-8-
J-A31038-16
buttocks. N.T., 6/12/2014, at 13-24, 28. He lawfully parked his car in the
hospital’s parking lot and went inside for treatment. Id. at 27. Patrol officers
at the hospital called police headquarters to notify detectives about the
incident, and Detective Sherwood was assigned to investigate the matter. Id.
at 13-17.
At approximately 5:00 a.m., Detective Sherwood told officers at the
hospital to tow Appellant’s car. Id. at 18-30. At this point, the detective had
only been informed that a shooting victim was at Episcopal Hospital; he had
not interviewed Appellant, seen the car or learned any other facts about the
case. Id. At some point later in the morning or early afternoon, the police
towed the car to a police garage at Whitaker and McAllister Streets. Id. at
46.
Detective Sherwood testified that when police officers report that a
shooting victim has arrived at a hospital, the standard police procedure is for
police officer to “hold the scene, [and] if there is a car that the victim came to
the hospital in, that car is held and we process that car.” Id. at 17. Detective
Gonzalez gave similar testimony, stating that in all shootings in Philadelphia,
it is “standard procedure” and “normal practice to confiscate the vehicle that
is used to transport a victim from a crime scene to a hospital . . . It is part of
the investigation part of the crime scene. And it is what we do.” Id. at 46-
47.
-9-
J-A31038-16
In accordance with this “standard” procedure, Detective Sherwood
ordered Appellant’s car towed so it “could be examined for any evidence that
may have been in the vehicle[.]” Id. at 20. Detective Sherwood did not
explain why he believed there was any evidence of crime in the car or what
evidence or contraband he expected to find. Id. at 18, 20-21, 28-30.
The trial court held:
[T]owing [Appellant’s] car was a lawful inventory seizure.
Detective Sherwood took custody of the vehicle in
anticipation of performing a search. He was also mindful
that this would preserve the vehicle for Detective Gonzalez
when he took over the case a few hours later. Detective
Sherwood had the car towed from Episcopal Hospital and
did not search the vehicle. This action involved little
invasion of [Appellant’s] privacy, since nothing inside the
car was actually disturbed and [Appellant] did not have, or
need, access to it from Temple Hospital while he was being
treated.
The reasonable procedure here was to tow a vehicle when a
gunshot victim came to the hospital in it. Both Detectives
Sherwood and Gonzalez testified to the established nature
of this procedure that might aid in finding a shooter.
Detective Gonzalez testified that, in his eighteen years as a
detective, he ordered the towing of many cars in similar
situations. The procedure was so restrained that it did not
even include an inventory search until either a warrant or
consent was obtained.
Trial Ct. Op., at 11.
The Commonwealth argues in this Court that the seizure was proper
both under the automobile search and inventory exceptions to the Fourth
Amendment. Commonwealth’s Brief at 15. Appellant contends that neither
exception applies. Appellant’s Brief at 25-31. We agree with Appellant.
- 10 -
J-A31038-16
The automobile search exception to the Fourth Amendment requires
that police have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle.
See Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565-66 (1999). Probable cause to
conduct a search exists when the circumstances known to the officer
demonstrate a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be
found in a particular place.” Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532, 537
(Pa. 2001). Here, Detective Sherwood ordered the car towed at 5:00 a.m.
simply because he heard over police radio that a shooting victim was at
Episcopal Hospital. He knew nothing more about the incident; nor is there
evidence that the officer who made the radio report knew anything more,
either. Compare Commonwealth v. Kenney, 297 A.2d 794, 796 (Pa. 1972)
(in robbery-murder case, upholding warrantless arrest by detective who
himself lacked probable cause, where he acted at direction of superior who
had specific knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient to constitute
probable cause). While it certainly was proper to investigate the report
further, the bare report of a shooting did not, without more, furnish probable
cause to believe that police would discover evidence of crime in the car.
Furthermore, there was no valid basis to seize Appellant’s car under the
inventory exception.
The purpose of an inventory search is not to
uncover criminal evidence, but to safeguard items
taken into police custody in order to benefit both the
police and the defendant . . . In the seminal case of
[South Dakota v.] Opperman, [428 U.S. 364 (1976], the
high Court observed that inventory searches of impounded
- 11 -
J-A31038-16
vehicles serve several purposes, including (1) protection of
the owner’s property while it remains in police custody; (2)
protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost
or stolen property; (3) protection of the police from
potential danger; and (4) assisting the police in determining
whether the vehicle was stolen and then abandoned.
An inventory search of an automobile is permissible when
(1) the police have lawfully impounded the vehicle; and (2)
the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable,
standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the
contents of the impounded vehicle.
Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 83 A.3d 94, 102 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis added
and citations omitted). “[A]n inventory search is only excepted from the
warrant requirement or probable cause where it is motivated by a desire to
safeguard the contents of the vehicle and not by a design to uncover
incriminating evidence.” Commonwealth v. Germann, 621 A.2d 589, 594
(Pa. Super. 1993) (citation and footnote omitted).
Inventory searches are permissible in several well-defined
circumstances. For example, the legislature has defined instances in which
law enforcement officers may impound cars for obstructing roadways or
highways. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3352. Moreover, when an individual operates a
vehicle on a highway or trafficway while his operating privileges are
suspended, law enforcement officers may order the vehicle towed and stored
“in the interest of public safety.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 6309.2(a)(1). In addition,
police departments often promulgate standard procedures for when to tow
vehicles. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 920 A.2d 892, 896 & n.3 (Pa.
Super. 2007) (police officer properly ordered vehicle towed under his police
- 12 -
J-A31038-16
department’s general order relating to impoundment, which was attached as
exhibit to suppression hearing transcript).
These procedures, however, are permissible because they are for a
purpose other than gathering evidence. An inventory search cannot be a
subterfuge for obtaining evidence of crime. See Lagenella, 83 A.3d at 102.
In this case, Appellant’s car was parked legally in the hospital parking lot and
posed no public safety or traffic concerns. The sole reason for impounding
Appellant’s car was for the purpose of a criminal investigation. Detective
Sherwood admitted as much by testifying that the confiscation of Appellant’s
vehicle was “part of the investigation part of the crime scene.” N.T., 6/12/14,
at 46-47. The trial court reached the same conclusion in its opinion:
“Detective Sherwood took custody of the vehicle in anticipation of performing
a search.” Trial Ct. Op. at 11. Consequently, the impoundment of Appellant’s
car was not proper under the inventory search exception. See Germann,
621 A.2d at 594.
II. Appellant’s Statement At Hospital And First Two Statements At
East Detectives
Following treatment for his gunshot wound, Appellant was transferred
from Episcopal Hospital to Temple University Hospital for treatment. There,
at 7:00 a.m., Appellant gave the following statement to Detective Sherwood:
Me and Joe Harris were on our way home from fishing. Two
Hispanic males approached and said something to us, but I
don’t know what they had said. One Hispanic male pulled a
gun and we ran. I dropped my gear, and ran home. I
believe I heard a gunshot. I was almost home and I felt
- 13 -
J-A31038-16
pain in my rear end. I noticed that I was bleeding. Joe and
I stepped into my car which was at my house. I drove
myself to Episcopal Hospital. And then rescue drove me to
Temple Hospital.10
Id. at 23. Appellant said that he and Harris had been fishing for a couple of
hours, and nobody else was fishing around them. Id. at 24. Appellant added
that the attempted robbery took place in the area of 2400 Beach Street. Id.
at 37.
Detective Sherwood traveled to the alleged crime scene but found no
evidence of a shooting. Id. at 40. The detective also obtained a statement
from an individual who had been at this location all night long but who had
not “hear[d] any commotion, see anybody getting robbed [or] hear any
gunshots.” Id. at 25.
Shortly before 8:00 a.m., Detective Sherwood contacted Detective
Gonzalez to inform him of his concerns about the veracity of Appellant’s story.
Id. Detective Sherwood’s work shift ended at 8:00 a.m. Id. at 29-30.
Between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., police officers brought Appellant
from the hospital to East Detectives. Id. at 48-49 (Detective Gonzalez’s
testimony that Appellant “was brought” to East Detectives “for re-interview,”
and “we had his car and said this investigation was not complete”). Nothing
in the record suggests that Appellant accompanied the officers to the station
involuntarily.
10 Appellant does not contend that this statement should have been
suppressed. The trial court found that it was admissible, and so do we.
- 14 -
J-A31038-16
When Appellant arrived at East Detectives, police officers escorted him
to an interview room and told him to wait there for a detective. Id. at 48-49,
82. Between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., Detective Gonzalez interviewed
Appellant without providing Miranda warnings, and Appellant repeated his
original story. Id. at 49-50, 80-82.
Detective Gonzalez left the interview room to review police radio calls
but found no reports of gunshots in the area of 2400 Beach Street. Id. at 48-
50. At around 11:00 a.m., the detective returned to the interview room and
read Miranda warnings to Appellant. Id. at 50-51, 83. Appellant waived his
rights and gave a second statement to Detective Gonzalez. Id. at 51.
Appellant told the detective that he lied about getting shot on Beach Street.
Id. at 55-56. Appellant said that he and his friend, Joe Harris, were inside
Appellant’s apartment at 2987 Richmond Street inspecting some of Appellant’s
air pellet guns. Id. at 55. Appellant claimed that when he was using his
bathroom, a gun in his back pocket accidentally discharged into his buttocks.
Id. at 55. Appellant stated that the gun was not registered to him, but he
had a valid permit to carry a gun. Id. at 57. Appellant left the gun next to
his bed, and he and Harris drove to Harris’ mother’s house on Cumberland
Street in order for Harris’ mother to examine the wound. Id. at 55-57.
Appellant told Harris’ mother that someone had attempted to rob Harris and
him as they left a Sunoco station. Id. at 56. This second interview took one
to two hours. Id. at 60.
- 15 -
J-A31038-16
The door to the interview room was closed during this time. Id. at 87-
88. Moreover, individuals cannot leave the station without police permission,
and Detective Gonzalez did not offer to escort Appellant out of the station.
Detective Gonzalez testified:
Q. You have to be buzzed out of [E]ast [D]etectives?
A. Yes, you need an ID card.
Q. . . . [I]f you are not a police officer, you would have to
be escorted out by officers. Isn’t that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Okay. You never offered to escort [Appellant] out, did
you?
A. No. We were in the middle of an investigation.
Id. at 87.
Appellant argues that the police arrested him without probable cause
when they transported him to East Detectives, and that his statements at East
Detectives were the fruit of an unlawful arrest. The Commonwealth responds
that Appellant accompanied police officers voluntarily to East Detectives as an
alleged victim of crime, and that his first two interviews at the station did not
constitute a custodial detention. We agree with the Commonwealth.
Police detentions become custodial
when, under the totality of the circumstances, the
conditions and/or duration of the detention become so
coercive as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest.
The factors a court utilizes to determine, under the
totality of the circumstances, whether a detention has
- 16 -
J-A31038-16
become so coercive as to constitute the functional
equivalent of arrest include: the basis for the detention;
its length; its location; whether the suspect was
transported against his or her will, how far, and why;
whether restraints were used; whether the law
enforcement officer showed, threatened or used force;
and the investigative methods employed to confirm or
dispel suspicions.
Commonwealth v. Mannion, 725 A.2d 196, 200 (Pa. Super. 1999) (en
banc) (citations omitted).
Here, Appellant was initially interviewed at Temple Hospital by Detective
Sherwood and voluntarily gave a statement that he was shot when two
individuals attempted to rob him. Approximately two and a half hours later,
police officers brought Appellant to East Detectives, but the record does not
indicate that he went to the station involuntarily. There is no evidence that
he was handcuffed, and the trial court credited Detective Gonzalez’s testimony
that Appellant was being treated as a victim of crime and not as a suspect.
Thus, we agree with the Commonwealth that Appellant was not under arrest
at this time.
At the station, Appellant was placed in an interview room and told to
wait for a detective, but he only waited for a half hour before Detective
Gonzalez arrived to begin the interview. The detective did not give Miranda
warnings (again because he was treating Appellant as a victim, not a suspect),
and they spoke for one hour. Appellant repeated his story that two individuals
attempted to rob him. Nothing about this first interview constitutes the
- 17 -
J-A31038-16
functional equivalent of an arrest; it was nothing more than an interview of
an alleged victim of crime.
Following the first interview, Detective Gonzalez left the room to
perform further investigation. When he returned at 11:00 a.m., he
administered Miranda warnings, and Appellant agreed to a second interview.
He admitted during this interview that he lied about getting shot on the street
and now claimed that a gun accidentally discharged in his back pocket while
he was inside his apartment. This second statement is admissible because
Appellant consented to an interview when the detective administered Miranda
warnings.
III. Appellant’s Consent To Search His Car And The Search
Contemporaneous with Appellant’s second statement at East Detectives,
Detective Gonzalez asked Appellant to consent to a search of his car. N.T.,
6/12/14, at 58-59. The detective advised that he was seeking Appellant’s
“voluntary consent,” and that “he didn’t have to give it to us.” Id. at 59. At
12:30 p.m., Appellant signed a form consenting to the search. Id. at 59-60.
At 1:55 p.m., the detective recovered a black pair of pants from the car
with a bullet hole in the rear left pocket area. Id. at 65. In cases of accidental
shooting, there are usually burn marks on shooter’s clothing. Id. at 65-66.
There were no burn marks on the pants, indicating that Appellant’s claim that
he shot himself accidentally was false. Id.
- 18 -
J-A31038-16
The trial court held that Appellant voluntarily consented to the search of
his car. We agree, but for different reasons than the trial court. See
Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511, 517 n. 11 (Pa. 2007) (“[T]his Court
may affirm on any ground”). The trial court held that Appellant was not under
arrest when he consented to the search. We, however, assume that Appellant
was under arrest, but we still find his consent valid.
“The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing that a consent is
the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice—not the result of
duress or coercion, express or implied, or a will overborne—under the totality
of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 901 (Pa.
2000) (citation omitted). Here, Appellant was in custody, and the police
informed him that they were in possession of his car. Even so, we do not
consider his consent to have resulted from duress, coercion or a will
overborne. Appellant was only in custody for a few hours before he gave
consent. There is no evidence that his interrogations were improper in any
way: the police did not use inappropriate language or tone of voice or make
any physical contact with Appellant other than escorting him into an interview
room. The totality of circumstances convince us that his consent was
voluntary.
IV. Search Warrant For Appellant’s Residence
At some point during the afternoon, Detective Perfidio prepared a search
warrant application to seize “ballistics, ammunition, handguns, identification,
- 19 -
J-A31038-16
[and] any and all items of evidentiary value” in Appellant’s apartment
residence at 2987 Richmond Street in Philadelphia. N.T., 6/12/14, at 60-61;
Commonwealth Exhibit C5. Detective Perfidio stated in his affidavit of
probable cause:
On 8/27/13 at approx. 4:56 a.m., [p]olice responded to
Episcopal Hospital where [Appellant] informed them that he
was shot by an unknown male at the location of 2400 Beach
St. [Appellant] was suffering from a gunshot wound to his
left buttock area. Upon investigation, witnesses in the area
informed police that there were no gunshots heard in the
area at the time of the alleged incident, no crime scene was
located at 2400 Beach St. by the assigned. Upon further
investigation inside of [East Detectives, Appellant]
stated that the incident occurred inside his residence
at the above location, where he accidentally shot
himself while removing his .380 handgun from his
rear pocket.
[Appellant] stated that the weapon is still inside the
location. Your affiant respectfully request[s] a search
warrant be approved for the above location to recover the
weapon and the above[-]mentioned items.11
Id. (emphasis added). At 3:55 p.m., a magistrate approved the search
warrant. Id. Detectives Gonzalez and Perfidio went to Appellant’s apartment
and recovered a silver and black nine millimeter BB gun in the kitchen area
which “look[ed] like a real gun.” N.T., 6/12/14, at 67. The detectives did not
find a real gun, contrary to Appellant’s assurance in his second custodial
statement that the weapon was still inside his apartment.
11The affidavit did not mention the seizure of the pants from Appellant’s car,
presumably because Detective Perfidio prepared the affidavit before the
detectives searched the car.
- 20 -
J-A31038-16
The trial court held that the search warrant provided probable cause to
search Appellant’s residence. We agree.
The legal principles applicable to a review of the sufficiency
of probable cause affidavits are well settled. Before an
issuing authority may issue a constitutionally valid search
warrant, he or she must be furnished with information
sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that probable
cause exists to conduct a search. The standard for
evaluating a search warrant is a ‘totality of the
circumstances' test as set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462
U.S. 213 [] (1983), and adopted in Commonwealth v.
Gray, [] 503 A.2d 921 ([Pa.] 1985). A magistrate is to
make a ‘practical, common sense decision whether, given
all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him,
including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons
supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability
that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place.’ The information offered to establish
probable cause must be viewed in a common sense,
nontechnical manner. Probable cause is based on a finding
of the probability, not a prima facie showing of criminal
activity, and deference is to be accorded a magistrate's
finding of probable cause.
Commonwealth v. Rapak, 138 A.3d 666, 670-71 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation
omitted).
Importantly, “[t]he law is clear that where some evidence contained in
a search warrant affidavit is unlawfully obtained, we must consider whether
the affidavit nonetheless sets forth probable cause in the absence of such
evidence.” Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 935 A.2d 1275, 1283 (Pa. 2007)
(citation omitted).
Detective Perfidio’s affidavit of probable cause rests in material part
upon Appellant’s custodial statement to Detective Gonzalez that he
- 21 -
J-A31038-16
accidentally shot himself in his apartment. This statement established
probable cause that police would find evidence of crime inside Appellant’s
apartment.
V. Appellant’s Third Statement At East Detectives
After searching Appellant’s apartment without finding the gun that he
said he left there, Detective Gonzalez returned to the police station. At 7:30
p.m., the detective met with Appellant, who had remained in custody
throughout the day. N.T., 6/12/14, at 72-73. The detective gave Appellant
Miranda warnings and “confronted him . . . [with] the inconsistencies in [his
earlier] statement. It just didn’t add up. And I asked him about [the
attempted robbery against Fike]. I asked him, and he told me that he was
involved in that [robbery].” Id. at 77. Appellant then told the detective that
Harris was with him at the time of this robbery. Id.
Based on the evidence gathered throughout the day, the police had
probable cause to believe that Appellant either had submitted a false report
at the hospital or had participated in Fike’s robbery. For a second time, the
police properly administered Miranda warnings, resulting in Appellant’s
confession that he was involved in the robbery.
VI. Conclusion
As stated above, Appellant claims that the trial court erred by failing to
suppress his three statements to police at East Detectives, the evidence
obtained during the search of his car, and the evidence obtained during the
- 22 -
J-A31038-16
search of his residence. Having carefully studied each step of the
investigation, we conclude that the impoundment of Appellant’s car was
unconstitutional. But for the reasons given above, this misstep did not
necessitate suppression of Appellant’s statements at East Detectives, the
evidence obtained during the search of his car, or the evidence obtained from
the search of his residence. This admissible evidence, along with the other
evidence admitted during trial, provides a sturdy foundation for the verdict.
Cf. Commonwealth v. Iannelli, 634 A.2d 1120, 1132 (Pa. Super. 1993)
(evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that the defendant would have been
convicted even absent evidence that police allegedly improperly seized from
defendant’s residence). The trial court’s disposition of Appellant’s motion to
suppress does not entitle him to relief.
Appellant’s Challenge To The Legality Of His Sentence
In his third and final argument, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the
trial court imposed an illegal sentence of four years’ probation for his second
degree misdemeanor of false reports, and his sentences for simple assault and
attempted theft should merge with his sentence for robbery. The trial court
agrees that Appellant’s sentence is illegal, Trial Ct. Op., at 16, and the
Commonwealth does not oppose a remand for resentencing. Accordingly, we
will remand this case for resentencing.
Convictions affirmed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded
for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
- 23 -
J-A31038-16
P.J.E. Bender joins.
Judge Moulton Concurs in the Result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2017
- 24 -