Com. v. White, S. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • J-S79041-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF                            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    Appellee                :
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    STEPHEN WHITE                              :
    :
    Appellant               :        No. 239 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 11, 2016
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002455-2015
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:                          FILED JANUARY 19, 2018
    Appellant, Stephen White, appeals from the judgment of sentence
    entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury
    trial convictions for one count each of loitering and prowling, conspiracy to
    commit loitering and prowling, persons not to possess firearms, and two
    counts of receiving stolen property (“RSP”).1 We affirm.
    The trial court opinion accurately set forth the relevant facts and
    procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
    Appellant raises four issues for our review:2
    WAS   [APPELLANT] PROPERLY PROSECUTED                     IN
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY FOR CRIMES WHICH,                       IF
    ____________________________________________
    1
    18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5506; 903; 6105; 3925, respectively.
    2
    For purposes of disposition, we have reordered some of Appellant’s issues.
    J-S79041-17
    SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE, TOOK
    PLACE IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY? WAS THERE AN “OVERT
    ACT” AS DISCUSSED IN [COMMONWEALTH V. MCPHAIL,
    547 PA. 519, 692 A.2D 139 (1997) (PLURALITY)] THAT
    TOOK PLACE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY THAT WOULD
    SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT’S VENUE AND JURISDICTION?
    DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO SUPPRESS
    EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS THE RESULT OF WARRANTS FOR
    TWO SEPARATE RESIDENCES IN PHILADELPHIA AND THEN
    AGAIN WHEN SAID EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED DURING THE
    TRIAL IN THIS CASE? DID THE POLICE OVERREACH BY
    SEEKING ANY POSSIBLE LOCATION WHERE [APPELLANT]
    MIGHT HAVE RESIDED IN THE PAST, LEAVING THE
    WARRANTS TO LACK A SUFFICIENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE
    ALLEGED CRIMES AND THE LOCATION TO BE SEARCHED AS
    WELL AS LACKING PROBABLE CAUSE?          WERE THE
    WARRANTS OVERBROAD AND FAILING TO STATE WITH
    PARTICULARITY THE ITEMS TO BE SEIZED? WERE THE
    WARRANTS     BASED   UPON   AN     UNLAWFUL    AND
    WARRANTLESS     DETENTION  OF    [APPELLANT]   AND
    SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF HIM?
    WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A
    CONVICTION OF [APPELLANT] FOR EITHER POSSESSION
    OF A STOLEN WEAPON, A RING[,] OR OF BEING A PERSON
    NOT TO POSSESS THAT WEAPON?
    DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN SENTENCING [APPELLANT]
    TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF INCARCERATION FOR CRIMES
    FOR WHICH THE ELEMENTS ARE NEARLY IDENTICAL.
    SPECIFICALLY, [APPELLANT] WAS SENTENCED FOR BOTH
    POSSESSING A STOLEN FIREARM AND FOR BEING A
    PERSON NOT TO POSSESS THAT SAME FIREARM?
    (Appellant’s Brief at 5-6).
    After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
    applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Steven T.
    O’Neill, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
    comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented.
    -2-
    J-S79041-17
    (See Trial Court Opinion, filed April 19, 2017, at 7-17) (finding: (1)
    Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas have subject matter jurisdiction over
    violations of Crimes Code; court in which Appellant was tried is Court of
    Common Pleas, so it had jurisdiction over all charges against Appellant; under
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(A)(3), when charges arising from same criminal episode
    occur in more than one judicial district, criminal proceeding on all charges may
    be brought before one issuing authority in magisterial district within any of
    judicial districts in which charges arising from same criminal episode occurred;
    by letter of March 31, 2015, Philadelphia County District Attorney’s office sent
    McPhail letter3 to Montgomery County District Attorney’s office agreeing to
    let Montgomery County prosecute charges of RSP and persons not to possess
    firearm (which occurred in Philadelphia County); Appellant did not challenge
    at any time before trial ability of Montgomery County to prosecute charges
    related to property recovered from his Philadelphia apartment;4 further, fact
    ____________________________________________
    3
    In McPhail, a plurality of our Supreme Court held that all charges stemming
    from a single criminal episode must be heard in a single trial, even where
    some of the charges arose in more than one judicial district. See McPhail,
    supra at 
    530, 692 A.2d at 145
    . To implement the holding in McPhail, Rule
    130 was added to the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. McPhail was
    later superseded by statute. Nevertheless, district attorney’s offices still use
    the term “McPhail letter” when discussing the transfer of cases involving a
    continuing criminal episode spanning different counties.
    4
    Appellant insists his issue is a non-waivable jurisdictional challenge.
    Appellant’s claim, however, actually attacks the venue of the court. See
    McPhail, supra at 
    529, 692 A.2d at 144
    (stating: “[T]he place of trial,
    whether within or without the county where the alleged crime occurred, is a
    -3-
    J-S79041-17
    that jury was deadlocked on burglary charge arising out of Montgomery
    County does not somehow invalidate proper transfer which took place in this
    case; because Philadelphia and Montgomery counties agreed to prosecute all
    charges against Appellant in Montgomery County, venue and jurisdiction in
    Montgomery County was proper, and Appellant’s claim lacks merit; (2) police
    established burglary detail due to multiple burglaries which occurred in
    Montgomery County; Detective Sergeant Fink testified that during burglary
    detail on March 21, 2015, Officer Bullock observed Appellant and his cohort
    drive slowly around high-end neighborhoods at night; when Officer Bullock
    ran tag on car, there was no record of registration; Detective Sergeant Fink
    joined in surveillance and twice observed Appellant exit vehicle and approach
    houses; Detective Sergeant Fink saw Appellant “creeping” around one home
    and crouching to look into window; based on his training and experience,
    Detective Sergeant Fink believed Appellant and his cohort were casing homes
    to burglarize, which gave police reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle; once
    police stopped vehicle, Detective Sergeant Fink observed, in plain view, ladder
    ____________________________________________
    matter of venue, not jurisdiction”; unlike subject matter jurisdiction, venue is
    waivable if not properly preserved). Appellant raised this issue for the first
    time at the hearing on his post-sentence motion. Appellant’s failure to object
    to venue at the appropriate stage of the proceedings constitutes waiver of his
    claim on appeal. See generally Pa.R.Crim.P. 578 (stating motion for change
    of venue should be raised in omnibus pre-trial motion at “earliest feasible”
    time); Commonwealth v. Strunk, 
    953 A.2d 577
    (Pa.Super. 2008) (stating
    party’s failure to raise error and request remedy at appropriate stage of
    proceedings constitutes waiver on appeal; party may not remain silent and
    later complain of matters which, if erroneous, court could have corrected).
    -4-
    J-S79041-17
    matching description of ladder contained in intelligence bulletin regarding
    February 7, 2015 burglary, as well as multiple cell phones, gloves, and
    screwdrivers, which are commonly used in burglaries; officers had probable
    cause to arrest Appellant for loitering and prowling; affidavits of probable
    cause issued for search warrants of Appellant’s homes outlined Detective
    Sergeant Fink’s training and experience, Appellant’s criminal history, and
    contained extensive detail regarding recent Montgomery County burglaries,
    as well as facts which led to instant charges; affidavits also indicated that at
    time of Appellant’s arrest, he had Pennsylvania driver’s license and parole card
    with address on 10th Street in Philadelphia; further investigation revealed
    Appellant was registered with Department of Human Services with address on
    Haverford Avenue in Philadelphia; PennDot records indicated Appellant had
    car registered to Haverford Avenue address; there was sufficient probable
    cause to believe items stolen in Montgomery County burglaries would be found
    in any one of these residences; warrants for Appellant’s Philadelphia addresses
    were not overly broad and stated specifically that police sought: proof of
    residence, Beretta 9-mm handgun, and assorted jewelry; police ultimately
    recovered from Appellant’s residence ring and gun stolen in February 7, 2015
    burglary; court properly denied motion to suppress;5 (3) totality of
    ____________________________________________
    5
    We depart only from the trial court’s statement on page nine that Appellant
    waived his challenge to the admissibility at trial of the search warrants and
    property recovered during execution of those warrants. Appellant preserved
    -5-
    J-S79041-17
    circumstances showed Appellant had constructive possession of firearm; mail,
    phone records, expired driver’s license, and testimony from Appellant’s
    girlfriend tied Appellant to location where police recovered stolen gun; in
    bifurcated portion of trial following jury’s verdict on other charges, parties
    stipulated Appellant was person not to possess firearms due to prior burglary
    conviction; evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions for RSP
    (firearm) and persons not to possess firearms;6 (4) as presented, Appellant’s
    challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences does not raise substantial
    question; moreover, sentence was not “clearly unreasonable”; in light of
    Appellant’s extensive criminal history, aggregate sentence of 9 to 20 years’
    imprisonment is wholly appropriate; court considered Appellant’s extensive
    ____________________________________________
    his evidentiary challenge by filing a pre-trial motion to suppress, so he did not
    need to object to admission of the evidence again at trial. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
    581(J) (stating: “If the court determines that the evidence shall not be
    suppressed, such determination shall be final, conclusive, and binding at trial,
    except upon a showing of evidence which was theretofore unavailable, but
    nothing herein shall prevent a defendant from opposing such evidence at trial
    upon any ground except its admissibility”); Commonwealth v. Walker, 
    477 Pa. 370
    , 
    383 A.2d 1253
    (1978) (explaining objection at trial to evidence which
    court already ruled was admissible in pre-trial suppression proceeding would
    constitute “useless act”; appellant did not waive challenge to admissibility of
    evidence at trial where he challenged admissibility of that evidence in pre-trial
    suppression motion). In any event, because the court properly denied
    Appellant’s suppression motion, admission of the evidence at trial was proper.
    6
    To the extent Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain
    any other convictions in this case, he waived those complaints for failure to
    raise them in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Castillo,
    
    585 Pa. 395
    , 
    888 A.2d 775
    (2005) (holding as general rule that issues not
    raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived on appeal).
    -6-
    J-S79041-17
    criminal history, which included numerous crimes against persons, when court
    fashioned sentence that protected community from Appellant’s recidivist
    behavior; Appellant’s firearm offenses are serious and pose danger to
    community; harms sought to be remedied by Appellant’s RSP (firearm) and
    persons not to possess offenses are different, so court imposed consecutive
    terms of imprisonment for those crimes; additionally, court imposed
    concurrent sentences for Appellant’s remaining convictions; court did not
    abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant7). Accordingly, we affirm on the
    basis of the trial court’s opinion.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 1/19/2018
    ____________________________________________
    7
    Appellant’s remaining sentencing claims on appeal are waived for failure to
    preserve them in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See 
    id. -7- Circulated
    01/05/2018 01:02 PM
    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY                             <586fiT.i:,;-.
    PENNSYLVANIA
    CRIMINAL DMSION          20!7 AF'f{ i 9 PM                               2: 57
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                            NO. 2455-15
    v.
    ....,\
    �:       STEPHEN RODNEY WHITE
    If"\'
    .....�
    OPINION
    O'NEILL, J.                                            April      If, 2017
    The Defendant, Stephen Rodney White appeals from the judgement of
    sentence entered on August 11, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the
    judgement of sentence should be affirmed.
    I.     Facts and Procedural History
    On February 7, 2015, the home at 1277 Burnett Road, Huntingdon
    Valley, Lower Mo�elan�1_Montgomery County was burglarized. The
    homeowners returned to their home that evening to find that the upstairs had
    been ransacked and jewelry, watches, $2,800 cash, and a 9-millimeter Beretta,
    serial number J24532Z, were taken. (N.T. May 24, 2016 at 50; 55). The home
    was entered through the upstairs master bathroom window. 
    Id. at 58;
    78. On
    the ground outside the window, police found a spider web like ladder footprint
    in the snow. 
    Id. at 80.
    Sneaker prints and Timberland boot prints were also
    found at the scene, indicating there were two perpetrators. There were
    footprints that matched the sneaker print in the master bathroom. 
    Id. at 96.
    The window was pried open with a pry bar or screw driver. 
    Id. at 97
    .
    ... ,   ...                  _
    As a result of this burglary and other burglaries that occurred in Lower
    Moreland and Abington Townships, Montgomery County, during the months of
    February and March 2015, Detective Sergeant Stephen Fink of the Abington
    Police Department was assigned to head a burglary task force. Prior to
    commencing surveillance, Det. Sgt. Fink reviewed an intelligence bulletin put
    "'�   out by the Lower Moreland Police Department. (Commonwealth's Exhibit 122
    ("C-122"); N.T. May 24, 2016 at 147). The bulletin outlined the February 7,
    2015 burglary and contained pictures· of the two sets of shoe prints and ladder
    print found at 1277 Burnett Road on February 7, 2015. 
    Id. at 147-150.
    On March 21, 2015, the taskforce was conducting surveillance in the
    residential areas adjacent to Huntingdon Pike for the 11th night in a row. Det,
    Sgt. Fink positioned plainclothes officers throughout the residential areas
    adjacent to Huntingdon Pike, which runs through both Lower Moreland and
    Abington and is in close proximity to Burnett Road. 
    Id. at 151-152.
    At approximately 8:30 p.m., Officer Dan Bullock observed a white Buick SUV
    turn off of Moredon Road into a small cul-de-sac containing high end homes,
    drive around the cul-de-sac, and return to Moredon Road and continue in the
    same direction of travel. 
    Id. at 152.
      Officer Bullock ran the license plate on
    the vehicle and found that there was no registered owner. 
    Id. The vehicle
    began to travel toward Det. Sgt. Fink's location. 
    Id. at 153.
    Officer Bullock
    advised Det. Sgt. Fink that he believed there was one person in the vehicle. 
    Id. Officer Bullock
    followed the vehicle down Moredon Road and made a left on
    Pine Road, at which time Det. Sgt. Fink pulled in behind Officer Bullock 
    Id. 2 All
    three vehicles approached a red light at the intersection of Pine and Welsh
    Road. 
    Id. at 154.
    Officer Bullock entered the right turn lane and pulled up
    next to the passenger side of the vehicle at which time he radioed to Det. Sgt.
    Fink that there was only o:he person in the car, the driver, who was later
    identified· as Brian Bosket. 
    Id. Det. Sgt.
    Fink continued to follow the vehicle
    into another residential neighborhood. 
    Id. at 155.
    The vehicle ultimately turned onto Bonnie Lane at which time Det. Sgt.
    Fink positioned himself at the top of the street. 
    Id. at 155-156,
    158. Det. Sgt.
    Fink observed the vehicle driving very slowly, approximately five miles per
    hour, down Bonnie Lane. 
    Id. The car
    stopped at the curve in Bonnie Lane and
    Det. Sgt. Fink observed a person, later identified as the Defendant, exit the
    passenger side of the vehicle. 
    Id. at 159.
    Det. Sgt. Fink observed the
    Defendant go across the front of the house at 2611 Bonnie Lane and up the
    driveway on the right side of the house. 
    Id. at 160.
    Det. Sgt. Fink radioed the
    other officers on the detail and exited his vehicle. 
    Id. at 161.
            Det. Sgt. Fink
    approached on foot in attempt to observe the Defendant. 
    Id. Det. Sgt.
    Fink
    briefly lost sight of him and then observed him coming back down the driveway
    and returning to the Buick. 
    Id. The house
    was dark and there were no cars in
    the driveway. 
    Id. at 162.
    The Buick then continued to inch down Bonnie Lane and stopped in-
    front of 2635 Bonnie Lane, which was also dark. 
    Id. Again, the
    Defendant
    exited the passenger side of the vehicle and went up the driveway. 
    Id. at 163.
    Det. Sgt. Fink was still on foot and was able to get within about two houses of
    ----------··-·---···--·                                                                       ·········----------
    3
    -·--- ···-·-----------�... - -----�------------··· ----· .. ·-·--·-   -----·······-···
    2635 Bonnie Lane. 
    Id. He observed
    the Defendant crouching in a row of
    hedges at the front of the home looking in the windows. 
    Id. at 164,
    173. The
    Defendant did not ring the doorbell or knock on the door. 
    Id. Again the
    Defendant returned to the Buick. 
    Id. at 17
    4.
    At this point Det. Sgt. Fink returned to his car and radioed other officers.
    
    Id. at 17
    5. The Buick left Bonnie Lane and continued slowly through the
    residential area, eventually turning onto Sunflower Way, which was the only
    point of egress from the neighborhood. 
    Id. at 17
    5-1 76. The Buick again drove
    very slowly and stopped at Morning Glory Way and Sunflower Way. 
    Id. at 17
    6.
    All four plainclothes officers had joined Det. Sgt. Fink at this time. The car
    remained stopped for a minute or two and then began driving at a normal rate
    of speed. 
    Id. at 1
    77. At this point Det. Sgt. Fink radioed uniformed Lower
    Moreland officers and asked them to initiate a traffic stop. 
    Id. Det. Sgt.
    Fink arrived at the scene of the traffic stop, at which time he
    observed, in plain view, a ladder matching the description of the ladder in the
    intelligence bulletin in the third row seating of the Buick. 
    Id. at 17
    9. Det. Sgt.
    Fink also saw multiple cell phones and gloves in plain view in the center
    console of the vehicle. 
    Id. at 1
    80. At this point, the Defendant and the driver
    of the Buick, Brian Bosket, were taken into custody. 
    Id. On March
    22, 2015, Det. Sgt. Fink prepared search warrants for the
    Defendant's known addresses, as well as the home address of Brian Bosket.
    
    Id. at 1
    82. Investigation revealed that the Defendant had a vehicle registered
    in his name with an address of 7212 Haverford Avenue, Apt. B-4, Philadelphia,
    ··----------·--··-·-····-·--
    4
    PA. 
    Id. at 1
    83. During the execution of the search warrant at the Haverford
    Avenue apartment, law enforcement recovered mail addressed to the
    Defendant, an expired driver's license bearing the Defendant's name and
    Haverford Avenue address, Nike Air Force One sneakers, Timberland boots, a
    gold diamond ring, and a Beretta 9-millimeter handgun, serial number
    ·�,11   J24532Z. 
    Id. 188-197. The
    Beretta and the diamond ring were taken from the
    home at 1277 Burnett Road on February 7, 2015.
    Search warrants were also executed on the Buick and the cell phones
    found in the center console. In addition to the ladder and cell phones, a ski
    mask, two pairs of gloves, two screw drivers, a knife, Nike Air Max sneakers, a
    license plate, dog mace, and a flashlight were recovered from the vehicle. 
    Id. at 211;
    C-130.
    Following a four dayjury trial, the Defendant was convicted of Loitering
    and Prowling at Nighttime1, Conspiracy to Loitering and Prowling at Nighttimes,
    Receiving Stolen Property3, and, following a bifurcated trial, Person Not to
    Possess a Firearm. 4 The jury deadlocked on the charges of Burglary>, Theft By
    Unlawful Takings and Criminal Trespass.?
    On August 11, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term
    of nine (9) to twenty (20) years' incarceration in a state correctional institution.
    1
    18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5506.
    2   18 Pa. C,S.A. § 903(a)(l).
    3   18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3925(a).
    4   18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6105 (a}.
    5
    18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3502(a)(2).
    6 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 392l(a).
    7 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3503(a)(l)(ii).
    ·----··-
    5
    On August 22, 2016, the Defendant filed a timely post-sentence motion.
    Following a hearing on November 29, 2016, this Court denied the motion by
    Order of December 16, 2016. This appeal followed. By Order of January 9,
    2017, the Court directed the Defendant to produce a statement of matters
    complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The Defendant has
    "'1               since complied with that directive.
    II.             Issues
    The Defendant raises the following issues in his concise statement,
    renumbered in the order in which they will be addressed:
    1. Defendant was prosecuted for crimes in Montgomery County
    which, if supported by reliable evidence, took place in Philadelphia
    County.     Although a request was sent in accordance with
    Commonwealth v. McPhail, 69;2 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), the letter
    specifically stated that said prosecution was to be used in a
    Montgomery County investigation into Montgomery County
    burglaries. The jury in this matter was unable to reach a verdict
    on the burglary charges and only found Defendant guilty of
    misdemeanor charges of Loitering and Conspiracy to loiter for
    actions within Montgomery County and therefore no "overt act" as
    discussed in McPhail took place in Montgomery County that would
    support the trial court's venue and jurisdiction.
    2. The Trial court erred when it failed to first suppress evidence
    obtained as the result of warrants for two separate residences in
    Philadelphia and then again when the Trial Court admitted said
    evidence during the trial in this case. The warrants were based
    upon allegations of loitering in Montgomery County and the
    Defendant, upon detention for those allegations, provided two
    forms of proper identification for his actual residence. The police
    overreached by seeking any possible locations where the Defendant
    might have resided in the past and the warrants thus lacked a
    sufficient nexus between the alleged crimes and the location to be
    searched and also lack· probable cause.         The warrants were
    overbroad and failed to state with particularity the items to be
    seized.    The warrants were based upon an unlawful and
    warrantless detention of the · Defendant and subsequent
    investigation of him;
    -------··-------
    6
    ·----..... --.···� -···. - - ··- - ····- ..., .. --�------ ·-·.   - .... -.- ----·····-·----·
    3. Absent the evidence gained in reliance of [sic] the improper
    warrants, there was no evidence sufficient to support a conviction
    of the Defendant for either possession of a stolen weapon or being
    a person not to possess that weapon.
    4. The Trial Court erred in sentencing Defendant to cons.ecutive terms
    of incarceration for crimes for which the elements are nearly
    identical.  Specifically, the Defendant was sentenced for both
    possessing a stolen firearm and for being a person not to possess
    that same firearm. While the imposed sentence is a legal sentence,
    the punitive nature of the consecutive sentences as a whole is an
    abuse of discretion, particularly when the firearm was never found
    in the Defendant's actual possession.
    III.       Discussion
    1. All of the charges against the Defendant were properly tried in
    Montgomery County.
    Defendant's first claim is that the jury's inability to reach a verdict on
    Burglary and Theft By Unlawful taking while finding him guilty of Receiving
    Stolen Property based on the recovery of property from a Philadelphia address,
    somehow divested this Court of jurisdiction over these charges and rendered
    Montgomery County the inappropriate venue. This claim is wholly illogical and
    without merit and, therefore, must fail.
    All courts of common pleas have subject matter jurisdiction over
    violations of the Crimes Code. See, Commonwealth v. Bethea, 
    828 A.2d 1066
    ,
    1074-75 (Pa. 2003). "Subject matter jurisdiction and venue. are distinct.
    However, since jurisdiction references the power of a court to entertain and
    adjudicate a matter while venue pertains to the locality most convenient to the
    proper disposition of a matter, venue can only be proper where jurisdiction
    already exists." 
    Id. (citation omitted).
    The terms are often loosely used
    ------------ -·-         - ·--------·-··.                                         ---·-----··
    7
    interchangeably because they must both exist for a court to exercise its power.
    
    Id. Clearly, as
    a Court of Common Pleas, this Court had jurisdiction over all of
    the charges against the Defendant.
    Pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding venue, "[w]hen
    charges arising from the same criminal episode occur in more than one judicial
    district, the criminal proceeding on all the charges may be brought before one
    issuing authority in a magisterial district within any of the judicial districts in
    which the charges arising from the same criminal episode occurred." Pa. R.
    Crim. P. 130 (A)(3). As conceded by the Defendant, by letter of March 31,
    2015, an Assistant District Attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney's
    Office sent a letter to Montgomery County agreeing, pursuant to McPhail, 54 
    7 Pa. 519
    and Pa. R. Crim. P. 130, to let Montgomery County assume jurisdiction
    over the charges of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property and Possession of a
    Firearm. The fact that the jury in the instant case hung on the charge of
    Burglary cannot somehow render the proper transfer of a case invalid. This
    court is aware of no authority, and the Defendant has cited none, that would
    support this proposition. Furthermore, at no time prior to his trial did the
    Defendant challenge the ability of Montgomery County to prosecute the charges
    related to the property recovered from his Philadelphia apartment. Therefore,
    because Philadelphia and Montgomery County entered into an agreement to
    prosecute all charges in Montgomery County, the venue and jurisdiction of this
    Court was proper and this claim is devoid of merit.
    8
    2. This Court did not err in denying the Defendant's Motion to
    Suppress.
    The Defendant's next contention contains several challenges to this Court's
    denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search
    warrants executed on his residences.s 'Specifically, the Defendant asserts that
    he was unlawfully detained; therefore, the search warrants that were
    subsequently obtained for his.residences were improper and not supported by
    probable cause. Additionally, he asserts that the warrants were overbroad and
    that there was not an established nexus between the crimes and the properties
    to be searched. The Defendant also claims that the admission at trial of the
    evidence obtained through the challenged warrants was error.. Counsel did not
    object when either the search warrants or the ring and firearm were admitted
    into evidence, therefore, he cannot raise this claim for the first time on appeal.
    (N.T. May 24, 2016 at 63, 65, and 186). The motion to suppress was properly
    denied, therefore, this claim must fail.
    The standard of review for the denial of a suppression motion is well settled.
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:
    In reviewing a trial court's suppression ruling, our initial task is to
    determine whether the factual findings are supported by the
    record. In making this determination, we must consider only the
    evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, and so much evidence of
    the defense that remains uncontradicted when fairly read in the
    context of the record. as a whole.. When the evidence supports the
    factual findings, we are bound by such findings; we may reverse
    only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are erroneous.
    s The Court notes that nothing of evidentiary value was found as a result   of the search
    of 5121 N. 1 Qth Street.
    -------------·--·-··· ·-· ··--··----··--- --···········-- --
    -····                                                ---····-------·
    9
    Commonwealth v. Wituszynski, 
    784 A.2d 1284
    , 1285 (Pa. 2001)(citing
    Commonwealth v. Bridges, 
    757 A.2d 859
    , 868 (Pa. 2000) (quoting
    Commonwealth v. Williams, 
    650 A.2d 420
    , 425-26 (Pa. 1994)).
    First, the Defendant was lawfully detained. It is well settled that there
    are three categories of police-citizen interactions.
    The first of these is .a 'mere encounter' (or request for information)
    which need not be. supported by any level of suspicion, but carries
    no official compulsion- to stop or to respond. The second, an
    'investigative detention' must be supported by a reasonable
    suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention,
    but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the
    functional equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an arrest or 'custodial
    detention' must be supported by probable cause.
    Commonwealth v. Ranson, 
    103 A.3d 73
    , 76-77 (Pa. Super. 2014), reargument
    denied (Dec. 16, 2014), appeal denied, 
    117 A.3d 296
    (Pa. 2015) (citations
    omitted). Furthermore,
    [ a] police officer may detain an individual in order to conduct an
    investigation if that officer reasonably suspects that the individual
    is engaging in criminal conduct. This standard, less stringent than
    probable cause, is commonly known as reasonable suspicion. In
    order to determine whether "the police officer had reasonable
    suspicion, the totality of the circumstances must be considered. In
    making this determination, we must give due weight to the specific
    reasonable inferences the police officer is entitled to draw from the
    facts in light of· his . experience. Also, the totality of the
    circumstances test does not limit our inquiry to an examination of
    only those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct. Rather,
    even a combination of "innocent facts, when taken together, may
    warrant further investigation by the police officer.
    
    Id. at 77.
    (citations omitted).
    10
    Det. Sgt. Fink testified that while out on a burglary detail? Officer
    Bullock observed the Defendant, in a vehicle driven by Brian Bosket, drive
    slowly around high end- neighborhoods at night.        N.T. Feb. 29; 2016 at 32.
    When Officer Bullockran the tag on the car, there was no record found. 
    Id. Detective Sergeant
    Fink joined in surveillance and, twice, Fink observed the
    Defendant get out of the car and approach houses on Bonnie Lane; the
    Defendant returned to the vehicle both times. 
    Id. at 39-46.
    At 2635 Bonnie
    Lane, Det. Sgt. Fink observed the Defendant "creeping" around the house and
    crouching to look in the window of the home. 
    Id. at 45.
    Det. Sgt. Fink then
    followed the Buick to another residential street with high end homes, where,
    again, the Buick drove very slowly. 
    Id. at 48.
    Based on his training and experience, and his observations, Det. Sgt.
    Fink believed that the Defendant and his companion were casing homes in
    order to find a home to burglarize. 
    Id. Therefore, "knowing
    that [he] observed
    loitering and prowling at nighttime and [he] believed they were attempting to
    break into homes,'' he ordered a traffic stop when the car began to leave the
    area. 
    Id. at 51.
    The court found that, based on the totality of the
    circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. 
    Id. at 17
    5.
    Once the vehicle was stopped, Det. Sgt. Fink observed, in plain view, a ladder
    matching the description of the ladder contained in the intelligence bulletin
    regarding the February 7, 2015 burglary at 1277 Burnett Road as well as what
    9 There was testimony that there were four burglaries prior to March 21, 2015, that
    law enforcement believed were· related and resulted in the creation of a burglary detail.
    N.T. Feb. 29, 2016 at 18. However, the Defendant was only charged with one
    completed burglary.
    11
    he recognized as common tools used by burglars, specifically, multiple cell
    phones, gloves and screw drivers. 
    Id. at 53-56.
    At this point, officers had
    probable cause to arrest the Defendant for loitering and prowling. 
    Id. at 17
    5-
    177.
    Second, the warrants for the Defendant's residence were properly issued.
    It is well settled that probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists
    when the facts and circumstances set forth in the affidavit are sufficient to lead
    to a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime will be found as a result of the
    search to be authorized by the warrant. Furthermore, an "[a]ffidavit for a
    search warrant is to be tested by [the Superior Court] with common sense and
    a realistic manner, and not subjected to overly technical interpretations; the
    magistrate's determination of probable cause is to be accorded great deference
    on review." Commonwealth v. Vergotz, 
    616 A.2d 1379
    , 1382 (Pa. Super. 1992)
    (citations omitted).
    The affidavits of probable cause clearly outline the training and
    experience of the investigating officer, Det. Sgt. Fink, including his knowledge
    regarding how burglaries are committed and what tools are used, what is
    commonly taken, and where stolen property is commonly found. The affidavits
    outline the criminal history of the Defendant. Additionally, the affidavits
    contain extensive detail regarding the investigation involving burglaries that
    occurred during this time period, as well as the facts outlined above that led to
    the instant charges. Finally, the affidavits outline that at the time of his arrest,
    the Defendant had a Pennsylvania Driver's License and a Parole Card with an
    12
    address of 5121 N. 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA. Further investigation revealed
    that Defendant was actively registered with the PA Department of Human
    \         Services at 7212 Haverford Avenue, Apartment B-4, Philadelphia, PA.
    f'I�
    �,        Additionally, PENNDOT records indicated that the Defendant had a car
    "\...
    11'1�
    �         registered in his name at that location. Therefore, there was sufficient
    II<•!',
    "J       probable cause to believe that the items searched for would be found in one of
    these residences.
    Furthermore, the warrants for both 5121 N. 10th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
    and 7212 Haverford Avenue, Apartment B-4, Philadelphia, Pa. are not
    overbroad and state specifically that the following items were to be searched for
    and seized: proof of residence, Beretta 9-mm semi-automatic handgun, serial
    number J24532Z, assorted jewelry such as earrings, bracelets, mens'. watches,
    diamond, gold rings, etc. (CS-20; CS:.-30). As outlined above, inter alia, the
    handgun and a ring were recovered as a result of the search of Haverford
    Avenue. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to suppress was
    properly denied.
    3. Sufficiency of the Evidence
    Because the Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied, the
    evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for Receiving
    Stolen Property and Person not to Possess. The Defendant was also convicted
    of Receiving Stolen Property for the diamond ring that was stolen from 1277
    Burnett Rd., however, he does not appear to be challenging his conviction on
    that count.
    13
    In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to view the
    evidence, and all permissible inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light
    most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner. The test is whether,
    taking as true the evidence most favorable to the Commonwealth, together with
    all reasonable inferences therefrom, the evidence is sufficient to prove
    �    appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 
    463 A.2d 1117
    , 1118-19 (Pa. Super. 1983).(citations omitted).
    A person commits the crime of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property if, "he
    intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another
    knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen ..
    . As used in this section the word "receiving" means acquiring possession,
    control or title .... " 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3925.               The Commonwealth was not required
    to prove actual possession of the stolen property. '"In order to prove that a
    defendant had constructive possession of a prohibited item, the
    Commonwealth must establish that the defendant had both the ability to
    .                                   .
    consciously exercise control over it as well as the intent to exercise such
    control."' Commonwealth v. Harvard, 
    64 A.3d 690
    , 699 (Pa. Super. 2013)
    (quoting Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 
    969 A.2d 584
    , 590 (Pa.Super.2009)). '"An
    intent to maintain a conscious dominion may be inferred from the totality of
    the circumstances, and circumstantial evidence may be used to establish a
    defendant's possession of drugs or contraband." 
    Id. Instantly, the
    totality of the circumstances indicated that the Defendant
    had constructive possession of the firearm. Mail, phone records, an expired
    -------------·-··-· ..            ·--·····-------·-·-···-·                       ..   ·-·· ··------···   .....   -·--···-·•""   _
    14
    driver's license, and his girlfriend's testimony'? all tied him to the location in
    which the stolen gun was found. In the bifurcated portion of his trial, following
    the jury's specific
    .       finding that the Defendant possessed .the gun, the parties
    stipulated that the Defendant was a person not to possess, pursuant to 18 Pa.
    C.S.A. § 6105 (a), because of a prior conviction for burglary. N.T. May 27, 2016
    at 46. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions for
    receiving stolen property and person not to possess.
    4. Discretionary Aspect of Sentencing
    The Defendant's final claim is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of
    his sentence. It is well settled under Pennsylvania law that,
    [s]entencing is a matter vested       in
    the sound discretion of the
    sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
    absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context) an abuse of
    discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
    the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
    sentencing court ignored. or misapplied the law, exercised its
    judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or
    arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.
    Commonwealth v. Shugars, 
    895 A.2d 1270
    , 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
    omitted).
    Th�re is no absolute rightto appeal the discretionary aspects of a
    sentence) rather a Defendant may petition for an allowance of appeal. 42 Pa.
    C.S.A. § 9781 (b). An allowance of appeal will only be granted by the Superior
    Court where a substantial question exists regarding the propriety of the
    sentence. 
    Id. The existence
    of a substantial question is determined on a case
    by case basis. A substantial question exists "only when the appellant advances
    10   N.T. May 25, 2016 at 39-44, 51.
    15
    a colorable argument that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1)
    inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to
    the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process."
    Commonwealth v. Griffin, 
    65 A.3d 932
    , 935 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied,
    
    76 A.3d 538
    (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted).
    A court's imposition of consecutive sentences presents a substantial
    question in only "the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate
    sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length
    .of imprisonment." Commonwealth v. Swope, 
    2015 Pa. Super. 196
    , 
    123 A.3d 333
    , 338-39 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 
    52 A.3d 365
    , 372
    (Pa.Super.2012), appeal denied, 
    621 Pa. 677
    , 
    75 A.3d 1281
    (2013)). A bald
    claim of excessiveness based on consecutive nature of a sentence does not
    raise a substantial question. Commonwealth v. Dodge, 
    77 A.3d 1263
    , 1270
    (Pa.Super.2013), reargument denied (Nov. 21, 2013), appeal denied, 
    625 Pa. 648
    , 
    91 A.3d 161
    (2014) ("Dodge III"). In order to preserve a claim challenging
    the discretionary aspects of a sentence, the Defendant must raise the issue in a
    post sentence motion. Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 
    52 A.3d 365
    , 370 (Pa.
    Super. 2012). The Defendant has preserved his claim; however, this Court
    submits that he has not raised a substantial question regarding the propriety
    of his sentence. Even if his challenge to the consecutive imposition of sentence
    -----------·        ··-------·· .....
    16
    does raise a substantial question, the sentence is not "clearly unreasonable."              11
    In light of the Defendant's extensive criminal history, the aggregate sentence of
    9-20 years is wholly appropriate.
    The Court considered the Defendant's extensive criminal history,
    including numerous crimes against the person, in fashioning a sentence that
    ·....J   protected the community from the Defendant's recidivist behavior. N.T. Aug.
    11, 2016 at 67-73. At no time during sentencing did the Defendant object to
    the guidelines or to his designation as a repeat felon. The Defendant was
    convicted of both possessing a firearm and being a person legally unable to
    possess said firearm. Both are serious offenses that pose a danger to the
    community. And the harms sought to be remedied by these statutes are
    different. The Defendant's consecutive, standard range sentences for the
    firearm related charges are not "clearly unreasonable" in light of his
    designation as a repeat felon. Additionally, the sentences for the additional
    charges of which the Defendant was convicted were ordered to run concurrent
    to the firearm related charges. Therefore, this Court did not abuse its
    discretion in fashioning the Defendant's sentence.
    11 "Appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing
    court with instructions if it finds: the sentencing court sentenced within the
    sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the
    97��i�(�1_. ..... _ ----· --·
    __________ fil!idelines wou�d be ?.�bl�:" 42 Pa. C.S.A. §                               _
    17
    IV.   CONCLUSION
    Based upon the foregoing, the Judgment of Sentence should be affirmed.
    BY THE COURT:
    STEVEN T. O'NEILL       J.
    �
    Copies mailed on
    to the following:
    -- ---··---··--·-   ...
    18