Com. v. Almodovar, A. ( 2017 )

J-S14004-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ANTHONY BRUCE ALMODOVAR :
:
Appellant : No. 948 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0004599-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 28, 2017
Appellant, Anthony Bruce Almodovar, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following
his convictions for person not to possess a firearm, firearms not to be
carried without a license, and two counts of possession of a controlled
substance.1 We affirm.
The trial court opinion fully sets forth relevant facts and procedural
history of this case. Therefore we have no need to restate them.
Appellant raises one issue for review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING [APPELLANT]’S
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16),
respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S14004-17
MOTION TO SUPPRESS, WHERE POLICE POSSESSED
NEITHER REASONABLE SUSPICION TO DETAIN
[APPELLANT], NOR REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE
THAT HE WAS ARMED AND DANGEROUS, TO SUPPORT
THEIR FRISK OF HIM?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable David L.
Ashworth, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed July 22, 2016, at 4-17) (finding:
case involved multiple reports of shots fired as confirmed by recovery of
shell casings at reported scene of shooting, which raised reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity; reports also described possible suspect as
younger black male wearing white t-shirt running from scene; while
investigating person caught on camera near scene of shooting, Sergeant
Stoltzfus also observed close to scene another person who fit reported
description of light-skinned black male in white t-shirt; second subject was
later identified as Appellant; Appellant appeared to be coming from scene of
shooting and walked with limp, which suggested to Sergeant Stoltzfus that
Appellant might have been injured in shooting incident; Sergeant Stoltzfus
asked Officer Wolpert to investigate Appellant, who voluntarily stated he had
firearm that Officer Wolpert recovered from Appellant’s waistband; Appellant
had no license for firearm; Appellant was arrested on outstanding bench
-2-
J-S14004-17
warrant; during search incident to arrest, Officer Wolpert discovered
Appellant was in possession of synthetic marijuana and heroin; under
circumstances of this case, officers had reasonable suspicion to justify
investigative detention of Appellant). The record supports the court’s
decision, and we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/28/2017
-3-