Com. v. Manson, K.

J-S45004-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
KASHYISM MANSON :
:
Appellant : No. 854 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 8, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013137-2011
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2017
Appellant, Kashyism Manson, appeals nunc pro tunc from the
judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas, following his jury trial convictions of burglary, conspiracy, firearms not
to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on public streets in
Philadelphia, possessing instruments of crime, five counts of robbery, and
his bench trial conviction of persons not to possess firearms.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them. We add only that the jury also convicted Appellant of
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a), 903, 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), 3701(a)(1)(ii),
and 6105(a)(1), respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45004-17
possessing instruments of crime.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
DID THE SUPPRESSION COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO
SUPPRESS THE GUN FOUND ON [APPELLANT’S] PERSON
WHERE THE POLICE RIPPED [APPELLANT] OUT OF HIS
CAR, THREW HIM TO THE GROUND, AND SEARCHED HIM
WITHOUT ARTICULATING ANY REASONABLE BELIEF THAT
[APPELLANT] PRESENTED AN IMMEDIATE SAFETY RISK TO
THE POLICE OR ANYONE ELSE?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
“Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s
denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual
findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions
drawn from those facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 941
A.2d 14, 26 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 115 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
[W]e may consider only the evidence of the prosecution
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 record supports the findings of the
suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may
reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal
conclusions based upon the facts.
Williams, supra at 27 (quoting Jones, supra).After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Susan I.
Schulman, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question
-2-
J-S45004-17
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 23, 2016, at 5-11)
(finding: Officer Waters observed Appellant and two passengers exit vehicle
that Appellant had just parked in laundromat parking lot; Officer Waters
observed passenger remove handgun from his waistband and throw it onto
rear floor of vehicle; when Appellant saw officers approaching, Appellant
entered vehicle and tried to start it; at this point, Officer Waters was
concerned not only about stopping vehicle before Appellant could flee, but
also for his own safety because Officer Waters had observed gun in vehicle;
Officer Waters and his partner immediately pulled Appellant from vehicle;
Appellant repeatedly attempted to reach into his right pants pocket while
police removed him from vehicle; concerned for their safety, officers
subdued Appellant, searched his right pants pocket, and recovered handgun;
fluid situation confronting officers in this case was that Appellant attempted
to flee in vehicle with gun inside; detention of Appellant was appropriate
under these circumstances, where officers had reasonable suspicion to
detain Appellant when they saw his companion place gun inside vehicle;
officers used physical force to prevent Appellant from fleeing with weapon,
which did not automatically convert Terry2 stop into arrest; physical
detention was reasonable, particularly where Officer Waters knew firearm
was in Appellant’s immediate vicinity; officers’ subsequent search of
____________________________________________
2
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
-3-
J-S45004-17
Appellant’s right pants pocket was also reasonable as Appellant repeatedly
tried to reach into his pocket during removal from vehicle; facts immediately
facing officers demanded rapid response in light of observed firearm and
justified officers’ actions of physically forcing Appellant to ground and
conducting limited search of pocket; court properly denied suppression
motion). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/15/2017
-4-
Circulated 07/21/2017 01:18 PM