Com. v. Day, J.

J-S12033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant, :
:
v. :
:
JASON A. DAY, :
:
Appellee : No. 2198 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 18, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000318-2014
BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MARCH 22, 2016
Jason A. Day (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed on June 18, 2015, following his convictions for driving under the
influence of alcohol (DUI), homicide by vehicle while DUI, accident resulting
in death, driving on roadways laned for traffic, careless driving, duty to give
information and render aid, and immediate notice of accident to police
department - injury or death.1 We affirm.
The certified record reveals the following facts. Between 8:30 and
8:40 on the evening of May 16, 2014, Pennsylvania State Trooper Keith
Brislin was dispatched to State Route 191 and Winterdale Road to
* Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Appellant was also charged with one count of homicide by vehicle, which
was nolle prossed by the Commonwealth prior to trial.
J-S12033-16
investigate a hit and run accident involving a pedestrian. The victim,
Zachary Possemato, died of his injuries.
The surveillance system of a nearby bar recorded the incident. This
video was reviewed by police and a “be on the lookout” report (BOLO) was
issued for a white pickup truck. As a result of the BOLO, Appellant was
identified as a potential suspect. On the morning of May 17, 2014, Appellant
turned himself in to the Honesdale State Police barracks.
Appellant gave a statement to officers that, between the hours of 6:00
pm and 8:00 pm on the night of the accident, he had consumed four 16-
ounce cans of Busch Light beer. While driving home, he was looking to the
side to see if a friend was home when he struck what he thought was a deer.
Appellant continued driving but turned himself in to state police the following
day once he learned that a pedestrian had been hit and killed. A blood test
taken on May 17, 2014, approximately 16 hours after the incident, revealed
that Appellant had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.0%.
On July 30, 2014, at the preliminary hearing in this matter, the
Commonwealth presented the testimony of Trooper Brislin, as well as that of
three men who had been with Appellant prior to the incident, a young boy
who had been walking with the victim, Appellant’s step-father, and Corporal
Michael Joyce. The Commonwealth submitted as evidence the video
obtained from the bar, as well as information obtained from the event data
recorder in Appellant’s vehicle and a forensic accident report completed by
-2-
J-S12033-16
Corporal Joyce. After the preliminary hearing, all charges were bound over
for court.
On February 3, 2015, Appellant, through counsel, filed an omnibus
pre-trial motion, which included, inter alia, a motion for habeas corpus relief
in which he alleged that the Commonwealth had failed to sustain its burden
at the preliminary hearing of proving a prima facie case with respect to the
charges of DUI and homicide by vehicle while DUI. Further, Appellant
sought the suppression of the evidence obtained from his cellular phone.2
On April 1, 2015, following a hearing,3 the trial court denied Appellant’s
motion for habeas corpus, his motion to suppress, his motion to sever, and
his motion for individual voir dire, and reserved until trial Appellant’s motion
to exclude the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert witness.
On May 13, 2015, following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the
aforementioned charges. On June 18, 2015, he was sentenced to an
aggregate term of five to 14 years’ incarceration. This appeal followed.
Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the
evidence relating to [] Appellant’s cell phone records which
2
Appellant’s motion also included arguments challenging the methodology
utilized by the Commonwealth to calculate his BAC, a motion to sever
counts, and a motion for individual voir dire. Appellant has not challenged
the trial court’s rulings as to those issues on appeal.
3
The record before us does not make clear on what date the omnibus pre-
trial motion hearing was held.
-3-
J-S12033-16
evidence was obtained by a search warrant that was a general
investigating warrant[], over broad and violative of the speech
clause of the state and federal constitutions?
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the charges
of [DUI] and homicide by vehicle while [DUI] when the
Commonwealth failed to show a prima facie case based on the
testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert witness, and the lack
of evidence regarding [] Appellant’s demeanor?
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
Both of Appellant’s challenges on appeal relate to the trial court’s
rulings on his omnibus pre-trial motions. Appellant first argues that the
search warrant authorized herein was general, overbroad, and failed to state
with particularity facts and circumstances which would “establish the
probability that any contraband or evidence of a crime would be found within
Appellant’s text messages.” Appellant’s Brief at 15. In reviewing the trial
court’s suppression ruling with regard to the search warrant issued in this
matter, we are guided by the following principles.
The standard and scope of review for a challenge to the denial of
a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions
drawn from those facts are correct. When reviewing the rulings
of a suppression court, [the appellate court] considers 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. When the record supports the findings of
the suppression court, [the court is] bound by those facts and
may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in
error.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122, 125-26 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(internal quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted).
-4-
J-S12033-16
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 201 provides that “[a] search
warrant may be issued to search for and to seize […] property that
constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense.” However,
Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in
pertinent part: [N]o warrant to search any place or to seize any
person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as
may be, nor without probable cause.... [Moreover, u]nder the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the person or things to
be seized.]
This Court has explained:
It is a fundamental rule of law that a warrant must
name or describe with particularity the property to
be seized and the person or place to be searched....
The particularity requirement prohibits a warrant
that is not particular enough and a warrant that is
overbroad. These are two separate, though related,
issues. A warrant unconstitutional for its lack of
particularity authorizes a search in terms so
ambiguous as to allow the executing officers to pick
and choose among an individual’s possessions to find
which items to seize. This will result in the general
“rummaging” banned by the [F]ourth [A]mendment.
A warrant unconstitutional for its overbreadth
authorizes in clear or specific terms the seizure of an
entire set of items, or documents, many of which will
prove unrelated to the crime under investigation ...
An overbroad warrant is unconstitutional because it
authorizes a general search and seizure.
***
The language of the Pennsylvania Constitution
requires that a warrant describe the items to be
seized as nearly as may be.... The clear meaning of
the language is that a warrant must describe the
items as specifically as is reasonably possible. This
requirement is more stringent than that of the
-5-
J-S12033-16
Fourth Amendment, which merely requires
particularity in the description. The Pennsylvania
Constitution further requires the description to be as
particular as is reasonably possible.... Consequently,
in any assessment of the validity of the description
contained in a warrant, a court must initially
determine for what items probable cause existed.
The sufficiency of the description must then be
measured against those items for which there was
probable cause. Any unreasonable discrepancy
between the items for which there was probable
cause and the description in the warrant requires
suppression. An unreasonable discrepancy reveals
that the description was not as specific as was
reasonably possible.
Because the particularity requirement in Article I, Section 8 is
more stringent than in the Fourth Amendment, if the warrant is
satisfactory under the Pennsylvania Constitution it will also be
satisfactory under the federal Constitution.
Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has instructed
that search warrants should be read in a common sense fashion
and should not be invalidated by hypertechnical interpretations.
This may mean, for instance, that when an exact description of a
particular item is not possible, a generic description will suffice.
Commonwealth v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983, 1002-03 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal
quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted).
The record belies Appellant’s contentions. As the trial court explained,
In the present case, Trooper Brislin requested information
from an AT&T Wireless cellular telephone, including but not
limited to name, subscriber information, address, phone number,
text messages and incoming and outgoing historical call detail
including GPS or tower information for May 16, 2014 (the day of
the incident) through May 17, 2014 (the day [Appellant] spoke
with police). [Appellant] told police that he was in possession of
the cellular phone at the time of the crash. Based on this
information, Trooper Brislin stated that the information may
assist the investigation in determining whether [Appellant’s] cell
phone was in use at the time of the incident, and it may also
-6-
J-S12033-16
assist the investigation in determining [Appellant’s]
communications and locations following the crash.
Viewing the evidence offered to establish probable cause in a
common-sense manner, it appears, based on [Appellant’s]
possession of the cellular phone at the time of the crash, that
the information from the cellular phone […] would aid as an
investigative tool. The evidence seized from the cellular phone,
therefore, shall not be suppressed.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/1/2015, at 5.
The trial court’s findings are supported by the record. Appellant
admitted that he had his cellular phone with him the night of the incident,
but denied using it at the time he struck the victim. Cognizant of this
admission, the warrant at issue states with particularity the item to be
searched, specifically the text messages and incoming and outgoing call data
unique to Appellant’s cellular phone. Moreover, far from being overbroad,
the warrant was specifically limited to a request for records during a 24-hour
period before and after the incident. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the
terms included in the warrant are not so ambiguous as to result in a fishing
expedition, nor does the warrant authorize a general search and seizure.
Rather, the warrant is limited to seize evidence necessary to determine the
validity of Appellant’s claim that he was not using his phone at the time of
the incident, and to track his communications and location following the hit-
and-run crash. Accordingly, we discern no error or abuse of discretion by
the trial court in denying Appellant relief on this claim.
-7-
J-S12033-16
Appellant next claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion
for habeas corpus relief. Appellant’s Brief at 18-31. We note at the outset
that, procedurally, Appellant’s challenge on appeal to the Commonwealth’s
establishment of a prima facie case at the habeas corpus hearing is moot. It
is well-established that an accused may challenge the sufficiency of the
Commonwealth’s evidence at the pre-trial stage through a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 331 A.2d 205 (Pa.
1975). “An order granting a defendant pretrial habeas relief is immediately
appealable by the Commonwealth since it terminates the prosecution.
However, an order denying a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus is not
immediately appealable as of right.” Commonwealth v. McMullen, 721
A.2d 370, 372 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citations omitted). Rather,
appellant must, at least, immediately petition this [C]ourt for
review of the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus,
based on the insufficiency of evidence presented at the
preliminary hearing. Even then, it is doubtful that this [C]ourt
will grant review. Appellant may have to further petition the
[S]upreme [C]ourt for review.
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 596 A.2d 222, 225 (Pa. Super. 1991).
Furthermore, as is the case with regard to a preliminary hearing, it is
apparent the failure to establish a prima facie case at a habeas corpus
hearing is immaterial when at the trial the Commonwealth satisfies its
burden by proving the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth
v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted) (holding
that “errors at a preliminary hearing regarding the sufficiency of the
-8-
J-S12033-16
evidence are considered harmless if the defendant is found guilty at trial”);
see also Commonwealth v. Troop, 571 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Super. 1990)
(noting that once a defendant has been convicted at trial, any defect in the
preliminary hearing has been satisfied). Here, Appellant failed to petition this
Court for review of the denial of his writ of habeas corpus. Instead, he
proceeded to trial where the Commonwealth presented additional evidence
and the jury determined that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of all
charges. Therefore, any defect at the time of the habeas corpus hearing was
cured at trial.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
JosephD.Seletyn,Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/22/2016
-9-