Com. v. Williams, C.

J-A05028-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRIS WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 251 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 19, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0003445-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 24, 2019
Appellant, Chris Williams, appeals from his judgment of sentence
entered on December 19, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history of this
case as follows:
On January 30, 2016, [Appellant] was charged with the
following offenses for an incident that occurred on January 29,
2016:
• Count One: possession with intent to deliver cocaine
(35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30), an ungraded felony)
• Count Two: possession of a controlled substance
(cocaine) (35 P.S. §780-113(a)(16), an ungraded
misdemeanor)
• Count Three: possession of paraphernalia (35 P.S.
§780-113(a)(32), an ungraded misdemeanor)
J-A05028-19
• Count Four: criminal conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S.A. §903,
an ungraded felony)
• Count Five: person not to possess a firearm (18
Pa.C.S.A. §6105(a)(1), a felony of the second degree)
[Appellant] filed a Motion to Suppress on October 3, 2017
challenging the issuance of the search warrant and the arrest of
[Appellant]. After a hearing thereon, this [c]ourt denied
[Appellant’s] Motion to Suppress. On December 19, 2017, the
matter proceeded to a non-jury trial after which [Appellant] was
found not guilty at count five, and guilty of the remaining counts.
[Appellant] waived his right to a pre-sentence report and was
sentenced to serve a total of eleven and a half (11 1/2) to twenty-
three months in the Allegheny County Jail and a concurrent five
(5) year period of probation.
[Appellant] timely filed post-sentence motions, which were
denied on January 16, 2018. [Appellant] filed his Notice of Appeal
on February 15, 2018. [Appellant] was directed to file his concise
statement of matters complained of on appeal via order dated
February 23, 2018.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/18, at 1-2. Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents a single issue for our review: “Whether this
Honorable Court committed reversible error by denying [Appellant’s] motion
to suppress.” Appellant’s Brief at 4. Appellant argues that the affidavit in
support of the search warrant obtained in this case did not contain information
sufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause within its four corners. Id.
at 8. Appellant further states that he was not named in the search warrant
as a target of the investigation, and there are no averments that he engaged
in any illegal activity. Id. at 11. As such, Appellant maintains the issuance of
the search warrant was in error. Id. at 8.
-2-
J-A05028-19
With respect to an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, our
Supreme Court has stated the following:
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial
court’s 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 ruling of a suppression court, we must consider only the
evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence of the
defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of
the record. . . . Where the record supports the findings of the
suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse
only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.
Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations
omitted). Further, “[i]t is within the suppression court’s sole province as
factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given
their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 896 A.2d 583, 585 (Pa.
Super. 2006). Moreover, our scope of review from a suppression ruling is
limited to the evidentiary record that was created at the suppression hearing.
In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1087 (Pa. 2013).
In Commonwelth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010), our Supreme
Court addressed the requirements for a valid search warrant:
Article I, Section 8 and the Fourth Amendment each require
that search warrants be supported by probable cause. “The linch-
pin that has been developed to determine whether it is appropriate
to issue a search warrant is the test of probable cause.”
Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887, 899
(1991) (quoting Commonwealth v. Miller, 513 Pa. 118, 518
A.2d 1187, 1191 (1986)). “Probable cause exists where the facts
and circumstances within the affiant’s knowledge and of which he
has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in
themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief
-3-
J-A05028-19
that a search should be conducted.” Commonwealth v.
Thomas, 448 Pa. 42, 292 A.2d 352, 357 (1972).
In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76
L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the United States Supreme Court established
the “totality of the circumstances” test for determining whether a
request for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment is
supported by probable cause. In Commonwealth v. Gray, 509
Pa. 476, 503 A.2d 921 (1986), this Court adopted the totality of
the circumstances test for purposes of making and reviewing
probable cause determinations under Article I, Section 8. In
describing this test, we stated:
Pursuant to the “totality of the circumstances” test set
forth by the United States Supreme Court in Gates,
the task of an issuing authority is simply to make a
practical, common-sense decision whether, given all
of 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.... It is the duty of a
court reviewing an issuing authority’s probable cause
determination to ensure that the magistrate had a
substantial basis for concluding that probable cause
existed. In so doing, the reviewing court must accord
deference to the issuing authority’s probable cause
determination, and must view the information offered
to establish probable cause in a common-sense, non-
technical manner.
* * *
Further, a reviewing court is not to conduct a de novo
review of the issuing authority’s probable cause
determination, but is simply to determine whether or
not there is substantial evidence in the record
supporting the decision to issue the warrant.
Commonwealth v. Torres, 564 Pa. 86, 764 A.2d 532, 537–38,
540 (2001).
-4-
J-A05028-19
Id. at 655. “In determining whether a search warrant is supported by
probable cause, appellate review is confined to the four corners of the
affidavit.” Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783, 796 (Pa. 2009).
In the case before us, the affidavit of probable cause in support of the
search warrant provides as follows:
Your Affiant has 19 years experience with the City of McKeesport
Police Dept. and is currently assigned to the narcotics
investigation unit since 2004. Your Affiant has been involved in
thousands of VCSDDCA arrests stemming from undercover
operations and search warrants. Also assisted other agencies
such as Pa. State Attorney Generals Ofc. and F.B.I. with wiretap
violations. Your Affiant has been trained by the D.E.A.,
D.A.N.E.T., and the Pa. State in the field of narcotics.
This specific investigation began on or about January 15, 2016
when your Affiant was contacted by a confidential informant who
will be referred to as CI throughout this affidavit for fear of
retaliation and harm. This CI informed detectives that a black
male known as DEAN is selling cocaine from his residence at 3414
Oakland [S]t. in McKeesport Pa, 15132. And that DEAN will inform
you to come to his residence or he will walk or drive his maroon
[D]odge [D]urango [SUV] and meet your [sic] for the cocaine sale.
CI states that DEAN sells $20 to $40 pieces of cocaine packaged
in a small plastic baggie and has several plastic baggies on his
person for sale at all times.
At this point this Det/Sgt. and Det. SUMMERS set up spot
surveillance on 3414 Oakland [S]treet in the City of McKeesport
and observed the maroon [D]odge [D]urango parked in front of
3414 Oakland [S]t. and also a black male exiting the residence
and driving the [D]urango. This Det/Sgt. recognized the black
male as DEAN WILLIAMS from a traffic stop conducted [in] the
early month’s [sic] of 2015 in which DEAN advised this Det/Sgt.
that he was residing at 3414 Oakland [St.] with his brother
[Appellant]. Also during the spot surveillance detectives observed
short term foot traffic from known drug users and also short
vehicle traffic where DEAN would exit the apartment door at 3414
Oakland [S]t. and approach vehicles.
-5-
J-A05028-19
This Det/Sgt. is very famalier [sic] with the male known as DEAN
WILLIAMS and ha[d] conversation[s] with [Dean] WILLIAMS in
the past year. The McKeesport police Narcotics unit investigated
[Dean] WILLIAMS in the past in the McKeesport area and made
an arrest and conviction of [Dean] WILLIAMS for possessing
cocaine with the intent to deliver.
This Det/Sgt. then retrieved a photograph of [Dean] WILLIAMS
from JNET and showed the CI who confirmed the black male photo
as [Dean] WILLIAMS who is supplying cocaine from his residence.
Within the past 24 to 48 hours prior to the application of this
search warrant th[ese] McKeesport Detectives met this CI who is
willing to cooperate with this investigation buy [sic] conducting a
controlled buy of cocaine from the male known as DEAN WILLIAMS
from his address 3414 Oakland [S]t. McKeesport Pa, 15132. For
this buy Detectives will handle the CI who was searched prior to
the buy for contraband and money with negative results. The CI
contacted the target via cellphone in which [Dean] WILLIAMS
advised the CI of a meet location and he will arrive shortly. The
CI was given official funds for the purchase and driven to the meet
location in a[n] unmarked police vehicle and released and advised
where to stand and not to talk to anyone during this controlled
buy. The CI was in detectives[’] eyesight the entire time and did
exactly what was instructed by detectives. Det. SUMMERS
conducted [spot] surveillance on 3414 Oakland [S]t. and after the
phone call was made by the CI observed [Dean] WILLIAMS exit
the front door of 3414 Oakland [S]t. and go directly to the CI meet
location and observed by detectives was a hand to hand
transaction between [Dean] WILLIAMS and the CI. [Dean]
WILLIAMS then immediately left and was followed by Det.
SUMMERS directly back to 3414 Oakland [S]t. McKeesport and
close[d] the door. The CI was then picked up and gave this
Det/Sgt. a quantity of cocaine which was purchased from [Dean]
WILLIAMS. The CI was then searched a second time for
contraband and money with negative results. The cocaine was
field tested by Det. SUMMERS using a narco pouch tester with
positive results.
Based on the above facts in this above affidavit and information
obtained your Affiant is respectfully requesting that a search
warrant be issued for the person of DEAN WILLIAMS B/M D.O.B
11-13-1957 and the residence located at 3414 Oakland [S]t.
-6-
J-A05028-19
McKeesport Pa, 15132. Based on illegal criminal activity of selling
cocaine[.]
Affidavit of Probable Cause in support of Application for Search Warrant,
1/28/16, at 1-2.
Reviewing the affidavit on its four corners, we conclude that the issuing
authority’s determination that there was probable cause to issue the search
warrant for 3414 Oakland Street was supported by the record. As set forth
above, the affidavit included testimony from a CI that drugs were being sold
by Dean Williams out of his residence at 3414 Oakland Street in McKeesport,
and often Dean Williams would utilize a maroon Dodge Durango. Based on
this information, the detectives conducted surveillance of the residence. The
affidavit reflects that during this surveillance, detectives observed a maroon
Dodge Durango parked in front of 3414 Oakland Street, and they witnessed
Dean Williams, who the detectives knew, exit the residence and drive the
Durango. Detectives observed “short term foot traffic from known drug users
and also short vehicle traffic where DEAN would exit the apartment door at
3414 Oakland [S]t. and approach vehicles.” Affidavit, 1/28/16, at 2.
Furthermore, the detectives arranged and conducted a controlled buy
utilizing the CI. During that controlled buy, detectives saw Dean leave 3414
Oakland Street, go directly to meet the CI, engage in a hand-to-hand
transaction with the CI, immediately travel back to 3414 Oakland Street, enter
the residence, and close the door behind him. Thus, considering the totality
of circumstances, the information provided in the affidavit would permit the
-7-
J-A05028-19
issuing authority to make a practical, common-sense decision that there is a
fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at 3414
Oakland Street. Jones, 988 A.2d at 655. Accordingly, the search warrant
was supported by probable cause. Thus, the trial court did not err in
determining that the search warrant was lawfully issued for 3414 Oakland
Street.
Moreover, it was upon execution of the lawfully issued warrant that
detectives observed Appellant inside the residence at 3414 Oakland Street
packaging crack cocaine. The trial court summarized the related testimony
from the suppression hearing as follows:
It is significant to note that [Appellant] was not the person who
was the subject of the search warrant, however, he was observed
in the premises on the date the search warrant was executed.
Specifically, as detectives prepared to enter the residence to
execute the search warrant, they witnessed [Appellant] in the
kitchen preparing crack cocaine for sale. Sergeant [Steve]
Kondrosky testified that he viewed [Appellant] “manipulating
plastic baggies of what was suspected to be crack cocaine on a
plate.” Further Sergeant Kondrosky stated, “once he was walking
away, he had blue rubber gloves on, he took those of[f], and I
believe he actually put something in his pocket.” At this point,
entry of the residence was made, and Detective Sydney Summers
encountered [Appellant] walking from the kitchen. She searched
his person and recovered a bag of cocaine from his right pocket.
She also searched the area in the kitchen where Sergeant
Kondrosky observed [Appellant] packaging cocaine and recovered
25 bags of packaged crack cocaine.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/18, at 2-3 (internal citations omitted).
Thus, detectives were lawfully present at 3414 Oakland Street when
they observed Appellant engaged in illegal activity inside the residence.
-8-
J-A05028-19
Furthermore, cocaine was recovered from Appellant’s right pocket. This
unlawful activity subjected Appellant to arrest. “Where a search warrant
adequately describes the place to be searched and the persons and/or things
to be seized the scope of the search ‘extends to the entire area in which the
object of the search may be found’ and properly includes the opening and
inspection of containers and other receptacles where the object may be
secreted.” Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511, 521 n.2 (Pa. Super.
2015). Accordingly, it is irrelevant that Appellant was not named in the
affidavit of probable cause or warrant as a target of the investigation. The
evidence seized from 3414 Oakland Street was properly admitted into
evidence against Appellant. The trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s
motion to suppress.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/24/2019
-9-