Com. v. Figueroa-Novoa, M.

J. A14001/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
MIGUEL FIGUEROA-NOVOA, : No. 1494 MDA 2013
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, May 1, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No. CP-22-CR-0000931-2011
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2014
Following a jury trial, Miguel Figueroa-Novoa was convicted of first
degree murder, attempted murder, and carrying a firearm without a license.
On December 22, 2010, at approximately 6:00 a.m., appellant went to
the apartment where his estranged girlfriend, Nicole Berrios, lived with their
son and her mother. Appellant shot and killed Berrios and also shot and
injured her mother. Prior to walking out of the apartment, appellant turned
the gun on himself, shooting himself in the mouth. Appellant drove himself
roughly two miles to the emergency room at Harrisburg Hospital. Appellant
claimed he was intoxicated and accidently shot and killed Berrios.
Following his arrest, appellant filed a motion to suppress, which was
denied. A jury trial was held from April 22, 2013 through April 30, 2013.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J. A14001/14
Thereafter, he was found guilty of the aforementioned crimes. On May 1,
2013, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, a consecutive term of 20 to
40 n for attempted murder, and a concurrent term of
3½ -sentence
motion, which was denied on July 17, 2013. Notice of appeal was timely
filed August 16, 2013. Appellant complied with the trial court
a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the trial court has
filed an opinion.
The following issues have been presented for our review:
I. Whether the trial court erred in failing to
failed to sufficiently administer Miranda
warnings prior to custodial interrogation and
where Appellant was unable to knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently waive those rights
due to his injuries and the narcotics he was
administered in violation of Article 1, Section 9
of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution?
II. Whether the trial court erred in precluding the
jury from considering the statement contained
home intoxicated and started waving a gun
for its substantive value?
III. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present
convictions for first-degree murder and
attempted murder where the Commonwealth
failed to prove that Appellant possessed
-2-
J. A14001/14
specific intent and where Appellant was
intoxicated to such an extent so as to
overwhelm his faculties and sensibilities?
1
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the relevant law, the record,
and the well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable Todd A. Hoover.
We find that
However, we note that the trial court did not dispose of a sub-issue
court did not address
Mirandized
when Detective Taylor asked him what they should do with his vehicle.
The facts re
summarized by the trial court. We include only the following portion which
is directly related to the issue at hand.
Officer Jennie Jenkins testified that on
December 27, 2010, she was assigned to watch over
[appellant], who was hospitalized in the Hershey
Medical Center. Officer Jenkins was in full uniform.
[Appellant] was in police custody. Another officer,
Detective Taylor, the lead detective in the case,
arrived in the room, introduced himself to
[appellant], and gave [appellant] a writing board
with which to communicate. When Officer Jenkins
1
An additional issue concerning the weight of the evidence presented in
been presented to our court in
his brief; hence, we deem it to have been abandoned.
-3-
J. A14001/14
[appellant] preferred to communicate in Spanish.
Detective Taylor had a limited conversation with
[appellant] regarding what [appellant] wanted done
with his vehicle. Neither Detective Taylor nor
Officer Jenkins questioned [appellant] about the
incident. Detective Taylor left after obtaining the
information o
vehicle.
After Detective Taylor left, hospital staff
throat. Hospital staff asked [appellant] if he could
speak, and requested that he count, which he did.
Trial court opinion, 11/13/13 at 2-9 (citations to the record omitted).
The standard for determining whether an encounter with the police is
objective one based on a totality of the circumstances, with due
consideration given to the reasonable impression conveyed to the person
being interrogated. Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 723 A.2d 143, 148 (Pa.
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 541 A.2d 332, 336 (Pa.Super. 1988), quoting
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d
Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Simala,
-4-
J. A14001/14
not made in response to custodial interrogation, the statement is classified
as gratuitous, and is not subject to suppression for lack of warnings. Id.There is no question that appellant was in custody at the time the
detective came to his hospital room as appellant was handcuffed to the bed.
Thus, the only question before us is whether the encounter rose to the level
that the Miranda safeguards were implicated.
Detective Taylor and Officer Jenkins came into his hospital room.
Detective Taylor asked appellant a question about the vehicle he left
unattended in front of the hospital and inquired what appellant wanted done
with the vehicle. (Notes of testimony, 3/29/13 at 11.) Appellant instructed
the detective to give it to a family member. (Id.) This was the entirety of
the conversation; neither the detective nor the officer questioned appellant
about the incident. (Id.)
We agree with the Commonwealth that appellant fails to assert an
incriminating statement that was elicited from this conversation. We also
agree that the detective did not ask this question with the intent to extract
incriminating statements. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required.
See Commonwealth v. Jasper, 587 A.2d 705, 708-709 (Pa. 1991)
at trial to place the defendant at the murder scene, was admissible because
-5-
J. A14001/14
response
2
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/13/2014
2
Additionally, the fact that appellant used the white Acura that night would
throughout the interior of the car.
-6-