Commonwealth v. Bundridge

• Decision Date: 18 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1583 WDA 2013,J-A13024-15,1583 WDA 2013
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAMES BUNDRIDGE, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAMES BUNDRIDGE, Appellant

J-A13024-15

No. 1583 WDA 2013

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNE 18, 2015

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 30, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0000440-2013

BEFORE: PANELLA, SHOGAN, and OTT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:

Appellant, James Bundridge, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver, and disorderly conduct. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the factual history of this case as follows:

Ronald Croll, a police officer with the municipality of Monroeville, testified that on November 18, 2012 [A.S.] came into the police department to report that she had been assaulted by her live-in boyfriend, William Darnell Burkes. [A.S.] had obvious physical injuries. She told Officer Croll that she believed that [Mr. Burkes] was still at the residence she shared with him at 112 Cambridge Square Apartments. After documenting her injuries and taking her statement, Office[r] Croll proceeded to the Cambridge Square Apartments, intending to arrest Mr. Burkes. He was accompanied by an Officer Renk. He also requested back-up from a Sergeant McConnell and an Officer Pascarella, as he encountered them in the police station parking lot. They all then proceeded to the Cambridge Square Apartments.

Officer Croll had dealt with Mr. Burkes in the past and would know him to see him. He did not know if either Officer Pascarella or Sergeant McConnell knew him, but gave them a brief description indicating he was a black male, approximately 5'6" to 5'8" tall. He related that the incident was a domestic and that he intended to arrest [Mr. Burkes] for simple assault. Officer Croll said that he requested backup because he knew from prior experience that [Mr. Burkes] was elusive and evasive and would attempt to [elude] police if he knew he was going to be arrested.

When they arrived at the apartment, Officer[s] Croll and Renk went to the front of the building while Sergeant McConnell and Officer Pascarella traveled to the rear of the building. All officers, except Renk, were in uniform and driving marked police vehicles. When he approached the main door to the apartment building, Officer Croll heard some banging noise from within. As he entered the building, he saw an African American male walking away from him. Though he knew it was not [Mr. Burkes], he spoke briefly with him to determine if he had been with [Mr. Burkes] and could provide information. Just as he asked this individual's name, he heard a radio call from either Sergeant McConnell or Officer Pascarella, indicating they had arrested a person in the back. Sergeant Croll immediately ran out the back door where he observed a black male lying on the ground, handcuffed. He recognized that the person in custody was not Darnell Burkes and told the other officers this. He then returned to the apartment building, secured the help of a maintenance man to gain entry to the victim's apartment and arrested [Mr. Burkes].

Monroeville Police Officer Keith Pascarella also testified. He had been told by Officer Croll that the [sic] Burkes had a tendency to try to elude police. He was not familiar with Mr. Burkes and the only description he [had] was that he was a black male of medium height. Officer Pascarella described what happened as he and Sgt. McConnell reached the back of the building:

As we approached the steps, Sergeant McConnell went upstairs, three or four steps to the landing. As soon as he got on top of the building, a black male came out of the back door, came out of the door. The door swung toward Sergeant McConnell. Hekind of side stepped that. He tried to grab the black male. He pushed through Sergeant McConnell, spinning back towards me. At that time, I was on the porch, tried to grab the male, missed him. I pulled my taser, turned and deployed it.

Officer Pascarella believed that the person trying to avoid him was Darnell Burkes. He told him to stop and, when he did not, used his taser to subdue him. He said that the actor was holding a bag and he looked in the bag as they were subduing the actor and placing him in handcuffs. Inside the bag, he observed large amounts of cash, what were obviously individually wrapped packets of heroin, a scale and other drug paraphernalia. After the actor was arrested, Officer Croll emerged and told them that the person they had in custody was not Darnell Burkes.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/25/14, at 3-5 (internal citations omitted).

Appellant was charged with one count each of possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver, and disorderly conduct. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress, seeking to "exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful search and seizure of [Appellant]." Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 4/15/13, at 4. Following a suppression hearing on July 18, 2013, the trial court denied Appellant's motion.

Thereafter, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a nonjury trial. At the conclusion of trial, Appellant was adjudged guilty of all three counts. He was sentenced on September 30, 2013, to one year less one day to two years less two days, with credit for time served, for the possession with intent to deliver charge. A consecutive period of three years of probation was also imposed. He was paroled after serving forty-eighthours. No further penalty was imposed on the remaining two counts. Order of Sentence, 9/30/13, at 1.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress when the warrantless arrest of Appellant was without probable cause?

2. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress when the warrantless search of a bag found next to Appellant was without probable cause?

Appellant's Brief at 4.

In both issues, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The standard of review an appellate court applies when considering an order denying a suppression motion is well established. An appellate court may consider only the Commonwealth's evidence and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Commonwealth v. Russo, 934 A.2d 1199, 1203 (Pa. 2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004)). Where the record supports the factual findings of the trial court, the appellate court is bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Id. However, it is also well settled that the appellate court is not bound by the suppression court'sconclusions of law. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003)).

With respect to factual findings, we are mindful that it is the sole province of the suppression court to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Further, the suppression court judge is entitled to believe all, part or none of the evidence presented. However, where the factual determinations made by the suppression court are not supported by the evidence, we may reject those findings. Only factual findings which are supported by the record are binding upon this [C]ourt.

Commonwealth v. Benton, 655 A.2d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted). In addition, we are aware that questions of the admission and exclusion of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Freidl, 834 A.2d 638, 641 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Appellant first argues that the totality of the circumstances did not establish sufficient probable cause to justify the arrest of Appellant. Appellant's Brief at 13. Appellant contends that the general physical description given of Mr. Burkes was not sufficient to justify the arrest of Appellant. Id. at 14-16. Appellant further asserts that the fact that Appellant exited the building at a high rate of speed and ran from the officers did not create probable cause. Id. at 17-19. Appellant maintains that the officers' mistaken belief that Appellant was Mr. Burkes did not create probable cause to justify the arrest of Appellant. Id. at 20-23.

An arrest must be supported by probable cause. Commonwealth v. Cauley, 10 A.3d 321, 325 (Pa. Super. 2010). An officer has probable cause to make a warrantless arrest "when the facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge and of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested." Commonwealth v. Dommel, 885 A.2d 998, 1002 (Pa. Super. 2005). "Probable cause justifying a warrantless arrest is determined by the totality of the circumstances.... Furthermore, probable cause does not involve certainties, but rather the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons act." Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14, 27 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2711(a) provides as follows:

§ 2711. Probable cause arrests in domestic violence cases

(a) General rule.--A police officer shall have the same right of arrest without a warrant as in a felony whenever he has probable cause to believe the defendant has violated section 2504 (relating to involuntary manslaughter), 2701 (relating to simple assault), 2702(a)(3), (4) and (5) (relating to aggravated assault), 2705 (relating to recklessly endangering another person), 2706 (relating to terroristic threats) or 2709.1 (relating to stalking) against a family or household member

...