Commonwealth v. Jefferson
Decision Date | 07 June 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 1119 WDA 2018,1119 WDA 2018 |
Citation | 256 A.3d 1242 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Taylor JEFFERSON, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Appellant, Taylor Jefferson, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 42-84 months’ incarceration, imposed following his conviction of firearms not to be carried without a license.1 Herein, Appellant challenges the trial court's decision to deny his motion to suppress the seized firearm under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, alternatively, under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. He contends that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle based solely on the inference that the registered owner of the vehicle, who had an outstanding warrant, would be found in the vehicle. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court, in disposing of Appellant's motion to suppress, set forth the following factual history:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ("TCO"), 2/8/18, at 1-3 ( ).
The Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant with firearms not to be carried without a license, persons not to possess firearms,2 and possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer's number.3 After Appellant's preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the charge of possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer's number, but held the remaining charges for trial.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the firearm. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to a non-jury trial. The charge of persons not to possess firearms was nolle prossed , and the trial court convicted Appellant of firearms not to be carried without a license. On June 12, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 42-84 months’ (3½-7 years’) incarceration. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which the trial court denied. He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court issued a statement pursuant to Rule 1925(a), indicating its reliance on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it issued on February 8, 2018.
A panel of this Court issued a memorandum decision on August 2, 2019, reversing the trial court's suppression order and vacating Appellant's judgment of sentence. Subsequently, the Commonwealth filed a timely application for reargument before this Court en banc . We granted the Commonwealth's application for reargument on October 4, 2019, and withdrew the panel memorandum. Appellant filed a substituted brief on October 15, 2019, and the Commonwealth filed its substituted brief on November 14, 2019.
While this matter was still pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kansas v. Glover , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1183, 206 L.Ed.2d 412 (2020). In response, Appellant promptly filed an application to file a supplemental brief on April 13, 2020. On May 4, 2020, we granted that application. Appellant filed a supplemental brief on May 18, 2020 ("Appellant's First Supplemental Brief"), and the Commonwealth filed its response on May 26, 2020 ("Commonwealth's First Supplemental Brief"). Appellant requested oral argument, which we granted by order dated August 6, 2020.
Subsequently, on December 22, 2020, our Supreme Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Alexander , ––– Pa. ––––, 243 A.3d 177 (2020) (overruling Commonwealth v. Gary , 625 Pa. 183, 91 A.3d 102 (2014) ). Appellant responded on December 30, 2020, by filing a motion for post-submission communication, which we granted by order dated January 19, 2021. In that order, we instructed the parties to submit briefs addressing the impact of Alexander on this case. Appellant filed a responsive Supplemental Brief on February 18, 2021 ("Appellant's Second Supplemental Brief"), and the Commonwealth replied on March 4, 2021 ("Commonwealth's Second Supplemental Brief").
Appellant has consistently presented the following question for our review: "Whether the trial court erred in denying [Appellant]’s motion to suppress evidence because, although the trial court correctly concluded that the police officers subjected [Appellant] to an investigative detention, the police officers did not possess reasonable suspicion to justify that seizure?" Appellant's Substituted Brief at 4; Appellant's First Supplemental Brief at 5; Appellant's Second Supplemental Brief at 5.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth 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 suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where, as here, the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Jones , 605 Pa. 188, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (2010) (cleaned up).
To continue reading
Request your trial- Commonwealth v. Rawls
-
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez
... ... equivalent of an arrest. This level of interaction requires ... that the police have probable cause to believe that the ... person so detained has committed or is committing a crime ... Commonwealth v. Jefferson , 256 A.3d 1242, 1247-48 ... (Pa. Super. 2021) ( en banc ) (citations, quotation ... marks, and ellipses omitted) ... "In ... reviewing whether reasonable suspicion … exists, we ... must … examine the totality of the circumstances to ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Cunningham
... ... " Commonwealth v. Jefferson , 256 A.3d 1242, 1248 (Pa.Super. 2021) ( en banc ) (quotation omitted). [This Court has recognized] [r]easonable suspicion exists only where the officer is able to articulate specific observations which, in conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from 287 A.3d 9 those observations, led ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Pryor
... ... inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts ... available to police at the moment of the intrusion warrant a ... [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action ... taken was appropriate.'" Commonwealth v ... Jefferson, 256 A.3d 1242, 1248 (Pa.Super. 2021), ... appeal denied, Pa. _, 268 A.3d 1071 (2021) (quoting ... Commonwealth v. Gray, 784 A.2d 137, 142 (Pa.Super ... 2001)). Demonstrating reasonable suspicion requires that the ... detaining officer "articulate something more than an ... ...