Commonwealth v. Sledge
| Decision Date | 23 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 673 WDA 2022,J-A06015-23 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRA RYAN SLEDGE, SR. Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Appellant Andra Ryan Sledge, Sr., appeals from the February 25, 2022 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County that imposed an aggregate sentence of 4 to 8 years' incarceration to be followed by 12 months' probation. On January 6, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of manufacture, delivery, or possession with the intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance (Count 1), possession of a controlled substance (Count 2), and possession with the intent to use drug paraphernalia (Count 3).[1] We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual history as follows:
On June 28, 2019, the Fayette County [Drug] Task Force [("the task force")] assisted by police officers from the City of Connellsville Police Department served a search warrant for the property located at [] North Pittsburgh Street in Connellsville, Pennsylvania, known as "The Studio".[2] Members of the task force arrived at the location and were [granted] entry by [Appellant]. When the [task force] officers entered the residence[,] Appellant's brother[] was present. In the back room of the residence, the task force [officers] located a [shoebox] with several baggies of varying sizes[, which contained] crack cocaine and [United States] currency. The sum of [$2,300.00] was in the [shoebox]. The [shoebox] also contained various papers with [] Appellant's name on them and a [prescription] bottle of medicine also with his name on it. []Appellant was found to have [$502.00] on his person. During the search, measuring cups, pots[,] and pans were found on the counters in the kitchen area with white residue in them. The task force located [six cellular telephones] in the residence.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/29/22, at 2 ().[3]
On January 6, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of the aforementioned offenses. On February 25, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 4 to 8 years' incarceration, to be followed by 12 months' probation, on the manufacture, delivery, or possession with the intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance conviction. Sentencing Order (Count 1), 2/25/22. On Appellant's two remaining convictions, the trial court imposed no further penalty. Sentencing Order (Counts 2 and 3), 2/25/22.[4]
On February 25, 2022, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, requesting a new trial. Appellant asserted that he was entitled to a new trial because, inter alia, (1) the Commonwealth failed to provide "the search warrant for the cellular [tele]phones, or the information extracted from the cellular [tele]phones" to Appellant during pre-trial discovery in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's requests for a mistrial on the grounds the Commonwealth violated Appellant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when Detective James Tyler Garlick ("Detective Garlick"), on cross-examination, testified that Appellant did not deny he was selling drugs when asked by the investigating police officers, and the Commonwealth mentioned Appellant's silence during its closing argument. See Post-Sentence Motion, 2/25/22. On May 17, 2022, the trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motion.[5] This appeal followed.[6]
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
Appellant's Brief at 8 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
Appellant's first issue challenges the trial court's order denying his omnibus pre-trial motion, which sought to suppress physical evidence uncovered during a search of the North Pittsburgh Street property. Appellant's Brief at 12-15.
"Once a motion to suppress evidence has been filed, it is the Commonwealth's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant's rights." Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040, 1047-1048 (Pa. 2012); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H) (). Our standard of review for an order denying a motion to suppress is well-established.
[We are] 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 [suppression] 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 [suppression court] are subject to our plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Mbewe, 203 A.3d 983, 986 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quotation marks omitted), quoting Commonwealth v. Kemp, 195 A.3d 269, 275 (Pa. Super. 2018).
A review of the record demonstrates that on February 14, 2020, Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion. In his omnibus motion, Appellant asserted that the physical evidence uncovered during the search of the North Pittsburgh Street property should be suppressed because the search warrant lacked sufficient specificity as to the areas of the premises where probable cause supported the search. Omnibus Motion, 2/14/20, at ¶¶13-16.
Appellant averred that the North Pittsburgh Street building "is a mixed residential and commercial property comprised of a former convenience store in the rear, facing Decatur Avenue, a front portion [of the building,] and two apartments in the upstairs" with the "front and rear [portions of the building serving as] common areas for the apartments and either entrance [being] used to access the apartments." Id. at ¶¶8-9. Appellant argued that "[t]he search warrant in question seeks [authority] to search the entire building despite the fact that the affidavit of probable cause states that [police] officers only viewed the [c]onfidential [i]nformant enter and exit through [a certain apartment door in the North Pittsburgh Street building.]" Id. at ¶16. Appellant asserted that the police officers "did not have probable cause to search the entire building based upon the facts set forth in the [a]ffidavit of [p]robable [c]ause and, as a result, the search warrant[, and all items seized as a result of the search,] must be suppressed." Id. at ¶¶17-18.
It is well-established that for a search warrant to be constitutionally valid, the issuing authority must decide that probable cause exists at the time of its issuance, and make this determination on facts described within the four corners of the supporting affidavit, and closely related in time to the date of issuance of the warrant.
Commonwealth v. Korn, 139 A.3d 249, 253 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 159 A.3d 933 (Pa. 2016); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 203(D) (). Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 203(B) states that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial