Opinion
J-S59010-18 No. 3824 EDA 2017
10-18-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. CAHMAR JOHNSON Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 30, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003759-2017 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied in part and granted in part the suppression motion of Appellee, Cahmar Johnson. We affirm.
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d), the Commonwealth has certified in its notice of appeal that the trial court's suppression order substantially handicapped or terminated the prosecution of the Commonwealth's case. Accordingly, this appeal is properly before us for review. See Commonwealth v. Cosnek , 575 Pa. 411, 421, 836 A.2d 871, 877 (2003) (stating Rule 311(d) applies to pretrial ruling that results in suppression, preclusion or exclusion of Commonwealth's evidence).
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT ONCE THE POLICE FOUND A BAG OF COCAINE AND A BAG OF MARIJUANA INSIDE [APPELLEE'S] CAR THEY WERE PRECLUDED FROM SEARCHING THE VEHICLE ANY FURTHER, AND THUS THE LOADED FIREARM SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND IN THE TRUNK HAD TO BE SUPPRESSED?(Commonwealth's Brief at 4).
Our scope and standard of review when the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order are as follows:
[T]his Court may consider only the evidence from the defendant's witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. In our review, we are not bound by the suppression court's conclusions of law, and we must determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. We defer to the suppression court's findings of fact because, as the finder of fact, it is the suppression court's prerogative to pass on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.Commonwealth v. Hudson , 92 A.3d 1235, 1241 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 630 Pa. 734, 106 A.3d 724 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Stella M. Tsai, we conclude the Commonwealth's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed January 23, 2018, at 7-9) (finding: police officers had probable cause based on odor of marijuana to search passenger compartment of Appellee's car, including any containers therein, for marijuana; Officer Hasara recovered bag of marijuana and crack cocaine hidden inside shoe in backseat area of vehicle; shoe reasonably could have concealed marijuana that officers had smelled; nevertheless, Commonwealth did not present credible testimony or other evidence to suggest continued search of car was reasonable after they recovered marijuana and crack cocaine in shoe; Officer Dobson did not testify that odor of marijuana lingered in or around car after officers found shoe or that officers smelled marijuana near trunk during investigation; officers offered no reasonable basis to explain foundation for probable cause to open and search trunk of vehicle; police do not have carte blanche to seek out and seize evidence in vehicle beyond what might conceal object of search; officers went beyond scope of warrantless search of vehicle; court properly suppressed gun recovered from trunk liner of car). The record and particular circumstances of this case support the trial court's rationale. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/18/18
Image materials not available for display.