Com. v. Thomas, J. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • J-S28018-18
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    JEROME THOMAS                              :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 733 MDA 2017
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, April 5, 2017,
    in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0007476-2015.
    BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                          FILED JUNE 28, 2018
    Jerome Thomas appeals from the judgment of sentence, after conviction
    in a bench trial on various firearm-related charges.1 He raises one issue on
    appeal – i.e., whether the trial court erred when it dismissed his motion to
    suppress the Commonwealth’s evidence as untimely.
    Thomas waived arraignment on December 18, 2015. He filed his first
    motion to suppress the Commonwealth’s evidence ten months later – on
    October 7, 2016. The trial court denied that motion as untimely on October
    12, 2016. He filed an amended motion to suppress on November 14, 2016,
    which the trial court also denied on November 16, 2016.
    Next, the court of common pleas transferred this matter to a new trial
    judge. On February 24, 2017, Thomas renewed his motion to suppress. The
    ____________________________________________
    1   18 Pa.C.S.A §6105(a)(1); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5503.
    J-S28018-18
    new judge decided to proceed with a nonjury trial “and during the course of
    the trial[, he] would then reconsider whether: 1) the Defendant’s belated
    motion had merit and whether there was a basis to still entertain the
    Defendant' s motion for suppression; and 2) if this Court decided to entertain
    it, rule on the substance of it.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/17, at 2. Ultimately,
    the trial court denied Thomas’ “request to consider the merits of the motion
    as it found that no exception to the timeliness requirement applied, and thus
    it would not revisit a previous judge’s ruling as the motion was untimely.” 
    Id. at 4.
    Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 579(a) requires a defendant to
    file a motion to suppress within 30 days of arraignment. Thomas violated that
    rule, because he filed his first motion to suppress ten months after he waived
    his right to arraignment. When an untimely motion to suppress is filed, “the
    issue of suppression of such evidence shall be deemed to be waived.”
    Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 581(B).
    Because Thomas appeals the trial court’s denial of his third suppression
    motion, which he filed one year and two months after he waived arraignment,
    it is hereby ORDERED that Thomas’ sole appellate issue is untimely and,
    therefore, under Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(B), is dismissed as waived.
    -2-
    J-S28018-18
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 6/28/2018
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 733 MDA 2017

Filed Date: 6/28/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/28/2018