Com. v. Brown, V. ( 2018 )

J-S08038-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
VICTOR RENELL BROWN :
: No. 1259 WDA 2017
Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 3, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-63-CR-0003268-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED April 2, 2018
Appellant Victor Renell Brown appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County after a jury
convicted Appellant of Possession of a Firearm Prohibited (two counts),
Receiving Stolen Property (two counts), Possession of a Controlled Substance,
and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Appellant challenges the denial of his
suppression motion and claims that the jury’s verdict is unsupported by the
sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. We affirm.
After Appellant filed a pretrial suppression motion, a hearing was held
at which the following factual background was developed. On December 7,
2015, Charleroi Regional Police Officer Michael Leasure received a phone call
from Kathleen Patterson, who resided at 1109 Crest Avenue in Charleroi. In
her phone call, Ms. Patterson requested that an officer respond to her
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S08038-18
residence as she had discovered drug paraphernalia in an upstairs bedroom
of her home.
Officer Leasure had come into contact with Ms. Patterson on multiple
prior occasions in which he responded to “incidents” at this home involving
Ms. Patterson, her son, and her daughter, Tiffany. From these encounters,
Officer Leasure was aware that Tiffany was incarcerated in county prison. Ms.
Patterson had also previously shared with Officer Leasure that she was
unhappy that Tiffany’s boyfriend, Appellant, was still living in Tiffany’s
bedroom several months after Tiffany had been incarcerated.
Appellant had never signed a lease to live in Ms. Patterson’s home and
there is nothing in the record that indicates that he paid any rent to stay there.
When Ms. Patterson had asked Officer Leasure to advise her on what measures
she had to take to remove Appellant from her home, he recommended that
she pursue “legal eviction.”
When Officer Leasure arrived at Ms. Patterson’s home on the day in
question, Ms. Patterson gave him permission to enter the residence and led
him to an upstairs bedroom. The door was ajar or “partially opened.” Notes
of Testimony (“N.T.”), 12/20/16, at 15. Ms. Patterson opened the door further
to give the officer access to the room. Officer Leasure noticed a “padlock”
was partially hanging from the bedroom door; Officer Leasure inferred that
someone had unscrewed the padlock from the door. N.T. at 7. Officer Leasure
and Ms. Patterson did not discuss who had placed the lock on the door or who
-2-
J-S08038-18
had removed the lock. Ms. Patterson directed Officer Leasure to particular
objects she found in the bedroom.
While standing in the room, Officer Leasure observed in plain view a
digital scale, plastic “diapers” commonly utilized to store illegal substances, a
substance that appeared to be crack cocaine, firearms, drug paraphernalia,
and Appellant’s Pennsylvania photo identification. Before proceeding further,
Officer Leasure made a phone call to a magisterial district judge to verify
whether a search warrant was necessary. The magistrate informed Officer
Leasure that he did not need a warrant as the items were in plain view. Officer
Leasure seized the aforementioned evidence and Appellant was subsequently
located and placed under arrest.
Ms. Patterson also testified at the suppression hearing and shared
additional details that she had not revealed to Officer Leasure. Ms. Patterson
explained that while her daughter, Tiffany, had originally placed the lock on
the bedroom door, both Tiffany and Ms. Patterson had a key to the lock. The
lock was not placed on the door to exclude Ms. Patterson from the room, but
to keep Ms. Patterson’s grandchildren out of the room. Ms. Patterson claimed
she did no longer had a key to the lock because she had lent her key to Tiffany,
who had misplaced her own key. Ms. Patterson admitted she unscrewed the
lock from the door on her own initiative before the police arrived, and did not
assert that she unscrewed the lock at the direction of the police. In addition,
Ms. Patterson testified that she had told Appellant that he was no longer
-3-
J-S08038-18
welcome to live in her home and he had told her he was looking for an
apartment.
While testifying at the suppression hearing, Ms. Patterson made several
contradictory statements. Although Ms. Patterson first testified that she had
contacted police to come to her home as she had found drug paraphernalia in
her daughter’s bedroom, on cross-examination, she claimed that police had
come to her door asking to search her home for stolen weapons. When
questioned again, Ms. Patterson claimed that she could not remember if she
had called the police. Thereafter, upon questioning by the trial court, Ms.
Patterson admitted that she had summoned the police to come to her home.
After the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the lower court denied
Appellant’s motion based on its finding that Ms. Patterson had both (1) actual
authority and (2) apparent authority to consent to the search of her daughter’s
bedroom. Thereafter, at the conclusion of a three-day jury trial, Appellant
was convicted of Possession of a Firearm Prohibited (two counts), Receiving
Stolen Property (two counts), Possession of a Controlled Substance, and
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Sentencing was deferred for the
preparation of a pre-sentence report. On April 11, 2017, the trial court
imposed an aggregate sentence of eight to twenty years’ imprisonment.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw
her representation. The lower court advised Appellant of his post-sentence
rights and indicated that new counsel would be appointed if counsel’s request
was granted. Although the trial court subsequently allowed trial counsel to
-4-
J-S08038-18
withdraw, Appellant was not appointed counsel for his direct appeal until May
31, 2017. Moreover, for unknown reasons, the appointed counsel, Gray
Graminski, Esq., was denied access to visit Appellant until the lower court
granted Atty. Graminski’s June 28, 2017 request to have a contact visit with
Appellant to discuss filing an appeal.
Atty. Graminski filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2017. Appellant
complied with the trial court’s request to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In its Opinion
pursuant to Rule 1925(a), the trial court asks this Court to review this appeal
despite its untimeliness as a breakdown in court processes impacted
Appellant’s ability to file a timely appeal.
Our rules of appellate procedure provide that a “notice of appeal ... shall
be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is
taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). As Appellant was required to file a notice of appeal
within 30 days of the imposition of his sentence on April 11, 2017, his notice
of appeal filed on August 29, 2017 is untimely.
As a general rule, “the [C]ourt may not enlarge the time for filing a
notice of appeal[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 105(b). However, we will “address[ ] an
untimely appeal [if] it [is] shown that [a] breakdown of the processes of the
trial court caused the appeal to be untimely.” Commonwealth v. Khalil,
806 A.2d 415, 420 (Pa. Super. 2002).
We agree with the trial court’s assessment that a breakdown in court
processes occurred when defense counsel was allowed to withdraw after
-5-
J-S08038-18
sentencing, Appellant was not appointed new counsel until well after the
thirty-day period to file an appeal had expired, and newly appointed counsel
was prevented from visiting Appellant in prison. It is well-established that a
criminal defendant is entitled to have the assistance of counsel in filing and
perfecting an appeal. Commonwealth v. Halley, 582 Pa. 164, 171, 870
A.2d 795, 800 (2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214, 225,
736 A.2d 564, 571 (1999) (indicating that “a failure to file or perfect such an
appeal results in a denial [of counsel] so fundamental as to constitute
prejudice per se”))). Therefore, we may proceed to review the merits of this
appeal.
Appellant raises three issues for our review on appeal:
I. Did the Court commit reversible error when it ruled that the
warrantless search conducted by Charleroi police was
constitutional, without citing exigent circumstances or being
supported by probable cause, without proof that [Appellant]
actually resided at the residence, without actual or apparent
authority that [K]athleen Patterson could effectively waive
another individual’s right to privacy by removing a lock from
Tiffany’s bedroom door?
II. Was the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the
Commonwealth adequate to sustain a conviction?
III. Was the weight of the evidence presented by the
Commonwealth sufficient to sustain a conviction?
Appellant’s Brief, at 3.
Appellant first challenges the denial of his suppression motion. Our
standard of review in evaluating the denial of a suppression motion is as
follows:
-6-
J-S08038-18
[The] standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court's
denial of a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn
from those facts are correct. When reviewing such a ruling by
the suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the
prosecution and so much of the evidence of the defense as
remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the
record....Where the record supports the findings of
the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may
reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.
Commonwealth v. Bush, 166 A.3d 1278, 1282 (Pa.Super. 2017), appeal
denied, 176 A.3d 855 (Pa. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger,
591 Pa. 1, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007) (internal citations omitted)).
Specifically, Appellant argues that the evidence obtained in the search
of Ms. Patterson’s home should have been suppressed as the police were not
authorized to conduct a warrantless search of the bedroom belonging to
Tiffany Patterson. “Warrantless searches and seizures are considered to be
unreasonable and therefore, prohibited, except for a few established
exceptions pursuant to both the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
Commonwealth v. Hughes, 575 Pa. 447, 459, 836 A.2d 893, 900 (2003)
(citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36
L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973); Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152, 615 A.2d 308
(1992)). One exception to the warrant requirement is a third party’s actual
consent to the search. Hughes, 575 Pa. at 459, 836 A.2d at 900.
-7-
J-S08038-18
Under the actual consent exception, police officers are not required to
obtain a search warrant based upon probable cause when they obtain the
voluntary consent of a third party who has the authority to give consent. Id.
The United States Supreme Court has held that a third party has
actual authority to consent to a search if he/she “possesses
common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the
premises or effects sought to be inspected.” [U.S. v.] Matlock,
415 U.S. [164,] 171, 94 S. Ct. 988 [(1974)]. The Matlock Court
described “common authority” as follows:
Common authority is, of course, not to be implied
from the mere property interest a third party has in
the property. The authority which justifies the third-
party consent does not rest upon the law of property,
with its attendant historical and legal refinements, but
rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons
generally having joint access or control for most
purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that
any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the
inspection in his own right and that the others have
assumed the risk that one of their number might
permit the common area to be searched.
Id. at n. 7 (citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Basking, 970 A.2d 1181, 1188 (Pa.Super. 2009).
Despite Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s finding that Ms.
Patterson voluntarily consented to the search, Appellant does not argue on
appeal that Ms. Patterson lacked common authority over the bedroom in
question that belonged to Ms. Patterson’s daughter, Tiffany. Appellant does
not allege that he had exclusive possession or any right to control the bedroom
and never offered any evidence to challenge Ms. Patterson’s testimony
suggesting she had equal access to her daughter’s room.
-8-
J-S08038-18
This Court has discussed the actual consent exception to the warrant
requirement with respect to its application to a parent’s authority over an adult
son or daughter’s bedroom:
In the context of the parent-child relationship, LaFave notes in his
treatise on search and seizure that the power of a parent to
consent to a search of the home derives not so much from the
idea of common authority as it does from the status of parent.
Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, Vol. III, Chap. 8, § 8.4(b),
282 (3d ed. 1996). LaFave states that “courts tend to recognize
a superior right in the parents to keep the family home free of
criminal activity.” Id. at 285. The parents' general, “superior
authority” over their own property, however, “does not alone
establish a right on their part to intrude into an area in which, by
established practice, their adult off-spring had been permitted to
devote to his exclusive use.” LaFave, Search and Seizure: A
Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 8.4(b), p. 203 (4th ed.
2004). In this vein, the courts have interpreted Matlock and
found that a parent had sufficient “common authority” over a
child's room to consent to a search of the room where the parent
was provided with equal access to the child's living quarters or the
child failed to take steps to exclude the parent from his/her room.
Commonwealth v. Basking, 970 A.2d 1181, 1188 (Pa.Super. 2009). See,
e.g., United States v. Block, 590 F.2d 535, 539–41 (4th Cir. 1978) (finding
mother had authority to permit police to inspect the bedroom of her adult son
who was a “mere guest occupant” and the mother had “normal free access
that heads of household commonly exercise in respect of the rooms of family
member occupants”); State v. Swenningson, 297 N.W.2d 405, 407–09
(N.D. 1980) (finding father’s common authority over adult son’s bedroom
validated his consent to the search of the room); State v. Harris, 642 A.2d
1242, 1247 (Del.Super.Ct. 1993) (finding adult son authorized his mother’s
joint access and control of his bedroom by giving her a key to the lock on the
-9-
J-S08038-18
door); State v. Douglas, 498 A.2d 364, 371–72 (N.J.App.Div. 1985)
(recognizing that “the overwhelming majority of the [state] cases uphold the
right of the parent to consent to a search of the son or daughter's room”).
In this case, although Tiffany had invited Appellant to live in the
Patterson home, both Tiffany and her mother shared authority of Tiffany’s
bedroom. Appellant never challenged Ms. Patterson’s assertion that although
Tiffany had placed the lock on the bedroom door to ensure that children in the
house did not enter, she authorized her mother’s access by giving her a key
to the lock. In addition, Appellant knew that he was no longer welcome to
continue living in the home as Ms. Patterson had asked him to leave.
Moreover, Appellant never asserted that he had exclusive possession or
control of the room not contest the Commonwealth’s assertion that he did not
have a lease agreement to live in the home or pay rent.1
Based on these facts, it was reasonable for the trial court to find that
Ms. Patterson had common authority over the upstairs bedroom as there was
evidence that Ms. Patterson had equal access to and was never excluded from
entering her daughter’s bedroom. As a result, we conclude that the trial court
____________________________________________
1 We find this case distinguishable from Commonwealth v. O'Neal, 429 A.2d
1189, 1190–91 (Pa.Super. 1981), in which this Court held that a lessee of a
home could not consent to a search of a bedroom that a temporary gratuitous
guest used exclusively. As emphasized above, Appellant has never asserted
that he had exclusive possession or control of the bedroom or challenged Ms.
Patterson’s suggestion that her daughter had provided her equal access to the
bedroom.
- 10 -
J-S08038-18
did not err in finding Ms. Patterson had actual authority to consent to the
search of her daughter’s bedroom. 2
Second, Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his numerous convictions. Appellant does not challenge any
particular element to any of his convictions but offers an undeveloped one-
sentence allegation that he cannot be convicted as charged as the police did
not find DNA or fingerprint evidence in the room.3 He also alleges that there
was evidence that he was not residing in Ms. Patterson’s home but does not
further identify this supposed proof.
As Appellant’s argument is largely undeveloped, we find he has waived
his sufficiency challenges on appeal. “[W]here an appellate brief fails to ...
develop an issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim
is waived. It is not the obligation of an appellate court to formulate appellant's
arguments for him.” Commonwealth v. Woodard, 634 Pa. 162, 210, 129
A.3d 480, 509 (2015). As a result, we need not further review these
undeveloped sufficiency claims.
____________________________________________
2 Based on our conclusion that Ms. Patterson had actual authority to consent
to the search, we need not review Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s
conclusion that it was reasonable for the police to believe that Ms. Patterson
had apparent authority to consent to the search.
3 Appellant also makes vague factual assertions that the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions because the officers did not have
authority to conduct a warrantless search. As we have found Appellant’s
suppression claim to be meritless, it is not necessary to review these claims
further.
- 11 -
J-S08038-18
Third, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his
convictions. “A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial: (1) orally, on
the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time
before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence motion.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A).
“The purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of
the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived.”
Pa.R.Crim.P. 607, Comment. See Commonwealth v. Kinney, 157 A.3d 968,
972 (Pa.Super. 2017) (finding appellant waived challenge to the weight of the
evidence by failing to raise it before the trial judge pursuant to Rule 607). As
Appellant did not preserve the challenge to the weight of the evidence at
sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, he has waived the claim on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/2/2018
- 12 -
J-S08038-18
- 13 -