Com. v. Lane, E.

Opinion

J-A14027-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

ERIC LANE :

:

Appellant : No. 2094 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006409-2023

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2025

Appellant Eric Lane appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

after he was convicted at a nonjury trial of possession of a firearm prohibited,

firearm carried without a license, and carrying a firearm in public in

Philadelphia.1 Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to

suppress. After review, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinion.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of

the matter as follows:

On August 8, 2023, [Philadelphia Police Officer George] Lutz and his partner Officer [Brian] Canela were on routine patrol in a marked police vehicle. Both officers were wearing full uniforms. Officer Lutz was the recorder and sat in the passenger seat. At approximately 9:00 p.m. the officers were traveling [northbound] on 39th Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, when they stopped

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105, 6106, & 6108, respectively.

J-A14027-25

to let Appellant cross the street. Appellant was crossing from the 3900 block of Folsom Street to the 3800 block of Folsom Street.

While Appellant was crossing [] Officer Lutz observed a large bulge in Appellant’s waistband, weighing down his pants. Officer Lutz alerted Officer Canela. And they waited for Appellant to step into the vehicle’s headlights to confirm the observation. The officers turned on Folsom Street, driving parallel to Appellant as he walked on the sidewalk. The officers got ahead of Appellant and stopped the vehicle a half a car ahead of Appellant.

At this time, Officer Lutz opened the passenger door slightly and asked Appellant if he had a license to carry a firearm. Appellant did not respond but looked down at his waistband. Officer Lutz went to step out of the vehicle and before he had one foot on the pavement Appellant grabbed his waistband and took off running in the opposite direction. Officer Lutz pursued Appellant on foot and followed him westbound on Folsom Street and then turned southbound on 39th Street. Officer Lutz caught up to Appellant and grabbed him from behind. Appellant fell on his stomach and was placed in custody. Officer Lutz observed the firearm at the bottom of Appellant’s pants and recovered it. Appellant was wearing tight pants that cinched at the bottom. Due to Appellant’s flight the firearm moved from his waist and fell to the bottom of his pants. The firearm recovered was a black Glock 17. . . .

On August 29, 2023, Appellant was arrested and charged with Possession of a Firearm Prohibited, Firearm Carried Without a License, Carry a Firearm in Public in Philadelphia, and Evading Arrest of Detention on Foot. A motion to suppress was litigated before [the trial court] on April 25, 2024. [The trial court] granted the motion to suppress as to Appellant’s statements after he was arrested but before he was given his Miranda[2] rights. However, [the trial court] denied the motion to suppress as to physical evidence, the recovered firearm. Before immediately proceeding to a waiver trial the Commonwealth nolle [prossed] the charge of Evading Arrest of Detention on Foot.

[The trial court] found Appellant guilty of Possession of a Firearm Prohibited, Firearm Carried Without a License, and Carry a Firearm in Public in Philadelphia. Sentencing was deferred and [the trial court] ordered a mental health evaluation and a presentence investigation. At sentencing on July 12, 2024, [the trial court]

____________________________________________

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

3

J-A14027-25

sentenced Appellant to five to ten years of incarceration followed by one year of re-entry supervision.

Appellant filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider the sentence on July 22, 2024. [The trial court] denied [Appellant’s] motion to reconsider the sentence on July 30, 2024. The Appellant then filed a notice of appeal to [this Court] on August 5, 2024. On August 6, 2024, a [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) order was issued [by the trial court]. On September 19, 2024, the Appellant timely filed a statement of errors[.]

Trial Ct. Op, 10/4/24, at 2-3 (unpaginated) (footnotes omitted and some

formatting altered).

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Was Appellant seized without reasonable suspicion prior to his flight from police?

2. Did the trial court err in considering the “high-crime” character of the area in which Appellant was seized as a factor supporting the propriety of the seizure under the Pennsylvania Constitution?

3. Even if the rate of crime in a given area was a proper consideration, did the Commonwealth fail to prove that the area of arrest was in fact a “high-crime area”?

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (some formatting altered).

All of Appellant’s claims on appeal relate to the denial of his motion to

suppress the firearm police found on his person. See id.

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

4

J-A14027-25

supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. Where . . . 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 court[ ] below are subject to our plenary review.

Commonwealth v. McLean, 302 A.3d 211, 215 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing

Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010)) (some formatting

altered).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, the relevant law,

and the trial court’s well-reasoned analysis, we affirm on the basis of the trial

court’s opinion.3 Specifically, we agree with the trial court’s conclusions that

the initial interaction between Appellant and police prior to Appellant’s flight

was a mere encounter; that Appellant’s flight was unprovoked; that the

____________________________________________

3 The trial court opinion also addressed a discretionary sentencing claim that

Appellant did not argue in his appellate brief. See Trial Ct. Op. at 8-11; Appellant’s Brief at 2. Since this issue was not developed in Appellant’s brief, it is abandoned on appeal and, therefore, waived. See Commonwealth v. Felder, 247 A.3d 14, 20 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (stating “[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby”).

We also note that the trial court opinion contains some typographical errors. All references to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104 should refer to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104.2. On page four, “i. This Court properly found that” should be omitted from the quotation of Appellant’s statement of errors. The citations on page six should read “Commonwealth v. Lewis, 636 A.2d 619, 624 (Pa. 1994),” “Commonwealth v. Ickes, 873 A.2d 698, 701 (Pa. 2005),” and “Ickes, 873 A.2d at 701-02.” Subheading “C” on page seven should state that “the seizure was supported by probable cause.” Additionally, the citation on pages seven to eight should read “See In re M.D., 781 A.2d 192, 196 (Pa. Super. 2001).”

5

J-A14027-25

Commonwealth established that the location of the interaction was a high-

crime area; and that, based upon the totality of the circumstances, which

included Appellant’s unprovoked flight in a high-crime area, police had

reasonable suspicion to investigate Appellant4 and subsequently had probable

cause to recover the firearm. See Trial Ct. Op. at 4-8. Therefore, we conclude

that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding

Appellant’s motion to suppress are supported by the record and free of legal

error. See McLean, 302 A.3d at 215. Accordingly, we affirm.5

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

4 We note that the trial court included in its determination that officers had

reasonable suspicion that Appellant’s failure to respond to Officer Lutz’s question of whether he had a license to carry a firearm. See Trial Ct. Op. at 6, 8. However, as the trial court noted in its opinion, “[i]f one has the right to completely walk away, one has, a fortiori, the right to decline to answer questions. Refusing to provide the requested information is not criminal conduct.” Id. at 6 (citing Ickes, 873 A.2d at 701-02). Nonetheless, Appellant’s failure to respond to Officer Lutz’s question was not the sole basis for the trial court’s conclusion that the officers had reasonable suspicion. In concluding that there was reasonable suspicion, the trial court also relied on Officer Lutz’s observation of the bulge in Appellant’s waistband, Appellant’s “furtive eye movements to his waistband” in response to the officer’s question, Appellant’s act of grabbing his waistband, and his subsequent unprovoked flight in a high-crime area. Id. at 6, 8. We are convinced that these factors, without considering Appellant’s failure to respond, support a finding of reasonable suspicion. See Commonwealth v. Rice, 304 A.3d 1255, 1262- 63 (Pa. Super. 2023) (concluding police had reasonable suspicion where, in a high crime area, officers observed a bulge appearing to be a firearm in defendant’s waistband before defendant fled without provocation and referencing cases with similar holdings).

5 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the

event of further proceedings.

6

J-A14027-25

Date: 8/27/2025

0

e N ' Circulated 07/29/2025 Circulated 07/29/2025 0859 08:59 AM

AM

s e 1^ o H- a 3 0 H- a O 0 THE COURT THE COURT OF

OF COMMON

.COMMON PLEAS

PLEAS

3 0 FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE COUNTY OF

OF PHILADELPHIA

PHILADELPHIA

CRIMINAL TRIAL CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEALTH CP-51-CR-0006409-2023 CP-51-CR-0006409-2023

A

OF PENNSYLVANIA OF PENNSYLVANIA

, v.

2094 EDA 2094 EDA 2024

2024

ERIC LANE ERIC LANE

__ j < A_ CP-51-CR-C006409-2023 ea!l Comm. v. Lane, Eric ]

Opinion

OPINION OPINION

III.IA 9129496741

iz#84

Taylor-Smith, N. Taylor-Smith, N. Date:

Date: October 4, 2024

October 4, 2024

STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF FACT FACT

The appellant, The appellant, Eric

Eric Lane

Lane (hereinafter

(hereinafter "Appellant")

“Appellant’’) was

was subject

subject to

to aa seizure

seizure by the

by the

Philadelphia Police Philadelphia Department on Police Department on August 8, 2023.

August 8, 2023. Based on the Based on the stop

stop and

and subsequent

subsequent firearm

firearm

recovery. recovery, Appellant was arrested Appellant was arrested for Possession of for Possession of aa Firearm firearm Prohibited,

Prohibited, Firearm

Firearm Carried

Carried Without

Without

' ,a License, a License, Cany Firearm Carry aa Firearm in

'

in Public

Public in Philadelphia, and in Philadelphia, and Evading Arrest of Evading Arrest of Detention on Foot.'

Detention on Foot. 1

At the motion At the motion to suppress hearing to suppress on May hearing on 31, 2023,

May 31, 2023, the

the court

court heard

heard testimony

testimony from Police

from Police

Officer George Officer George Lutz (hereinafter "Officer Lutz (hereinafter “Officer Lutz”), Police Officer Lutz"), Police OfficerBrian Canela (hereinafter Brian Canela (hereinafter “Officer "Officer

'

Secure Court Docket, 1Secure Court at 1, Docket, at 1, 3,

3, 4; 18 Pa.C.S.A.

4; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5104,

$$5104, 6105,

6105, 6106, 6108.

6106, 6108.

'

Canela”), and Canela"), and argument argument from Commonwealth and Appellant.

from Commonwealth Appellant. At At the

the time of his

time of his testimony Officer testimony Officer

Lutz had been Lutz had been aa police officer with police officer with the sixteenth district the sixteenth district for for seven and aa half

seven and half years.

years.°2

On August On August 8,

8, 2023, Officer Lutz

2023, Officer and his Lutz and his partner

partner Officer

Officer Canela

Canela were on routine

were on routine patrol

patrol in

in

aa marked marked police police vehicle. Both officers vehicle.'3Both officers were were wearing full uniforms.

wearing full Officer Lutz uniforms."4Officer was the Lutz was the recorder

recorder

and sat and sat in in the

the passenger seat. 5At

passenger seat. At approximately approximately 9:00

9:00 p.m. the officers

p.m. the officers were

were traveling North Bound traveling North Bound

on 39 on Street in 39th Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, when Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, they stopped when they stopped to

to let Appellant .cross

let Appellant .cross the

the street.

street.°6

Appellant was Appellant crossing from was crossing from the

the 3900

3900 block

block of

of Folsom Street to

Folsom Street to the 3800 block the 3800 of Folsom

block of Street.

Folsom Street

While Appellant While was crossing Appellant was crossing in in Officer

Officer Lutz observed aa large Lutz observed large bulge bulge in Appellant’s

in Appellant's

waistband, weighing waistband, weighing down his pants.

down his pants. 7 Officer Officer Lutz alerted Officer Lutz alerted Officer Canela.

Canela. And

And they

they waited

waited for

for

Appellant to Appellant step into to step into the

the vehicle's

vehicle’s headlights

headlights to

to confirm the observation."

confirm the observation. 8 The The officers turned on

officers tumed on

t{

Folsom Street, driving Folsom Street, driving parallel parallel to

to Appellant

Appellant as

as he

he walked on the

walked on the sidewalk.'

sidewalk. 9The

The officers got ahead

officers got ahead

of Appellant of and stopped Appellant and stopped the vehicle aa half the vehicle half aa car car ahead of Appellant.I"

ahead of Appellant. 10

At this time. Atthis Officer Lutz time, Officer opened the Lutz opened the passenger door slightly passenger door slightly and asked Appellant and asked if he Appellant if he had

had

aalicense to cany aa firearm!

license tocanry firearm. 11 Appellant Appellant did

did not

notrespond

respond but looked down

but looked downathis waistband. 12Officer at his waistband. Officer Lutz went to Lutz went step out to step out of

of the

the vehicle

vehicle and

and before he had

before he had one

one foot on the

foot on the pavement

pavement Appellant grabbed Appellant grabbed

his waistband and his waistband and took took off

off running

running in

in the opposite direction.

the opposite direction. 13 Officer Officer Lutz

Lutz pursued

pursued Appellant on

Appellant on

foot and foot and followed followed him westbound on Folsom westbound on Street and Folsom Street and then

then turned southbound oh tumed southbound 39 th Street.l"

on 39 Street.14

Officer Lutz Officer caught up Lutz caught to Appellant up to Appellant and

and grabbed him from

grabbed him from behind. Appellant fell behind. Appellant on his fell on stomach

his stomach

and was and was placed in custody, placed in custody. 15 Officer Officer Lutz

Lutz observed

observed the

the firearm

firearm at

at the

the bottom of Appellants

bottom of pants Appellants pants

and recovered and recovered it. Appellant was it. Appellant wearing tight was wearing tight pants

pants that ' atat the that cinched

cinched, the bottom.

bottom. Due

Due to

to Appellant’s

Appellant's

'

2N.T. 4/25/24, at N.T. 4/25/24, at 5. 5. 3Id. at 14. 6-7.

at 6-7.

Id. at '1l. 4 7.

at7.

5Id. at '14. 17.

at17.

Id. at 1. 6 at 7-9.

7-9.

'1. 1Id. at

at 9.

9.

3Id. Id.

Id. at 9914 at 9-10.

9-10.

Id. at Io 4 10 at 10.

10.

11 Id. Id a Id. 12 jd. 13 Id. at 1d. at 35-36.

35-36.

^Id. 4 at 10.

d. at 10. s Zrf.atl,l. 15 1d.at 11.

flight flight the the firearm firearm moved from his waist moved from and fell waist and to the

fell to the bottom of his bottom of pants. 16 The his pants.I' The firearm firearm recovered

recovered

was aa black was Glock 17.

black Glock 17. Appellant Appellant was charged with was charged with possession possession of

of the

the firearm.'

firearm. 17

PROCEDURAL HISTORY PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August On 29, 2023, August 29, Appellant was 2023, Appellant was arrested arrested and

and charged

charged with

with Possession

Possession of

of aa Firearm

Firearm

Prohibited, Firearm Prohibited, Firearm Carried Carried Without

Without aa License,

License, Carry

Carry aa Firearm

Firearm in

in Public

Public in Philadelphia, and in Philadelphia, and

Evading Evading Arrest of Detention Arrest of Detention on Foot. 18 A on Foot.' A motion

motion to

to suppress

suppress was litigated before was litigated before this this Court on

Court on

April April 25, 2024. This 25, 2024. Court granted This Court granted the motion to the motion to suppress

suppress as to

to Appellant’s statements after Appellant's statements after he he

was was arrested arrested but but before he was

before he was given

given his Miranda rights.

his Miranda However, this rights. However, this Court Court denied

denied the

the motion

motion

to suppress to suppress as as to

to physical evidence, the physical evidence, the recovered recovered firearm. Before immediately firearm. Before proceeding to immediately proceeding to aa waiver waiver trial trial the Commonwealth nolle the Commonwealth nolle prosed the charge prosed the charge of

of Evading

Evading Arrest

Arrest of

of Detention onFoot.

Detention on Foot."

19

This Court This Court found Appellant guilty found Appellant of Possession guilty of Possession of

of aa Firearm Prohibited, Firearm Firearm Prohibited, Carried Firearm Carried

Without aa License, Without and Cany License, and Cany aa Firearm in Public Firearm in in Philadelphia.

Public in Philadelphia."20 Sentencing was deferred Sentencing was deferred and and

this Court this Court ordered ordered aa mental, health evaluation mental health evaluation and and aa presentence

presentence investigation.

investigation. At

At sentencing

sentencing on

on

July 12, July 2024, this 12, 2024, this Court sentenced Appellant Court sentenced to five Appellant to five to ten years to ten years of

of incarceration

incarceration followed

followed by one

by one

year of year of re-entry re-entiy supervision.

supervision.'21

Appellant filed Appellant filed aa post-sentence post-sentence motion

motion to

to reconsider the sentence reconsider the sentence on on July 22, 2024.

July 22, 2024. This

This

Court denied Court denied the the defense's

defense’s motion to reconsider motion to reconsider the sentence on the sentence on July 30, 2024.

July 30, The Appellant 2024. The Appellant then

then

filed filed aa notice notice of of appeal

appeal to

to the

the Pennsylvania Superior Court Pennsylvania Superior Court on on August 5, 2024.

August 5, 2024. On

On August

August 6,

6, 2024,

2024,

aa 1925(b) order was 1925() order issued. 22 On was issued. On September September 19,

19, 2024, the Appellant

2024, the Appellant timely filed aa statement timely filed statement of of

errors and errors and raised the following raised the issues:

following issues:

A. The A. The trial court erred trial court erred in

in denying

denying Appellant’s

Appellant's motion

motion toto suppress

suppress physical evidence under physical evidence under the Fourth the Fourth and and Fourteenth

Fourteenth Amendments

Amendments to to the

the United States Constitution United States Constitution and and Article

Article I,

I,

Section 88 of Section of the the Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Constitution.

Constitution. Appellant’s seizure was Appellant's seizure was unlawful, unlawful, and

and the

the

recovery recovery ofof the the firearm

firearm in question was

in question was the

the fruit of the

fruit of illegality for the illegality the following for the following reasons:

reasons:

16 Id. 6 Id ^Id. 71. at at 13.

13.

Secure Court 18Secure Court Docket, at 1, Docket, at 3, 4;

1, 3, 4; 18

18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5104,

Pa.C.S.A. $$ 5104, 6105,

6105, 6106,

6106, 6108.

6108.

18Pa.C.S.A. $8 19 18Pa.CS.A. 9 §§5104.

5104. r

20 18 Pa.C.S.A. 8$ 2018PAC.S.A. §§ 6105, 6105, 6106,

6106, 6108.

6108.

Secure Court 21 Secure ' Court Docket, at 9, Docket, at 9.

Id. at9-11. 1d. 22 at 9-11.

i.i. Appellant

Appellant was already seized was already seized without without reasonable suspicion prior reasonable suspicion to his prior to his flight from flight from

police. police.

ii. ii, Even

Even after^Appellant

after/Appellant fled, fled, police police lacked

lacked reasonable suspicion justify reasonable suspicion justify aa seizure, seizure, I

1 where

where the the prosecution prosecution presented

presented insufficient evidence to insufficient evidence to establish establish that the location that the location

in which the in which the flight occurred was flight occurred was aa "high-crime “high-crime area."

area.”

i.i. This CourtCourt properly properly found that found that

iii. iii. Even if the location in which Appellant Even if the location in which Appellant fled had been fled had been established established as as aa "high-crime “high-crime

area,” it is a violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to area," it is a violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to consider the the level of crime crime in in the surrounding area, area, over

over which

which the person fleeing ' consider has no control, has no

level of

control, as as aa factor factor in

the surrounding

in determining

determining reasonable suspicion.

reasonable suspicion.

the person fleeing

B. The Court B. The Court erred and and abused abused its its discretion discretion in imposing aa sentence in imposing sentence of of five to ten five to ten years

years of

incarceration, incarceration, insofarinsofar as as itit failed failed to to comply

comply withwith the

the requirements

requirements of of 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. $§ 9721,

9721,

failed failed to adequately consider to adequately mitigation information, consider mitigation including Appellant's information, including Appellant’s background, background,

character, acceptance character, acceptance of responsibility of responsibility and rehabilitative needs, and failed to state and rehabilitative needs, and failed to state onon the the

record adequate record adequate reasons reasons for for itsits sentence.

sentence. The The resulting resulting sentence

sentence was was grossly grossly

disproportionate to disproportionate to the the offense,

offense, far far in excess, what in excess. was necessary what was necessary forfor the protection of the protection of the the

public, contrary public, contrary to to the fundamental norms the fundamental norms underlying underlying the the sentencing sentencing process,

process, and and

manifestly unreasonable manifestly unreasonable and and excessive.

excessive.

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

f

I. I. This Court This Court properly denied the properly denied suppression of the suppression of evidence evidence because there was because there was aa lawful lawful

basis basis to to recover the firearm

recover the firearm abandoned abandoned by Appellee in

by Appellee in the course of the course of his

his unprovoked

unprovoked flight.

flight.

The evidence The evidence presented

presented proved that the proved that the firearm was lawfully firearm was recovered after lawfully recovered after aa proper proper

seizure of Appellant. seizure of Appellant. Thus, Thus, this Court properly this Court properly denied denied the

the suppression of the

suppression of firearm from the firearm from

evidence. evidence.

t

The Fourth The Fourth Amendment

Amendment to

to the

the United States Constitution, United States Constitution, incorporated to states incorporated to states by and by and

• through the Fourteenth through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States Constitution, and and Article

Article I, Section 88 of

I, Section of

the Pennsylvania the Constitution, protect Pennsylvania Constitution, citizens from protect citizens from "unreasonable “unreasonable searches

searches and

and seizures."

seizures.” U.S.

U.S.

Const, amend. Const. amend. IV, IV. The

The Fourth Amendment provides:

Fourth Amendment provides:

The right The of the

right of the people

people to be secure

to be secure in

in their persons, houses, their persons, houses, papers, papers, and

and effects,

effects,

against unreasonable against unreasonable searches searches and

and seizures, shall not

seizures, shall not be

be violated,

violated, and no Warrants and no Warrants

shall shall issue,

issue, but

but upon

upon probable cause, Supported probable cause, supported by Oath or by Oath or affirmation,

affirmation, and

and

particularly describing the particularly describing the place place to be searched,

to be searched, and

and the

the persons or things

persons or things to

to be

be

1seized. seized.

) Id. Similarly, Id. Similarly,, Article Article I, Section 88 provides:

I, Section provides:

The people The people shall

shall be secure in

be secure their persons, in their persons, houses, papers and houses, papers and possessions possessions from

from

unreasonable searches unreasonable searches and and seizures, and no

seizures, and no warrant to search warrant to search any

any place or to

place or to seize

seize

any person any person or things shall or things shall issue

issue without describing them,as without describing them as nearly as may nearly as be, nor

may be, nor

without probable cause, without probable cause, supported supported by oath or

by oath or affirmation

affirmation subscribed

subscribed to

to by

by the

the

'

affiant. affiant.

Pa. Const. Pa. Const, art.

art. 1, Section 8.

I, Section 8.

Pennsylvania courts require Pennsylvania courts require law enforcement officers law enforcement officers to demonstrate ascending to demonstrate ascending levels levels of

of

suspicion to suspicion to justify justify their

their interactions with citizens.

interactions with See citizens. See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.

v. Beasley, 761 A.2d

Beasley, 761 621

A.2d 62l

(Pa. Super. (Pa. 2000). There Super. 2000). There are

are three forms of

three forms of police-citizen interaction: (1)

police-citizen interaction: (1) aa mere mere encounter,

encounter, Q2)

(2) an

an

investigatory detention, investigatory detention, often often described

described as

as aa Terry stop, and

Terry stop, and (3)

(3) aa custodial

custodial detention.

detention. See

See

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth Boswell, 721 • Boswell, 721 A.2d336

A.2d 336 (Pa.

(Pa. 1998); Commonwealth v.

1998); Commonwealth v. Jefferson, Jefferson, 256 A.3d 1242, 256 A.3d 1242,

1247-48 (Pa. Super. 1247-48 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc)

2021) (en (citations, quotation banc) (citations, quotation marks and and ellipses

ellipses omitted);

omitted); see

see also

also

Terry ». Tery v. Ohio, Ohio, 88

88 S.Ct.

S.Ct. 1868 (1968).

1868 (1968).

A mere encounter A mere encounter can

can be any formal

be any formal or

or informal

informal interaction

interaction between

between anan officer

officer and

and

aa citizen,

citizen, but

but will

will normally

normally be an inquiry be an inquiry by

by the officer of

the officer of aa citizen.

citizen. The

The hallmark

hallmark

of this of this interaction

interaction is that it

is that carries no

it carries no official

official compulsion

compulsion to stop or to stop or respond

respond and

and

therefore need therefore need not be justified not be by any justified by any level

level of

of police suspicion.

police suspicion.

F

.r

In ' In contrast,

contrast, an investigative an detention carries investigative detention carries an an official

official compulsion

compulsion to stop and

to stop and

respond. Since this respond. Since this interaction interaction has elements

elements of official compulsion of official compulsion itit requires requires

reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.

of unlawful activity.

Finally, Finally, aa custodial

custodial detention

detention occurs

occurs when the nature, when the duration and nature, duration and conditions of an conditions of an

investigative detention become investigative detention become so so coercive coercive as

as to"be,

to"be, practically speaking, the practically speaking, the functional equivalent of functional equivalent of an an arrest. This level

arrest. This level of

of interaction

interaction requires

requires that the police that the police

have probable have cause to probable cause to believe believe that

that the

the person

person soso detained

detained has committed or has committed of is

is

committing aa crime. committing K

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth Jefferson, 256 v. Jefferson, 256 A.3d

A.3d 1242,

1242, 1247-48 (Pa. Super.

1247-48 (Pa. Super. 2021)

2021) (en

(en banc)

banc) (citations,

(citations,

quotation marks quotation and ellipses marks and ellipses omitted)

omitted).

In In Wong

Wong Sun

Sun v. United States,

v. United States, 371

371 U.S.

U.S. 471 (1963), the

471 (1963), the United States Supreme United States Supreme Court Court

\ ' .

articulated the articulated the test test for determining whether for determining whether evidence evidence must

must be

be suppressed. There, the suppressed. There, Court held the Court held

that that evidence '

evidence constitutes

constitutes poisonous fruit, and, poisonous fruit, and, thus, thus, must

must be suppressed, if,

be suppressed, if, "granting “granting establishment

establishment

of the primary of primary illegality, the evidence illegality, the evidence to to which

which instant objection is instant objection made has is made been come

has been come at

at by

by

exploitation of exploitation of that that illegality

illegality or instead by

or instead by means

means sufficiently

sufficiently distinguishable distinguishable to

to be purged of the

purged of the

primary taint,” Id. primary taint." Id. at at 488

488 (citation

(citation and

and internal quotation marks internal quotation omitted). The marks omitted). The inquiry inquiry simply

simply is

whether whether the evidence was the evidence obtained via was obtained via exploitation exploitation of

of the initial illegality.

the initial So long illegality. So long as the taint as the taint of

of

the initial the initial illegality illegality has

has not been removed

not been removed by other circumstances, by other circumstances, the the inquiry

inquiry involves nothing

involves nothing

more. Id. more. Id. Thus, any evidence Thus, any evidence recovered recovered subsequent

subsequent to

to an

an illegal seizure must

illegal seizure must be suppressed as be suppressed as fruit

fruit

J

of the of the poisonous poisonous tree.

tree.

A. This Court This Court properly found that properly found that the

the interaction between Appellant interaction betwedn Appellant and and the police

the police

before his before his flight was aa mere flight was mere encounter, encounter.

“The Fourth The Fourth Amendment does not Amendment does proscribe all not proscribe all contact contact between

between the

the police

police and' citizens ..

and citizens..

i

. .” INS ." INS v.

• Delgado, Delgado, 466

466 U.S. 210, 215

U.S. 210, 215 (1984).

(1984). To

To determine

determine whether'

whether aa particular

particular encounter

encounter

constitutes constitutes aa seizure:

seizure: "[A]

“‘[A] court

court must consider all

must consider all the circumstances surrounding the circumstances surrounding the encounter to the encounter to

determine whether determine the police whether the police conduct conduct would

would have communicated to have communicated to aa reasonable reasonable person

person that

that the

the

'

person was person was not free to not free to decline

decline the

the officers'

officers' request or otherwise request or otherwise terminate terminate the encounter.’”

the encounter."

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 636 A.2d Lewis, 636 A.2d619 (Pa^ 1994) (citing 619 (Pa.1994) (citing Florida Florida v.v. Bostick,

Bostick, 510

510 U.S. 429 (1991))

U.$. 429 (1991)).

“Outside of "Outside of aa legitimate legitimate stop,

stop, police retain the

police retain the right

right to ask people

to ask people to

to identify themselves; if identify themselves; if aa mere mere

'

encounter, however, encounter, however, people retain the people retain the right not 1to right not to do

do so."

so.” Commonwealth

Commonwealth v. Ickes, 873 v. Ickes, 873 A.2d

A.2d 698

698

(Pa. 2005). (Pa. “[I]f one 2005). "[I]f one has the right has the right to

to completely

completely walk away, one walk away, one has,

has, aa fortiori,

fortiori, the

the right

right to

to decline

decline

to answer questions. to answer questions. Refusing to provide Refusing to the requested provide the information is requested information is not criminal conduct."

not criminal conduct.” Ickes, Ickes,

873 A.2d 873 at 566-67.

A.2d at 566-67. Therefore, Therefore, aa mere

mere encounter

encounter does

does not constitute aa seizure not constitute seizure. '

f

The evidence The evidence at at the motion to

the motion to suppress

suppress demonstrated

demonstrated that

that the

the interaction between

interaction between

Appellant Appellant and Officer Lutz and Officer started as Lutz started as aa mere

mere encounter

encounter and

and then

then elevated

elevated into

into aa seizure.

seizure. A

A mere

mere

encounter occurred encounter occurred when when Officer

Officer Lutz

Lutz opened

opened the

the police

police vehicle’s passenger side vehicle's passenger side door door and

and asked

asked

Appellant if he Appellant if he had had aa license to carry

license to carry aa firearm.3 firearm. 23 Officer

Officer Lutz

Lutz said

said nothing

nothing to

to Appellant for him

Appellant for him

to to believe believe he was not he was not free

free to

to leave, and thus

leave, and thus not seized. Officer not seized. Officer Lutz

Lutz had not fully

had not fully exited

exited the

the vehicle

vehicle

before the before Appellant, '1failed the Appellant, failed to respond to to respond to the

the inquiry,

inquiry, made furtive eye made furtive eye movements movements to

to his

his

waistband, grabbed waistband, at his grabbed at waistband and his waistband and fled in the fled in the opposite direction. 24Therefore, opposite direction. Therefore, Appellant’s Appellant's

subsequent subsequent flight' was unprovoked.

flight was unprovoked. The The foot pursuit and

foot pursuit and subsequent subsequent arrest

arrest of

of Appellant

Appellant did

did

eventually rise eventually rise to to the

the level

level of

of aa seizure.

seizure. The

The seizure

seizure ,

was was ,

supported by supported the necessary by the necessary probable cause.

probable cause.

N.T. 4/25/24, 23NT. at 10.

4/25/24, at 10.

^Id. 3+ 1d. at 35-36.

at 35-36.

B. B This This Court

Court properly found that properly found that the testimony testimony of

of Officer

Officer Lutz

Lutz provided the evidence provided the evidence

establish that to establish that the the location in which

location in which the

the flight occurred was

flight occurred was aa high-crime area.

high-crime area.

Officer Lutz’s Officer testimony provided Lutz's testimony provided sufficient evidence to sufficient evidence to classify classify the area as

the area as aa high-crime high-crime

area. Officer area. Officer Lutz Lutz testified

testified thafthe sixteenth district that the sixteenth district had had been

been regularly

regularly patrolling the area patrolling the area where where

they arrested they arrested Appellant.

Appellant. 25 Officer

Officer Lutz stated that

Lutz stated that the “area [is]

the "area [is] known for narcotics known for narcotics and

and multiple

multiple

VUFA” arrests. 26He VUFA" arrests. He went went on

on to

to say that the

say that the police are aware police are that on

aware that “3800 Folsom, on "3800 Folsom, they

they sell crack

sell crack

on on that that block.” Officer Lutz block. 27 Officer Lutz gave more gave aa more specified example and specified example and explained explained that “[t]here was that "[t]here was aa

homicide on 3900 homicide on Folsom aa few 3900 Folsom few weeks before, so weeks before, so we

we were just patrolling

were just patrolling the area.” 28 The the area.8 The fact

fact that

that

law enforcement is law enforcement is aware aware of of specific

specific crimes

crimes that

that are

are aa frequent occurrence, in frequent occurrence the area, in the area, even

even down

down

L

to to the block, indicates the block, indicates itit is is aa high-crime area.

high-crime area

C. C This Court took This Court took in the totality in the of the

totality of the circumstances circumstances surrounding surrounding the Appellant’s seizure the Appellants seizure

when when itit found the seizure found_the seizure was

was supported

supported byby propbable cause.

propbable cause,

In deciding In deciding whether whether reasonable

reasonable suspicion

suspicion exists

exists for

for an

an investigatory detention, the investigatory detention, the fundamental fundamental inquiry is an inquiry is an objective

objective one,

one, namely,

namely, whether

whether the

the facts available to

facts available to the officer at the officer at the

the

moment of the moment of the intrusion intrusion warrant

warrant aa man

man of

of reasonable caution in

reasonable caution in the belief that the belief that the action taken the action was

taken was

appropriate. See appropriate. See I In re

re M.D., 781 A.2d

M.D., T81 A.2d 192, 197 (Pa.

192, 197 (Pa. Super.2001)

Super.2001).

The fundamental The fundamental inquiry is an inquiry is an objective

objective one,

one, namely,

namely, whether “the facts whether "the facts available available

to the to officer at the officer at the

the moment

moment of of the

the [intrusion]

[intrusion] 'warrant

‘warrant aa man of reasonable man of reasonable caution caution

in in the the belief’ that the

belief that action taken the action taken was appropriate.” Tis was appropriate" This assessment, like that assessment, hike that applicable to applicable to the the determination

determination of of probable probable cause,

cause, requires

requires an

an evaluation

evaluation of

of the

the

totality of totality of the the circumstances,

circumstances, with with aa lesser lesser showing

showing needed

needed to to demonstrate

demonstrate

reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion inin terms terms of

of both quantity or

both quantity or content content and

and reliability.

reliability.

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth Zahir, 751 • Zahtr, 751 A.2d

A.2d 1553,

1553, 1556 (Pa. 2000)

1556 (Pa. 2000) (citations (citations omitted).

omitted). Among

Among the factors

the factors

to be considered to be considered in in establishing

establishing aa basis

basis for reasonable suspicion for reasonable suspicion are are tips,

tips, the

the reliability of the

reliability of the

informants, informants, time, time, location, and suspicious location, and suspicious activity, activity,, including

including flight. See Commonwealth flight. See Commonwealth v.

v

Freeman, 757 Freeman, 757 A.2d A.2d 903,

903, 908

908 (Pa.

(Pa. 2000) (noting that

2000) (noting that "nervous, “nervous, evasive

evasive behavior

behavior such

such as

as flight

flight is

is aa

pertinent factor pertinent factor in in determining

determining reasonable suspicion”). Flight reasonable suspicion"). Flight by the suspect by the can be

suspect can considered be considered

suspicious activity, but suspicious activity, but flight alone does flight alone does not

not give

give rise

rise to reasonable suspicion, to reasonable suspicion. In re M.D., In re M.D., 78l

781

2s Id. 25 1. at 8. 26 Id. 26 14. at 7.

at

Id. at 2 1. 27 at 8. ' 2S Id.

2 1

A.2d 192, A.2d 197 (Pa.

192, 197 (Pa. Super, Super. 2001). The Supreme 200). The Supreme Court

Court has

has found that unprovoked found that unprovoked flight flight in

in aa high

high

crime area crime area is is sufficient

sufficient to establish reasonable to establish reasonable suspicion.

suspicion. See Commonwealth v.

See Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 853 Jefferson, 853

A.2d 404, A.2d 404, 405 (Pa. Super.

405 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citing Illinois 2004) (citing v. Wardlow, Illinois • Wardlow, 120

120 S.Ct.

S.Ct. 673

673 (2000)).

(2000)).

Observations, Appellant’s Observations, Appellant's presence presence in

in aa high-crime area coupled high-crime area coupled with his failure with his to respond failure to respond

to police, to police, aa firearm, and unprovoked firearm, and flight provided unprovoked flight Officer Lutz provided Officer with reasonable Lutz with suspicion.

reasonable suspicion.

Appellant’s unprovoked Appellant's unprovoked flight alone docs flight alone does not

not provide reasonable suspicion, provide reasonable suspicion, however, however, when

when the

tbe

flight is flight is in in aa high-crime

high-crime area,

area, reasonable suspicion can reasonable suspicion can be be established.

established.

Officer Lutz Officer observed the Lutz observed the bulge

bulge in

in Appellants waistband, indicative Appellants waistband, of aa firearm.

indicative of When firearm.29When

Officer Lutz Officer Lutz asked asked Appellant

Appellant if he had

if he had aa license

license to

to carry

carry aa firearm,

firearm, he

he remained silent but

remained silent looked but looked

at his waistband at waistband and then back and then back up to the

up to officer. 30 Because the officer.3 he did Because he did not

not answer,

answer, Officer

Officer Lutz

Lutz went

went

to exit to exit the the vehicle but before vehicle but he could before he could the

the Appellant

Appellant grabbed

, grabbed his

his waistband and fled.

waistband and Officer fled.31 Officer

Lutz's observations of Lutz's observations of Appellant's waistband bulge, Appellant's waistband his furtive bulge, his eye movements, furtive eye movements, and and his action of

his action of

grabbing his grabbing his waistband all reinforced waistband all Officer Lutz's reinforced Officer Lutz's reasonable reasonable suspicion.

suspicion.

Considering the Considering the totality of the totality of the circumstances circumstances surrounding surrounding Appellant's

Appellant's arrest,

arrest, reasonable

reasonable

suspicion emerged, suspicion allowing Officer emerged, allowing Officer Lutz to elevate Lutz to elevate aa mere

mere encounter

encounter to an attempted to an investigative attempted investigative

detention. The detention. The addition addition of

of flight

flight and

and subsequent

subsequent discovery

discovery of

of the

the firearm

firearm lead

lead to

to probable

probable cause.

cause.

The firearm The firearm was properly recovered was properly recovered and and thus

thus not fruit of

not fruit of the

the poisonous tree. 'Therefore, poisonous tree. Therefore, this courts this courts

order denying order denying suppression suppression of

of evidence

evidence should

should be

be upheld.

upheld.

n. II. This Court Tbis Court did did not abuse its

not abuse its discretion

discretion when it sentenced when it sentenced Appellant Appellant to

to aa legal

legal sentence

sentence

that aligned that aligned with with the

the sentencing

sentencing guidelines.

guidelines.

This Court This Court was was well within its

well within its discretion discretion when it imposed when it imposed aa legal sentence that legal sentence aligned with that aligned with

the sentencing guidelines. the sentencing guidelines. The sentence was The sentence was not

not manifestly

manifestly excessive and nothing excessive and nothing in the record in the record

points points to the contrary.

to the contrary.

An abuse of An abuse of discretion discretion is

is more than an

more than an error

error in

in judgment.

judgment. See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Starr, 234 v. Starr, 234

A.3d 755, 760-61 A.34 755, (Pa. Super.

760-61 (Pa. Super. 2020);

2020); Commonwealth

Commonwealth ».v. Clarke, Clarke, 70

IQ A.3d

A.3d 1281, 1287 (Pa.

1281, 1287 (Pa. Super.

Super.

2013). “An abuse 2013). "An abuse of of discretion

discretion may

may not

not be found merely because found merely an appellate because an appellate court court might

might have

have

9 Id. 29 1atat 9.

9.

Id. at 30 1. 0 at 10.

10.

Id. at 31Id. 8, 35-36.

at 8, 35-36.

reached reached aa different different conclusion,

conclusion, but

but requires

requires aa result of manifest result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice^] prejudice[,] bias or ill-will, bias or ill-will, or

or such

such aa lack

lack of

of support

support as

as to

to be clearly erroneous"

be clearly erroneous” Commonwealth Commonwealth v.

v

Walls, Walls, .926 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa.

A.2d 957,961 (Pa. 2007); see Commonwealth 2007); see Commonwealth v.

v. Rodda, 723 A.2d

Rodda, 723 212, 214

A.2d 212, 214 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super.

1999) (en banc); 1999) (en Commonwealtliv.

bane); Commonwealth Smith, 699 v. Smith, 699 A.2d

A.2d 1008,

1008, 1011 (Pa. Super.

1011 (Pa. Super. 1996). The rationale 1996). The rationale

behind such broad behind such discretion and broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential the concomitantly deferential standard standard of

of appellate

appellate review that

review is that

the the sentencing sentencing court court is “in the

is "in best position

the best to determine position to determine the the proper penalty for

proper penalty for aa particular particular offense

offense

based based upon an evaluation upon an evaluation of of the

the individual circumstance before individual circumstance before it.” Commonwealth v.

it." Commonwealth Ward, 568 • Ward, 568

A.2d 1242, A.2d 1242, 1243 (Pa. 1990).

1243 (Pa. 1990).

“In reviewing In reviewing aa record record to determine if

to determine if the sentencing court the sentencing court abused abused its

its discretion,

discretion, the

the

Sentencing Code Sentencing Code instructs instructs the [Pennsylvania Superior the [Pennsylvania Superior Court]

Court] to consider to consider the nature and the nature and

circumstances of circumstances of the crime; the the crime; history and the history characteristics of and characteristics of the defendant; the the defendant; sentencing court's the sentencing court's

findings findings as as well well as the court's

as the court's opportunity opportunity to

to observe

observe the defendant, including the defendant, including through through presentence

presentence

investigation; and the investigation; and the sentencing sentencing guidelines."

guidelines.” Commonwealth Commonwealth v.

v. Velez, 273 A-3d

Vele, 273 6, 10

A.3d 6, (Pa. Super.

10 (Pa. Super.

2022) (citing 2022) (citing 42 42 Pa.C.S.A.

Pa.C.S.A. $§ 9781(d)).

9781(d)). Further

Further when

when imposing

imposing aa sentence,

sentence, the

the court

court must

must follow

follow

the general the general principle principle that

that the sentence be

the sentence be "consistent “consistent with

with the

the protection

protection of

of public,

public, the

the gravity of

gravity of

the offense the offense as as it

it relates

relates to

to the

the impact on the

impact on the life of the life of the victim

victim and community, and and community, and the

the rehabilitative

rehabilitative

needs of the needs of defendant.” 42 the defendant." Pa.C.S.A. $§ 9721(b).

42 Pa.CS.A. 9721(b). The balancing of The balancing of these

these Section

Section 9721(b)

9721(b)

sentencing factors sentencing factors is is within

within the sole province

the sole of the

province of sentencing court.

the sentencing court. Velez, Velez, 213

273 A.3d at I0

A.3d at 10 (citing

(citing

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Lekka, 210 A.3d Lekka, 210 A.3d 343, 353 (Pa.

343, 353 (Pa. Super.

Super. 2019)).

2019)).

The sentencing court The sentencing court must must also

also consider

consider the

the sentencing

sentencing guidelines

guidelines when sentencing aa when sentencing

defendant. See42 defendant. 5ee42 Pa.C.S.A.

Pa.C.SA. $§ 9721(b).

9721(b). Although; the guidelines Although, the guidelines are purely advisory are purely advisory in

in nature, and

nature, and

tthey are not hey are ‘mandatory. See not'mandatory. See Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, Commonwealth v. 923 A.2d Yuhasz, 923 A.2d 1111,

1111, 1118 (Pa. 2007).

1118 (Pa. 2007). A

A

sentencing court sentencing court may may use its discretion

use its discretion and

and issue

issue aa sentence

sentence outside

outside the

the guidelines,

guidelines, so

so long as the

long as the

sentence does sentence does not not exceed

exceed the

the maximum

maximum sentence

sentence allowed

allowed by statute. See

by statute. See id. at 1118-19.

id. at 1118-19. First-

First-

degree felonies degree are punishable felonies are punishable by by up

up to

to twenty

twenty years

years in

in prison.

prison. 18

18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS. §$ 1103(1).

1103(1). When

When aa court

court

deviates .

deviates from from the the sentencing

sentencing guidelines,

guidelines, it

it must

must state the reasons

state the reasons for

for doing so on

doing so

. on the record. See

the record. See

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. McLaine, 150 A.3d McLaine, 150 70, 76

A.3d 70, 76 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2016).

2016).

V

“Further, the Further, the weight accorded to weight accorded to the

the mitigating

mitigating factors or aggravating factors or aggravating factors factors presented

presented to

to

the sentencing the sentencing court court .is

is within

within

> the court's exclusive the court's exclusive domain."

domain.” Velez, 273

273 A.3d

A.3d at 10 (citing

at 10 (citing

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth Chilquist, 548 v. Chilquist, A.2d 272, 548 A.2d 272, 274

274 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 1988).,The

1988).,The Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Superior

Superior

'•l

Court has Court has found found that

that if

if aa court

court possesses

possesses aa pre-sentence pre-sentence report,

report, it

it is

is presumed

presumed the

the court

court “was

"was aware

aware

of and of and weighed all relevant weighed all information contained relevant information contained [in [in the

the report] along with

report] along with any

any mitigating

mitigating

sentencing factors.” sentencing Commonwealth v.

factors." Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d Marts, 889 A.2d 608,

608, 615

6'15 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super, 2005) (citation

2005) (citation

omitted). omitted).

Following the Following the Sentencing Sentencing Guidelines,

Guidelines, 204

204 Pa.

Pa. Code

Code $§ 303.1

303.1 et

et seq.,

seq., at

at the

the time of

time of

Appellant’s sentencing, Appellant's sentencing, he he had

had aa prior

prior record of fwe.3?

record score of five. 32 Pursuant Pursuant to the Sentencing to the Sentencing

Guidelines, one Guidelines, one' count of Possession count of of Firearm Possession of Firearm Prohibited, graded as aa first-degree Prohibited, graded felony, has first-degree felony, has an offense gravity offense score of gravity score of eleven.'

eleven. 33 This would make This would the applicable make the applicable sentencing sentencing guidelines, seventyguidelines , seventytwo

to ninety two to ninety months months of

of incarceration plus or

incarceration plus or minis minus twelve months for

twelve months for aggravation aggravation or

or mitigation.'

mitigation.34

1/ ' One ' count One count of of Firearm Carried Without Firearm Carried Without aa License, graded as License, graded as aa third-degree third-degree, felony,

felony, has an

has an

offense gravity offense gravity score score of

of nine.

nine.'35 This would make

This would make the

the applicable sentencing guidelines, applicable sentencing guidelines, twenty¬ twentyseven

to seven to thirty-three thirty-three years years of

of incarceration

incarceration plus Or minus plus or nine months minus nine months for aggravation, or for aggravation or

mitigation. mitigation.'36

Finally, one Finally, one count count of

of Carry

Carry aa Firearm

Firearm in Public in

in Public in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, graded

graded as

as aa first-degree

first-degree

misdemeanor, as misdemeanor, as an an offense

offense gravity-score

gravity score of

of four.

four.' This would

37 This would make

make the applicable sentencing the applicable sentencing • •

guidelines, twelve guidelines, to eighteen twelve to eighteen years of incarceration years of plus, or incarceration plus or minus minus nine

nine months for aggravation months for aggravation-or or

mitigation; 38 j mitigation.' J

There is nothing There nothing in the the record

record that

that can

can be

be construed

construed as

as partiality, prejudice, bias partiality, prejudice, bias or or ill-will.

ill-will.

Nor Nor has Appellant pointed has Appellant pointed to anything that to anything could be that could construed as be construed such.

as such. At

At the

the sentencing

sentencing hearing,

hearing,

the Commonwealth the Commonwealth asked asked this Court to

this Court to sentence

sentence Appellant

Appellant to five to

to five to ten

ten years

years of

of incarceration

incarceration

followed followed by by six years of six years of probation.

probation.339 The

The Appellant

Appellant requested

requested aa mitigated county sentence."

mitigated county sentence.40 In In

considering all considering all the the mitigation

mitigation presented at the presented at sentencing, the the sentencing, the Court Court imposed

imposed aa sentence

sentence of

of five

five to

to

ten ten year of incarceration year of incarceration followed followed by one year

by one of re-entry

year of supervision. 41 re-entry supervision."

204 Pa. 9204 32 Pa. Code Code $§ 303.7

303.7 (7

(7th Ed.).

Ed.).

204 33 204 Pa. Code $§ 303.3 Pa. Code 303.3 (7h

(7th Ed.).

Ed.).

204 Pa. 4204 34 Pa. Code Code $§ 303.16

303.16 (7th

(7th Ed.).

Ed.)

35 204 » Pa. Code 204 Pa. Code $§ 303.3

303.3 (7th

(7th Ed.).'

Ed.).

204 Pa. 6 204 36 Pa. Code Code $§ 303.16

303.16 (7th

(7th Ed.).

Ed.).

204 Pa. 1 204 37 Pa. Code Code $§ 303.3

303 ;3 (7uh

(7th Ed.).

Ed.)

204 Pa. 38204 Pa. Code Code $§ 303.16

303.16 (7th Ed.).

(7th Ed.)

N.T. 7/12024, 9NT. 39 7/12/24, at at 13.

13.

40 Mat « Id. at 11.

11.

Secure Court 41 secure Court Docket, Docket, atat 9.

9.

42

At sentencing At sentencing this Court explained this Court explained its consideration and its consideration and reasoning for imposing reasoning for imposing the sentence: sentence:

' AU right. I've All right. I’ve taken

taken into consideration the into consideration the gravity of the gravity of offense, the the offense, the need

need to.

to

provide protection to provide protection the community.

to the community. I’ve I've taken taken into consideration the into consideration the guidelines guidelines

in this in case, which

this case, which for the record for the record are

are 72 to 90

72 t0 90 months

months plus

plus or

or minus 12. I've

minus 12. I’ve taken

taken> 1

into consideration the into consideration comments of the comments of the the attormey

attorney for

for the Commonwealth,, the the Commonwealth, the comments of comments of your

your attorney and your attorney and your comments.

comments. I’veI've taken

taken into consideration the into consideration the fact,that fact that you

you have family support have family support inin the the room.

room. But

But II cannot,

cannot, II can't

can’t ignore the fact

ignore the fact

that your that criminal history your criminal -1 don't history --I don’t even

even know

know when

when you had aa sustained you had period of sustained period

non-criminal activity non-criminal activity with with the exception of

the exception of the

the period

period ofof time

time when

when you

you were

were

incarcerated. So incarcerated. So II don't don’t know how to

know how stop you to stop from committing you from committing crimes crimes other

other than

than

to to lock

lock you

you up.

up. II really don’t 42

really don't.

Given the Given the fact that this

fact that this Court

Court only

only imposed

imposed aa sentence

sentence on the charge

on the charge of

of Possession of

Possession of

Firearm Prohibited Firearm and the Prohibited and the fact

fact that

that itit was mitigated, the was mitigated, the record is simply record is devoid of simply devoid of any

any indication

indication

that the that sentence was the sentence manifestly unreasonable was manifestly unreasonable or or the

the product of partiality, product of prejudice, bias, partiality, prejudice, bias, malice, malice,

or ill-will. or Therefore, the ill-will, Therefore, sentence of the sentence of this Court should this Court stand.

should stand.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

I

For the foregoing For the foregoing reasons, reasons, the judgment of

the judgment of this

this Court

Court should

should be affirmed.

be affirmed.

BY THE COURT: BY THE COURT:

NATASHA TAYLOR-SMITH, J. NATASHA TAYLOR-SMITH, J.

'

DATE: DATE:

·r7den N.T. 7/12/24, at 16-17.