Com. v. Lane, E.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 2094 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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

-2- 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

-3- 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).”

-4- 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.

-5- J-A14027-25

Date: 8/27/2025

-6- 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, seventy- guidelines, seventy- two 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¬ twenty- seven 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. 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. 42