Com. v. Ochoa, C.

2023 Pa. Super. 190, 304 A.3d 390

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 29, 2023
• Docket: 1216 EDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S18024-23

2023 PA Super 190

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHRISTIAN OCHOA : : Appellant : No. 1216 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0001788-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHRISTIAN OCHOA : : Appellant : No. 1217 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0001793-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

DISSENTING OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2023

In this case the Majority vacates Appellant’s judgment of sentence and

remands for a new trial concluding that Appellant was subjected to a second

investigatory detention which was not supported by reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity. Relying on Mattis and Lopez, the Majority notes that after

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S18024-23

addressing the purpose of the initial stop for suspicion of DUI, the officers

retained Appellant’s drivers’ license and continued to unlawfully question him

regarding issues unrelated to the initial stop.

However, unlike Mattis and Lopez, where the defendants were found

not “free to leave” while the officers retained their licenses, the trial court in

this matter specifically found that a reasonable person in Appellant’s

circumstances would have realized that they were free to terminate the

interaction and leave. See trial court opinion, 11/14/22 at 17-18.

Based on the foregoing, the facts of this case support the conclusion

that the subsequent questioning by the officers constituted a mere encounter

and that Appellant’s motion to suppress all the evidence derived from this

questioning was properly denied.

Accordingly, I would affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence imposed

following his conviction for two counts of PWID and related charges.

Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

-2-