Com. v. Woodall, J.
Opinion
J-S29013-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :
v. :
: :
JASON MICHAEL WOODALL :
:
Appellant : No. 876 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000746-2023
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: January 22, 2026
Appellant Jason Michael Woodall appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence imposed following his convictions for delivery a controlled substance
(cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 Appellant
raises numerous claims on appeal, including violations of the compulsory
joinder rule, improper venue, violation of his speedy trial rights, the instant
charges were barred by the statute of limitations, Brady2 violations, and
prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known
to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 1-4; Trial Ct. Op. & Order,
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (16), respectively.
2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
J-S29013-25
1/26/24, at 4-8, 10, 12.3 Briefly, on March 2, 2021, a criminal complaint was
filed charging Appellant with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance
(cocaine) and six counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), in
connection with six narcotics transactions with one or more confidential
informants (CI). Appellant was arrested on April 14, 2023. Appellant filed a
counseled omnibus pretrial motion seeking to dismiss this matter based on
violations of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, as well as raising claims
that the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County was the improper
venue and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied this
motion. Subsequently, after a hearing, the trial court granted Appellant’s
counsel leave to withdraw and allowed Appellant to proceed pro se. Appellant
filed several pro se pre-trial motions, which the trial court denied. Following
a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of all charges on April 11, 2024.
On July 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration. On July 22, 2024, Appellant
simultaneously filed a post-sentence motion (captioned as “sentence
manipulation/entrapment modification motion”), a notice of appeal, and a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence
____________________________________________
3 The Honorable Jesse Pettit, who presided over Appellant’s trial and sentencing hearing, wrote the September 18, 2024 Rule 1925(a) opinion, as well as the March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum and order. The Honorable Valerie Costanzo, who presided over the hearings on Appellant’s counseled motion for bail and counseled omnibus pretrial motion, wrote the January 26, 2024 opinion and order.
J-S29013-25
motion on September 17, 2024.4
The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s issues
and adopting the analysis set forth in the trial court’s January 26, 2024 opinion
and order, March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum
and order.5
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we restate
verbatim:
1. Warrantless GPS usage.
2. Fabricated fraudulent evidence control logs.
3. Unconstitutional venue change lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4. Double jeopardy clause pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 110.
5. Rule 600 lack of due diligence.
6. Rule 600, 180 days of pretrial confinement.
7. Hearsay testimony during preliminary hearing.
8. Invalid affidavit & arrest warrant.
9. Invalid arrest warrant.
10. Stale charges.
____________________________________________
4 Appellant’s notice of appeal was premature because he filed it simultaneously
with his post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 219 A.3d 1207, 1210 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2); Pa.R.A.P. 108(d)(1), 903(c)(3). However, because the trial court subsequently denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, we will treat Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely. See Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1210 n.5.
5 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
J-S29013-25
11. Prosecutorial misconduct.
12. Unconstitutionally denied bail.
13. Compel confidential informant.
14. Suggestive single photo identification procedure.
15. Ineffective assistant of pretrial counsel.
Appellant’s Brief at 2, 18, 35, 43, 47, 59, 68, 71, 75, 77, 81, 89, 97, 100, 105
(unpaginated) (some formatting altered).6,7
Rule 1925(b) Waiver
Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must address
whether Appellant has preserved them for our review. See Commonwealth
v. Edmondson, 718 A.2d 751, 752 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate
courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte).
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded that Appellant
waived his claims for review because Appellant “has failed to follow the
requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, as set forth in Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(iv)[.]” Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5. Further, the trial court
____________________________________________
6 We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), 2116. We derive these issues from the headings in Appellant’s brief. Further, Appellant’s brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the case, a summary of argument, and a statement of compliance with the word count limit of Pa.R.A.P. 2135. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (3), (5), (6), (12); 2135(a), (d).
7 Additionally, Appellant’s brief contains a section captioned “Addendum” which contains additional allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. See Appellant’s Brief at 108-19.
J-S29013-25
explained that several of Appellant’s issues were too vague for the trial court
to address. See id. at 40 (explaining that Appellant’s claim that “he has a
‘standing objection’ to each side-bar ruling that was against his well-
established constitutional rights[]” was “waived for vagueness and lack of
development”); id. at 44 (stating that Appellant asserted in his Rule 1925(b)
statement that “the prosecutor at trial, engaged in ‘blatant and cumulative
prosecutorial misconducts’ throughout the case[,]” and that Appellant “fails to
cite to specific incidents to support his claim”).
“[T]he applicability of waiver principles . . . is a question of law, over
which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018) (citations
omitted).
Initially, we must determine whether Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is
well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived for appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii);
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).
This Court has held that when an appellant files a Rule 1925(b)
statement before the trial court orders one, “there is no need for the trial
court” to request one. Commonwealth v. Nobles, 941 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa.
Super. 2008). However, if the appellant fails to include a claim in a voluntarily
filed Rule 1925(b) statement, that claim is waived on appeal. See id. As the
Nobles Court reasoned, this Court will not encourage “‘sandbagging’ by
J-S29013-25
[appellants] if they are allowed to quickly file a Rule 1925(b) statement and
then claim that nothing is waived because the Rule 1925(b) statement was
not in response to a formal request.” Id.
Rule 1925(b) also provides that an appellant’s concise statement must
“concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with
sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S29013-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :
v. :
: :
JASON MICHAEL WOODALL :
:
Appellant : No. 876 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000746-2023
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: January 22, 2026
Appellant Jason Michael Woodall appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence imposed following his convictions for delivery a controlled substance
(cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 Appellant
raises numerous claims on appeal, including violations of the compulsory
joinder rule, improper venue, violation of his speedy trial rights, the instant
charges were barred by the statute of limitations, Brady2 violations, and
prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known
to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 1-4; Trial Ct. Op. & Order,
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (16), respectively.
2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
J-S29013-25
1/26/24, at 4-8, 10, 12.3 Briefly, on March 2, 2021, a criminal complaint was
filed charging Appellant with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance
(cocaine) and six counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), in
connection with six narcotics transactions with one or more confidential
informants (CI). Appellant was arrested on April 14, 2023. Appellant filed a
counseled omnibus pretrial motion seeking to dismiss this matter based on
violations of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, as well as raising claims
that the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County was the improper
venue and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied this
motion. Subsequently, after a hearing, the trial court granted Appellant’s
counsel leave to withdraw and allowed Appellant to proceed pro se. Appellant
filed several pro se pre-trial motions, which the trial court denied. Following
a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of all charges on April 11, 2024.
On July 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration. On July 22, 2024, Appellant
simultaneously filed a post-sentence motion (captioned as “sentence
manipulation/entrapment modification motion”), a notice of appeal, and a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence
____________________________________________
3 The Honorable Jesse Pettit, who presided over Appellant’s trial and sentencing hearing, wrote the September 18, 2024 Rule 1925(a) opinion, as well as the March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum and order. The Honorable Valerie Costanzo, who presided over the hearings on Appellant’s counseled motion for bail and counseled omnibus pretrial motion, wrote the January 26, 2024 opinion and order.
J-S29013-25
motion on September 17, 2024.4
The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s issues
and adopting the analysis set forth in the trial court’s January 26, 2024 opinion
and order, March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum
and order.5
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we restate
verbatim:
1. Warrantless GPS usage.
2. Fabricated fraudulent evidence control logs.
3. Unconstitutional venue change lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4. Double jeopardy clause pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 110.
5. Rule 600 lack of due diligence.
6. Rule 600, 180 days of pretrial confinement.
7. Hearsay testimony during preliminary hearing.
8. Invalid affidavit & arrest warrant.
9. Invalid arrest warrant.
10. Stale charges.
____________________________________________
4 Appellant’s notice of appeal was premature because he filed it simultaneously
with his post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 219 A.3d 1207, 1210 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2); Pa.R.A.P. 108(d)(1), 903(c)(3). However, because the trial court subsequently denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, we will treat Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely. See Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1210 n.5.
5 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
J-S29013-25
11. Prosecutorial misconduct.
12. Unconstitutionally denied bail.
13. Compel confidential informant.
14. Suggestive single photo identification procedure.
15. Ineffective assistant of pretrial counsel.
Appellant’s Brief at 2, 18, 35, 43, 47, 59, 68, 71, 75, 77, 81, 89, 97, 100, 105
(unpaginated) (some formatting altered).6,7
Rule 1925(b) Waiver
Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must address
whether Appellant has preserved them for our review. See Commonwealth
v. Edmondson, 718 A.2d 751, 752 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate
courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte).
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded that Appellant
waived his claims for review because Appellant “has failed to follow the
requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, as set forth in Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(iv)[.]” Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5. Further, the trial court
____________________________________________
6 We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), 2116. We derive these issues from the headings in Appellant’s brief. Further, Appellant’s brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the case, a summary of argument, and a statement of compliance with the word count limit of Pa.R.A.P. 2135. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (3), (5), (6), (12); 2135(a), (d).
7 Additionally, Appellant’s brief contains a section captioned “Addendum” which contains additional allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. See Appellant’s Brief at 108-19.
J-S29013-25
explained that several of Appellant’s issues were too vague for the trial court
to address. See id. at 40 (explaining that Appellant’s claim that “he has a
‘standing objection’ to each side-bar ruling that was against his well-
established constitutional rights[]” was “waived for vagueness and lack of
development”); id. at 44 (stating that Appellant asserted in his Rule 1925(b)
statement that “the prosecutor at trial, engaged in ‘blatant and cumulative
prosecutorial misconducts’ throughout the case[,]” and that Appellant “fails to
cite to specific incidents to support his claim”).
“[T]he applicability of waiver principles . . . is a question of law, over
which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018) (citations
omitted).
Initially, we must determine whether Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is
well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived for appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii);
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).
This Court has held that when an appellant files a Rule 1925(b)
statement before the trial court orders one, “there is no need for the trial
court” to request one. Commonwealth v. Nobles, 941 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa.
Super. 2008). However, if the appellant fails to include a claim in a voluntarily
filed Rule 1925(b) statement, that claim is waived on appeal. See id. As the
Nobles Court reasoned, this Court will not encourage “‘sandbagging’ by
J-S29013-25
[appellants] if they are allowed to quickly file a Rule 1925(b) statement and
then claim that nothing is waived because the Rule 1925(b) statement was
not in response to a formal request.” Id.
Rule 1925(b) also provides that an appellant’s concise statement must
“concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with
sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(ii). As this Court has explained, Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial
component of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify
and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020)
(citation omitted).
Further, a Rule 1925(b) statement should only identify the errors made
by the trial court; it should not be a lengthy narrative of facts, procedural
history, explanations, or arguments. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). “Our law
makes it clear that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied by filing any statement.
Rather, the statement must be ‘concise’ and coherent as to permit the trial
court to understand the specific issues being raised on appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(citation omitted and some formatting altered). “The court’s review and legal
analysis can be fatally impaired when the court has to guess at the issues
raised.” Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(citation omitted).
J-S29013-25
“If a [Rule] 1925(b) statement is too outrageous, we have dismissed
the appeal without addressing any of the issues raised.” Vurimindi, 200 A.3d
at 1038 (citation omitted). However, this Court has recognized that “not all
lengthy [Rule] 1925(b) statements require dismissal of the appeal.” Id. at
1039. In Vurimindi, this Court held that the pro se defendant waived all of
the issues he attempted to raise by filing a fifty-three-page Rule 1925(b)
statement. See id. at 1040, 1043; see also Commonwealth v. Reynolds,
339 MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3 (Pa. Super. filed Dec. 8, 2025)
(unpublished mem.) (concluding that the defendant waived all of his issues
on appeal where the defendant’s thirty-page Rule 1925(b) statement was
“neither concise nor compliant with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)”).8
It is well-established that
pro se status does not relieve [a litigant] of his duty to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing. Accordingly, pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court; if there are considerable defects, we will be unable to perform appellate review.
Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1037-38 (citations omitted and some formatting
altered).
____________________________________________
8 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating this Court may rely on unpublished decisions
of this Court filed after May 1, 2019, for their persuasive value).
J-S29013-25
Here, Appellant did not include his challenges to the validity of the arrest
warrant in his Rule 1925(b) statement; therefore, those issues are waived on
appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Lord, 719 A.2d at 309; Nobles, 941
A.2d at 52.
Next, following our review, we agree with the trial court that Appellant’s
Rule 1925(b) statement does not comply with our Rules of Appellate
Procedure because Appellant failed to succinctly identify the issues he
intended to raise on appeal and several issues are too vague to identify . See
Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5, 40, 44; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). Specifically,
Appellant filed a twenty-six-page Rule 1925(b) statement which included
twenty-four issues with a lengthy recitation of purportedly inconsistent
testimony and often vague allegations of misconduct by the police and the
Washington County District Attorney’s Office. See Rule 1925(b) Statement,
7/22/24, at 1-26 (unpaginated). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that
Appellant has waived his claims on appeal.9 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv);
____________________________________________
9 In any event, even if Appellant properly preserved his issues for review, we
would affirm based on the trial court’s analysis of these claims with the exception of the trial court’s references to non-precedential decisions of this Court filed prior to May 1, 2019. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5-52; Trial Ct. Mem. & Order, 4/1/24, at 1-6 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 3/14/24, at 1-4 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2-19. Further, we note that the trial court’s opinions contain some typographical errors. On page 8 of the September 18, 2024 opinion, a citation should read “T.T., vol. I, 137, line 9-20, 4/9/24.” See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 8. Further, on page 2 of the January 26, 2024 opinion and order; the citation should read “Commonwealth v Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018).” See Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2. (Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S29013-25
Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1038-40; Hansley, 24 A.3d at 415; Reynolds, 339
MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3.
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Application for post-submission
communication denied.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
DATE: 1/22/2026
____________________________________________
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinions in the event of further proceedings.
Circulated 12/23/2025 10:41 AM
Copies to:
to: District Attorney;
Attorney; Public
Public Defender;
Defender; Defendant;
Defendant; Superior
Superior t>ourt
uourt of PA
IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF
OF COMMON
COMMON PLEAS
PLEAS OF
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ))
)
Appellee, Appellee, ))
)
vs. vs. )) No.
No. 876
876 WDA
WDA 2024
2024
) )
JASON JASON MICHAEL MICHAEL WOODALL, WOODALL, ))
)
Appellant. Appellant. ))
Appeal from the Appeal from the Opinion Opinion and Orders entered and Orders entered on April 14, on April 2023; June
14, 2023; June 22,
22, 2023; December 15,
2023; December 15,
2023; January 2023; 26, 2024;
January 26, 2024; March March 14,
14, 2024;
2024; March
March 25,
25, 2024; April 1,
2024; April 2024; April 1, 2024; April 5,
5, 2024;
2024; May
May 16,
16,
2024; June 2024; June 21,
21, 2024;
2024; and
and July
July 8, 2024
8, 2024
In the In the Court
Court of
of Common
Common Pleas
Pleas of
of Washington
Washington County
County
Criminal Division Criminal Division at
at No:
No: CP-63-CR-000746-2023
CP-63-CR-000746-2023
RULE 1925(a) RULE 1925{a) OPINION
OPINION
Before Before the the Court
Court is
is the
the Notice
Notice of
of Appeal
Appeal filed on behalf
filed on behalf of
of Defendant/Appellant
Defendant/Appellant Jason Jason
Michael Woodall Michael Woodall (hereinafter (hereinafter “Defendant”)
"Defendant") in
in the
the above-captioned
above-captioned case
case at
at Criminal Division
Criminal Division
Docket No. Docket 746-2023. This No. 746-2023. opinion is This opinion is written
written in
in support
support of
of the
the following
following Opinions
Opinions and
and Orders:
Orders:
April 14, 2023; April 14, 2023; June June 22,
22, 2023;
2023; December 15, 2023;
December 15, 2023; January 26, 2024;
January 26, 2024; March
March 14,
14, 2024;
2024; March
March
25, 2024; April 25, 2024; April 1, 2024; April 1, 2024; April 5,
5, 2024;
2024; May
May 16, 2024; June
16, 2024; June 21, 2024; July 21, 2024; 8, 2024
July 8, 1; and
2024'; and July 15,
July 15,
2024. 2024.
By way By way of of an
an amended
amended Bill
Bill of
of Information
Information filed
filed on
on December
December 20,
20, 2023,
2023, the
the
Commonwealth Commonwealth charged charged Defendant
Defendant with
with six
six counts
counts of
of Delivery
Delivery of
of aa Controlled
Controlled Substance,
Substance,
cocaine, cocaine, 35 35 P.S.
P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30),
780-113(a)(30), an
an ungraded
ungraded Felony;
Felony; and
and six
six counts
counts of
of Possession
Possession of
of aa
Controlled Controlled Substance, Substance, cocaine,
cocaine, 35
35 P.S.
P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(l 6), ,an ungraded 780-113(a)16), ungraded Misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor.
M 7+557
1See See Sentencing Sentencing Hr’g Hr'g Tr,
Tr, 7/5/2024.
1 7/5/2024.
Defendant Defendant was
was initially
initially represented
represented by
by Attorney
Attorney Adam
Adam Yarussi
Yarussi (hereinafter
(hereinafter “Attorney
"Attorney
Yarussi”). Attorney Yarussi Yarussi"). Attorney Yarussi filed filed aa Motion to Set
Motion to Set Bail on May Bail on 16, 2023
May 16, and aa hearing 2023 and hearing was
was set
set for
for
June 20, 2023. June 20, 2023. An order order denying
denying bail
bail was filed June
was filed June 22, 2023. Attorney 22, 2023. Attorney Yarussi Yarussi then
then filed
filed an
an
Omnibus Pretrial Omnibus Pretrial Motion on July Motion on July 27,
27, 2023,
2023, which
which included
included aa Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Rule
Rule
600; Motion 600; to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to
to 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 110; Motion to 110; Motion Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant to Dismiss to 42 42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S.
§§ 5552(a);
5552(a); Motion Motion to
to Dismiss:
Dismiss: Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction;
Jurisdiction; Motion
Motion
to Reveal to Reveal Confidential Confidential Informant
Informant Identity;
Identity; Motion
Motion to
to Set
Set Bail;
Bail; and
and Motion
Motion to
to Compel Discovery.
Compel Discovery.
See Defendant’s See Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion, 7/27/2023. An Omnibus Motion, 7/27/2023. Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Hearing
Hearing was
was held
held
on on October 13, 2023 October 13, 2023 and and the
the Honorable
Honorable Valarie Costanzo filed Valarie Costanzo filed an an Opinion
Opinion and Order on
and Order on January
January
26, 2024?2 Defendant 26, 2024. Defendant filed filed multiple
multiple pro se pleadings prose pleadings during period of this period
during this of time while still time while being
still being
represented?3 represented.
The Commonwealth filed The Commonwealth filed aa Motion Motion to Amend Criminal
to Amend Criminal Information on December Information on 20, December 20,
2023. Attorney 2023. Attorney Yarussi Yarussi consented
consented to
to the
the amendment of the
amendment of the criminal criminal information,
information, and
and Judge
Judge
Valarie Costanzo signed Valarie Costanzo signed the the consent
consent order on December order on December 15,
15, 2023.
2023. An
An Amended
Amended Information
Information was
was
filed filed on on December 20, 2023.
December 20, 2023. On On February
February 14,
14, 2024,
2024, Attorney
Attorney Yarussi
Yarussi filed
filed aa Motion
Motion to
to
Withdraw as Withdraw Counsel. 4 An as Counsel. An Order granting Attorney Yarussi ’s request Order grantingAttorneyYarussi's request to to withdraw
withdraw was
was filed
filed on
on
February 22, February 2024. Defendant 22, 2024. Defendant filed filed aa pro
pro se
se “Motion to Request
"Motion to Request to
to Proceed
Proceed Pro
Pro se”
se" on
on February
February
23, 2024. 23, 2024. On On March
March 5,
5, 2024,
2024, the
the Court
Court accepted
accepted Defendant’s
Defendant's waiver of counsel waiver of counsel and
and appointed
appointed
stand-by stand-by counsel counsel in in the
the event
event that termination of that termination of his
his self-representation was necessary.
self-representation was necessary.
2On On January 1, 2024, 2024, by
by way
way of
of Administrative
Administrative Order
Order byby Washington
Washington County
County President
President Judge
Judge John
John DiSalle
DiSalle dated
2 January 1, dated November 29, 2023, November 29, 2023, the undersigned was the undersigned was assigned assigned toto the Washington County the Washington County Criminal Docket, which Criminal Docket, which included included the
the
above-captioned above-captioned case.
case. Judge
Judge Valarie
Valarie Costanzo
Costanzo was
was reassigned
reassigned to to the
the Family
Family Court
Court and
and Juvenile
Juvenile Dependency
Dependency
Dockets. Dockets. 3Defendant’s Defendant's pro pro se
se pleadings
pleadings were
were addressed
addressed by
by way
way ofof letter
letter addressed to Attorney Attorney Yarussi
Yarussi explaining
explaining that
3 addressed to that Defendant is not Defendant is not entitled entitled to
to hybrid
hybrid representation.
representation. See Commonwealth v.
See Commonwealth v. Ellis, Ellis, 626
626 A.2d
A.2d 1137, 1139 (Pa.
1137, 1139 (Pa. 1993).
1993).
Another Motion 4Another Motion toto Withdraw Withdraw asas Counsel
Counsel was
was filed February 15,
15, 2024.
2024. ItIt appears the only only change
change was
was aa change
change in
4 filed February appears the in the presentation the presentation date.
date.
Defendant Defendant requested requested his pro se pleadings, pleadings, which were
were filed
filed while he was
was represented
represented by counsel,
counsel,
to be reinstated.
reinstated. Defendant’s Defendant's request
request was
was denied;
denied; however
however he was
was permitted to refile the
pleadings. pleadings. See See Court
Court Order,
Order, 3/5/2024.
3/5/2024.
Defendant Defendant filed filed several
several motions
motions prior to the commencement commencement of the jury trial.
trial. Defendant
Defendant
filed a prose se “Motion
"Motion Pursuant
Pursuant to Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(0)(2) and (E)”
(E)" on February 23,
23, 2024.
2024. A
hearing was was scheduled for March 12, 12, 2024 for the limited purpose of of determining whether
whether
Defendant Defendant was was entitled to immediate immediate release on
on nominal
nominal bail
bail since Judge
Judge Costanzo’s
Costanzo 's January 26,
26,
2024 Opinion and and Order
Order previously addressed addressed the due
due diligence issue raised by Defendant Defendant
regarding regarding Rule Rule 600.
600. Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion was
was denied
denied by
by way
way of
of Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order dated
dated March
March
14, 14, 2024.
2024.
Defendant Defendant filed filed an
an “Omnibus
"Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion Briefing”
Briefing" on
on March
March 7,
7, 2024.
2024. On
On March
March 25,
25,
2024, 2024, aa Memorandum Memorandum and and Order
Order was
was filed
filed denying
denying Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion in
in its
its entirety.
entirety.
Defendant Defendant also also filed
filed aa pro se “Motion(s)-In-Limine”
prose "Motion(s)-In-Limine" on on March
March 7,
7, 2024.
2024. A
A separate
separate
Memorandum Memorandum and and Order
Order was
was filed
filed April
April 1,1, 2024,
2024, which
which denied
denied Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion in
in its
its
entirety. entirety. Defendant Defendant filed
filed another
another “Motion(s)
"Motion(s) In
In Limine”
Limine" on
on March
March 19,
19, 2024,
2024, which
which was
was denied
denied
by by way way of ofCourt Court Order
Order dated
datedApril
April 5,5, 2024.
2024.
After After the the completion
completion of
ofaa pretrial
pretrial conference
conference on
on March
March 27,
27, 2024,
2024, this
this case
case was
was scheduled
scheduled
for for aajury jury trial trial during
during the
the April
April 2024
2024 trial
trial term.
term. Another
Another pretrial
pretrial proceeding
proceeding was
was held
held on
onApril
April 4,
4,
2024 2024 to to address address last-minute last-minute trial
trial issues.
issues. After
After pre-trial
pre-trial proceedings
proceedings and
andjury
jury selection
selection on
onApril
April 8,8,
2024, 2024, Defendant’s Defendant'sjury jury trial
trial took
took place
placeApril
April 9,9, 2024
2024 through
throughApril
April 11,
11, 2024.
2024. A
Ahearing
hearing was
was held
held
on onApril April 10, 10, 2024,
2024, outside
outside of
ofthe
the presence
presence of
ofthe
thejury,
jury, to
to address
address Defendant’s
Defendant's oral
oral motion
motion seeking
seeking
dismissal dismissal of ofcharges
charges relating
relating to
to the
the issue
issue of
ofaa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device.
device. Defendant’s
Defendant's oral
oral motion
motion was
was
denied denied atat the the conclusion
conclusion of
ofthe
the hearing.
hearing. Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 28,
28, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Defendant
Defendantwas
was
found guilty guilty on April April 11, 2024 of six
six counts of delivery of a controlled substance, substance, cocaine,
cocaine, and
six six counts of possession possession of a controlled substance, substance, cocaine.
cocaine. See Verdict
Verdict Order,
Order, 4/12/24.
4/12/24.
Before Defendant’s
Defendant's sentencing,
sentencing, Defendant
Defendant filed
filed three motions
motions on April
April 25,
25, 2024:
2024:
“Deceleration "Deceleration in in Support
Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Forma Pauperis”,
Pauperis", “Motion
"Motion to Suppress
Suppress Nunc
Nunc
Pro Tunc”;
Tunc"; and “Motion "Motion Requesting Transcripts Transcripts and Exhibits
Exhibits Pursuant
Pursuant to Pa.
Pa. R.
R. J.
J. A.
A. 4007(E).”
4007(E)."
Defendant’s Defendant's request request to proceed
proceed in
in forma pauperis
pauperis was
was granted via
via a Court
Court Order
Order April
April 29,
29, 2024.
2024.
Defendant’s Defendant's request request for transcripts and and exhibits
exhibits was
was granted on May
May 10,
10, 2024.
2024. Defendant
Defendant filed a
“Brief in Support "Brief in Support of of Motion
Motion to Suppress
Suppress Nunc
Nunc Pro Time”
Tune" on May
May 7,
7, 2024.
2024. Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion
was was denied denied as as the
the issue
issue was
was previously
previously addressed
addressed and
and ruled on
on after
after an
an evidentiary
evidentiary hearing
hearing held
held
on on April April 10, 10, 2024.
2024. See
See Court
Court Order,
Order, 5/16/2024.
5/16/2024.
On On June
June 14,
14, 2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendant filed
filed aa “Brady
"Brady Violations
Violations Motions
Motions to
to Dismiss.”
Dismiss." This
This
motion motion was was denied denied by
by way
way of
of Order
Order entered
entered on
on June
June 21,
21, 2024.
2024. Defendant’s
Defendant's sentencing
sentencing hearing
hearing
was was originally originally scheduled scheduled for
for July
July 8,
8, 2024;
2024; however,
however, the
the hearing
hearing was
was continued
continued for
for one
one (1)
(1) week
week
at at the the request request of ofthe
the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth. Defendant
Defendant was
was ultimately
ultimately sentenced,
sentenced, after
after aa hearing,
hearing, on
on
July July 15, 15, 2024.
2024.
On On July July 22, 22, 2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendant filed
filed aa pro se Notice
prose Notice of
ofAppeal,
Appeal, “1925(b)
"1925(b) Concise
Concise Statements”,
Statements",
and and aa “Direct "Direct Appeal”
Appeal" pleading,
pleading, which
which appears
appears to
to be
be aa written
written brief
briefin
in support
support of
ofthe
the issues
issues set
set
forth in Defendant’s forth in Defendant's Concise Concise Statement.
Statement.5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a “Sentence 5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a "Sentence
Manipulation/Entrapment Manipulation/Entrapment Modification Modification Motion”
Motion" on
on July
July 22,
22, 2024.
2024.
• Defendant 5 Defendant argues argues inin his
his “Direct
"Direct Appeal”
Appeal" brief
brief that
that transcripts
transcripts were
were withheld
withheld from
from him.
him. This
This Court
Court granted
granted
Defendant’s request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant’s filing of this appeal, the Defendant's request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant's filing of this appeal, the transcripts transcriptsrelating relatingtotothe
thejury
jurytrial
trialhad
hadnot
notbeen
beencompleted
completedby bythe
thecourt
courtreporter.
reporter. This
ThisCourt
Courtfiled
filedthe
theRequest
Requestfor forTrial
Trial
Transcript Transcripton onMay May 1,1,2024.
2024. Defendant
Defendantchose
chosetoto file
filehis
hisNotice
Notice of
ofAppeal,
Appeal, Concise
Concise Statement
Statementand
andDirect
DirectAppeal
Appealbrief
brief
on on July July 22, 22, 2024,
2024, which
which waswas seven
seven days
days after
after he
he was
was sentenced.
sentenced. This
This Court
Court reviewed,
reviewed, signed
signed and
and filed
filed the
the trial
trial
transcripts transcripts immediately immediatelyupon uponreceiving receivingthe
thecompleted
completedtranscripts
transcripts from
fromthe
thecourt
courtreporter.
reporter.
Defendant Defendant has has failed
failed follow
follow the requirements,
requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, Statement, as set
set forth
in in Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv), 1925(b)4)(iv), (“The
("The Statement
Statement should not
not be redundant
redundant or
or provide
provide lengthy
explanations explanations as to any error.”)
error.") This
This Court
Court attempts
attempts to address
address each
each issue raised in Defendant’s Defendant's
6
1925(b) 1925(b) Concise Statement, Statement, in order,
order, which he
he is
is pursuing
pursuing on
on appeal,
appeal, below.
below.6
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
A. A. Untimely Untimely Filing
Filing of
of the
the Instant
Instant Charges
Charges
1.1. Standard
Standard of
of Review
Review
A A question question regarding
regarding the
the application
application of
ofthe
the statute
statute of
oflimitations
limitations isis aa question question of
oflaw.
law. See
See
Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Russell, Russell, 938
938 A.2d
A.2d 1082,
1082, 1087
1087 (Pa.Super.2007).
(Pa.Super.2007). “Where
"Where the
the petitioner
petitioner raises
raises
questions questions of law, our oflaw, our standard
standard of review isis de ofreview de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review plenary.”
plenary."
Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Riding, Riding, 2013
2013 PA
PA Super
Super 141,
141, 68
68 A.3d
A.3d 990,
990, 993
993 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2013).
2013).
2.2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant argues argues that
that counts
counts seven
seven through
throughtwelve
twelve of
ofthe
the Bill
Bill of
ofInformation
Information should
should have
have
been been dismissed dismissed because becausethe
the charges
charges were
were filed
filedbeyond
beyondthe
the statute
statute of
oflimitations.
limitations. Defendant,
Defendant,
through through counsel, counsel, filed
filed an
anOmnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion
Motionon
onJuly
July27,
27, 2023.
2023. Defendant
Defendantdid
didnot
notinclude
include
aaMotion Motionto to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuanttoto 42
42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §5552(a)
§5552(a) in
inhis
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion.
Motion.
Defendant, Defendant, however, however, attempted
attemptedtotoraise
raiseaamotion
motionseeking
seekingtoto dismiss
dismiss counts
counts seven
seventhrough
throughtwelve
twelve
of ofthe theBill Bill of ofInformation,
Information,pursuant
pursuanttoto42
42Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §5552(a),
§5552(a),ininhis
hisbrief,
brief,which
whichwas
wasfiled
filedon
on
December December 1,1,2023.
2023. Judge
JudgeCostanzo
Costanzodenied
deniedthe
themotion
motiontotodismiss
dismissby
byway
wayof
ofOpinion
Opinionand
andOrder
Order
dated datedJanuary January26, 26,2024.
2024. The
Thereasons
reasonsfor
forthe
theCourt’s
Court'sJanuary
January26,
26,2024
2024Order
Orderalready
alreadyappear
appearof
of
record recordininsaid saidOpinion
Opinionand
andOrder.
Order.Therefore,
Therefore,this
this Court
Courthereby
herebyincorporates
incorporatesthe
thesame
sameasasits
its
6 6Defendant Defendantreferences references“Direct
"DirectAppeal”
Appeal"exhibits;
exhibits;however,
however,no
noexhibits
exhibitswere
werefiled
filedwith
withthe
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyClerk
Clerk
of ofCourts CourtsOffice Officeregarding
regardingthe
the“Direct
"DirectAppeal”
Appeal"pleading.
pleading.
Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a) Opinion and attaches it hereto.
hereto. For
For the reasons set
set forth in
in the January 26,
26,
2024 Opinion Opinion and Order, Order, this Court
Court respectfully submits submits that
that its order
order be affirmed on the merits
and Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be dismissed.
dismissed.
B. B. Improper Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
1. 1. Standard of Review Review
“As "As this question [regarding subject subject matter
matter jurisdiction]
jurisdiction] is purely one one of law,
law, our
our standard
of review review is is de
de novo,
novo, and our
our scope ofreview
review is plenary.”
plenary." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Jones,
Jones, 929 A.2d
205, 205, 211 (Pa.
(Pa. 2007)
2007) (internal
(internal citations omitted).
omitted).
“The "The standard standard of
of review
review for
for aa denial
denial of aa motion
motion for
for change
change of
of venue
venue is
is whether
whether there
there has
has
been been an an abuse abuse of of discretion
discretion on the
the part
part of the
the trial
trial judge.”
judge." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Devries, Devries, 112
112 A.3d
A.3d
663, 666 (Pa. 663,666 (Pa. Super.
Super. 2015)
2015) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).
2. 2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant next next argues
argues that
that this
this Court
Court lacked
lacked subject
subject matter
matterjurisdiction
jurisdiction over
over the
the
prosecution prosecution of ofthe
the charges
charges stemming
stemming from
from conduct
conduct occurring
occurring in
in Allegheny
Allegheny County
County and,
and,
furthermore, furthermore, venue venue was
was improper
improper in
in Washington
Washington County.
County.
Defendant Defendant filed filed an
an Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion on
on July
July 27,
27, 2023,
2023, which
which included
included aa Motion
Motion
to to Dismiss Dismiss Improper Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction (Allegheny
(Allegheny County
County
Charges). Charges). Judge Judge Costanzo,
Costanzo, following
following the
the October
October 13,
13, 2023
2023 hearing,
hearing, denied
denied the
the motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss
by by way way of ofOpinion Opinion and
and Order
Order dated
dated January
January 26,
26, 2024.
2024. The
The reasons
reasons for
for the
the Court’s
Court's January
January 26,
26,
2024 2024 Order Order already already appear
appear of
ofrecord
record in
in said
said Opinion
Opinion and
and Order.
Order. Therefore,
Therefore, this
this Court
Court hereby
hereby
incorporates incorporates the the same
same as
as its
its Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a) Opinion
Opinion and
and attaches
attaches itit hereto.
hereto. For
For the
the reasons
reasons
set set forth forth in in the
the January
January 26,
26, 2024
2024 Opinion
Opinion and
and Order,
Order, this
this Court
Court respectfully
respectfully submits
submits that
that its
its order
order
be be affirmed affirmed on on the
the merits
merits and
and Defendant’s
Defendant's appeal
appeal be
be dismissed.
dismissed.
C. C. Warrantless Warrantless Use
Use of
of Mobile
Mobile Tracking
Tracking Device
Device
Defendant Defendant next next appears
appears to argue in
in Section C of his Concise Statement Statement that
that law
law
enforcement enforcement utilized utilized a mobile tracking device during its investigation investigation without
without a warrant
warrant or court
court
order. order. Defendant Defendant initially initially raised this argument argument at
at trial.
trial.
Defendant Defendant made made an oral
oral motion prior
prior to the commencement commencement of the second day of
trial trial seeking dismissal dismissal of the charges.
charges. Pretrial
Pretrial Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 5,
5, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Defendant
Defendant asserted
that that the the evidence evidence presented by the Commonwealth Commonwealth to the jury on the first first day of trial
trial
demonstrated that that law
law enforcement
enforcement utilized
utilized a GPS
GPS tracking device during during the course
course of the
investigation, investigation, without without first
first obtaining
obtaining aa warrant.
warrant. Defendant
Defendant sought
sought dismissal
dismissal of
of the
the charges
charges based
based
on on the the fruit fruit of of the
the poisonous
poisonous tree
tree doctrine.
doctrine. Defendant,
Defendant, in
in support
support of his
his oral
oral motion
motion for
for
immediate immediate dismissal dismissal of
of the
the charges,
charges, argued
argued that
that Agent
Agent Barna
Barna testified
testified at
at trial
trial that
that the
the Office
Office of
of
Attorney Attorney General General utilized utilized aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device
device without
without obtaining
obtaining aa court
court order
order or
or warrant.
warrant.
Defendant’s Defendant's argument argument isis not
not supported
supported by
by the
the record
record evidence.
evidence.
Agent Agent Barna, Barna, during
during cross-examination, cross-examination, testified testified as
as follows:
follows:
Q: Q: How How are
are you
you doing,
doing, Agent
Agent Barna?
Barna?
A: A: Good, Good, sir.
sir. How
How are
are you?
you?
Q: Q: All All right.
right. First,
First, before
before we
we go
go any
any further,
further, you
you stated
stated that
that you
you had
had aa tracker
tracker
on on the
the vehicle?
vehicle?
A: A: Yes.
Yes.
Q: Q: Did Did you
you have
have aa warrant
warrant for
for the
the tracker?
tracker?
A: A: Yes.
Yes.
Q: Q: You You did?
did?
A: A: Yes.
Yes.
Q: Q: Why Why wasn’t
wasn't itit in
in the
the discovery?
discovery?
A: A: We We didn’t
didn't use
use itit as
as evidence
evidence for
for anything
anything other
otherthan
than furthering
furthering the
the
investigation. investigation.
TT, TT, vol.
vol. I, 136,
136, line 4-15,
4-15, 4/9/24.
4/9/24.
The The Court, Court, based on Defendant’s Defendant's oral
oral motion,
motion, held an evidentiary hearing outside of the
jury during the second day of trial trial to further develop the record regarding Defendant’s Defendant's argument.
argument.
Agent Agent Barna Barna testified testified at
at the hearing.
hearing. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. I,1, 37-206,
37-206, 4/9/24.
4/9/24. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna again testified that that
the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General General had obtained an appropriate court court order
order under
under the
Wiretap Act Act to place a tracking device on Defendant’s Defendant's vehicle during the course of the
investigation. investigation. Pretrial Pretrial Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 22,
22, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna explained
explained that,
that, when
when
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Office Office of Attorney General General narcotics
narcotics agents
agents utilize
utilize aa tracking device, device, the
the agents
agents
“have "have to to have have aa court court order
order and
and appropriate
appropriate paperwork
paperwork with
with the
the Office of
of Attorney
Attorney General.
General. It’s
It's
aa very very formal formal process.
process. So,
So, yes,
yes, we
we had
had aa warrant
warrant signed
signed by
by aa judge.”
judge." Id.
Id. This
This Court
Court found
found
Agent Agent Barna’s Barna's testimony testimony at
at the
the hearing
hearing to
to be
be credible.
credible. “A
"A fact-finder
fact-finder isis free
free to
to believe
believe all,
all, part,
part,
or or none none of ofthe evidence evidence presented.”
presented." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. James,
James, 1223
1223 WDA
WDA 2014,
2014, 2016
2016 WL
WL
418146, 418146, at at 22 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. Feb.
Feb. 3,
3, 2016)
2016) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted). The
The fact-finder
fact-finder isis
exclusively exclusively tasked tasked with
with assessing
assessing the
the credibility
credibility of
ofthe
the witnesses
witnesses or
or evidence
evidence presented
presented at
at trial.
trial.
Id. Id. (internal (internal citations citations omitted).
omitted).
Defendant Defendant was was permitted
permitted an
an opportunity
opportunity to
to cross-examine
cross-examine Agent
Agent Barna,
Barna, both
both at
at trial
trial and
and
then then at at the the hearing hearing regarding
regarding Defendant’s
Defendant's motion,
motion, regarding
regarding details
details surrounding
surrounding the
the warrant
warrant the
the
was was signed signed by by aajudge.
judge. See
See TT.,
TT., vol.
vol. I,I, 4/9/24;
4/9/24; see
see also
also Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 22,
22, 4/10/24.
4/10/24.
This This Court Court submits, submits, based
based on
on the
the record
recordevidence,
evidence, that
that Defendant’s
Defendant's claim
claim that
that aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking
device device was was utilized utilized during
during the
the course
course of
ofthe
the investigation
investigation without
without aa warrant
warrant and/or
and/or court
court order
order isis
without without merit.
merit. Furthermore, Furthermore, the
the evidence
evidence presented
presented by
by the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth to
to the
thejury
jury did
did not
not
include include testimony testimony or
or evidence
evidence that
that aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device
device was
was utilized
utilized by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement
during during the the six six controlled
controlledbuys
buys which
whichresulted
resulted in
in the
the filing
filing of
ofcharges
charges against
against Defendant.
Defendant.
Defendant’s Defendant's claim claim is not
not supported by the record and should be dismissed.
dismissed.
D. D. Use Use of Hearsay Testimony at at Preliminary Hearing
1. 1. Standard
Standard of
of Review
Review
“The "The evidentiary sufficiency of the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's prima
prima facie
facie case
case for
for aa charged
charged crime
crime
is is aa question question of law law for
for which our
our standard
standard of
of review
review is
is de
de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review isis
plenary.” plenary." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Harris, Harris, 2022
2022 PA
PA Super
Super 1,1,269
269 A.3d
A.3d 534, 539 (Pa.
534,539 (Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022),
2022),
reargument reargument denied denied (Mar.
(Mar. 14,
14, 2022),
2022), appeal
appeal granted,
granted, 285
285 A.3d
A.3d 883
883 (Pa.
(Pa. 2022),
2022), and
and affd,
aft'd, 315
315
A.3d A.3d 26 26 (Pa.
(Pa. 2024), 2024), citing
citing to
to Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Wroten, Wroten, 257
257 A.3d
A.3d 734,
734, 742
742 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2021)
2021)
(citation ( citation omitted).
omitted).
2. 2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant appears appears to
to argue
argue that
that his
his constitutional
constitutional rights
rights were
were deprived
deprived because
because the
the
magisterial magisterial district districtjudge
judge relied
relied solely
solely on
on hearsay
hearsay testimony
testimony atat the
the preliminary
preliminary hearing
hearing stage.
stage.
Defendant Defendant raised raised this
this argument
argument in
in aapleading
pleading titled
titled “Motion(s)-In-Limine”
"Motion(s)-In-Limine" which whichwas
was filed
filed on
on
March March 7,7, 2024.
2024. In
In that
thatpro
pro se
se motion
motion in
in limine,
limine, Defendant
Defendant challenged
challengedthe
the pretrial
pretrial finding
finding that
thatthe
the
Commonwealth Commonwealthpresented presented evidence
evidenceto
to establish
establish aaprima
prima facie
facie case.
case.
This This Court Courtheld
heldaahearing
hearing on
onMarch
March 12,
12, 2024
2024relating
relatingtoto Defendant’s
Defendant's motion.
motion. ItItisis well
well
established establishedunder underPennsylvania
Pennsylvanialaw
lawthat
thatthe
the Commonwealth
Commonwealthmay
maypresent
presentadditional
additional evidence
evidenceto
to
establish establishthat thatthe
the defendant
defendanthas
has committed
committedthe
theelements
elements of
ofthe
theoffenses
offenses charged.
charged. See
See
Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Dantzler, Dantzler, 135
135A.3d
A.3d 1109
1109(Pa.Super.
(Pa.Super.2016);
2016);see
seealso
also Comm
Commv.v. Karlson,
Karlson,449
449Pa.
Pa.
Super. Super. 378 378 (1996).
(1996). At
Atthe
thecourt
courtproceeding
proceedingon
onMarch
March 12,
12,2024,
2024,the
theCommonwealth
Commonwealthsubmitted
submitted
the thetranscript transcriptof ofthe
theOctober
October 13,
13,2023
2023 Omnibus
OmnibusPretrial
PretrialHearing
Hearingasasadditional
additionalproof
proofthat
thataaprim a
prima
facie faciecase caseexists.
exists. See
SeeMotion
MotionininLimine
LimineHr’g,
Hr'g,3/12/2024,
3/12/2024,Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.7.7. The
Thetranscript
transcript
included includedthe thetestimony
testimonyof
ofPennsylvania
PennsylvaniaOffice
Officeof
ofAttorney
AttorneyGeneral
GeneralNarcotics
NarcoticsAgent
AgentJoseph
Joseph
Barna, Barna, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General General Narcotics Agent
Agent Justin
Justin Shaffer,
Shaffer, Monroeville
Police Detective Steven Maritz, Maritz, City of Washington Police Officer Officer Joseph Fichter,
Fichter, Washington
County Drug Task Force Detective Richard Gluth, Gluth, City of Washington Police Detective Dan
Eberman, Eberman, and City of Washington Police Sergeant Sergeant Kent
Kent Mitchell.
Mitchell. Defendant
Defendant was
was afforded an
opportunity to cross-examine each witness, witness, through counsel, counsel, at
at the October
October 13,
13, 2023 hearing.
hearing.
See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 47-58;
47-58; 67-70;
67-70; 82-86;
82-86; 87-88;
87-88; 116-24;
116-24; 126-127;
126-127; 135-139;
135-139; 146-
146-
149; 149; 158-
158- 165, 165, 10/13/2023.
10/13/2023. This
This Court
Court denied the motion by way way of Memorandum
Memorandum and Order
Order
dated dated April April 1, 1, 2024.
2024.
The The reasons reasons for
for the
the Court’s
Court's April
April 1,
1, 2024
2024 Order
Order already
already appear
appear of
ofrecord in
in said
said
Memorandum Memorandum and and Order.
Order. Therefore,
Therefore, this
this Court
Court hereby
hereby incorporates
incorporates the
the same
same as
as its
its Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) 1925(a) Memorandum Memorandum and and attaches
attaches itit hereto.
hereto. For
For the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth in
in the
the April
April 1,
1, 2024
2024
Opinion Opinion and and Order, Order, this
this Court
Court respectfully
respectfully submits
submits that
that its
its order
order be
be affirmed
affirmed on
on the
the merits
merits and
and
Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be
be dismissed.
dismissed.
E. E. Defendant Defendant Was Was Denied
Denied and
and Precluded
Precluded From
From Exculpatory
Exculpatory Evidence
Evidence of
of Impeachment
Impeachment
During During Preliminary Preliminary Hearing
Hearing
1.1. Standard
Standard of
ofReview
Review
“The "The evidentiary evidentiary sufficiency
sufficiency of
ofthe
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's prima
prima facie
facie case
case for
for aa charged
charged crime
crime
isis aa question question of oflaw
law for
for which
which our
our standard
standard of
ofreview
review isis de
de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review isis
plenary.” plenary." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Harris, Harris, 2022
2022 PA
PA Super
Super 1,1, 269
269 A.3d
A.3d 534,
534, 539
539 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022),
2022),
reargument reargument denied denied (Mar.
(Mar. 14,
14, 2022),
2022), appeal
appeal granted,
granted, 285
285 A.3d
A.3d 883
883 (Pa.
(Pa. 2022),
2022), and
and affd,
aff'd, 315
315
A.3d A.3d 26 26 (Pa.
(Pa. 2024), 2024), citing
citing to
to Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Wroten, Wroten, 257
257 A.3d
A.3d 734,
734, 742
742 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2021)
2021)
(citation ( citation omitted).
omitted).
2. 2. Court's Analysis
Court’s Analysis
to relevant
citation to no citation
with no
argument, with
legal argument,
undeveloped legal
entirely undeveloped an entirely
forth an
sets forth
Defendant sets Defendant relevant
the preliminary at the
evidence at
exculpatory evidence
suppressed exculpatory
Commonwealth suppressed
the Commonwealth
that the
authority, that legal authority, legal preliminary
hearing certain witnesses calling certain
not calling by not
stage by hearing stage testify at to testify
witnesses to that hearing.
at that Defendant argues hearing. Defendant that he argues that he
Commonwealth witnesses
certain Commonwealth
cross-examine certain to cross-examine
opportunity to
fair opportunity
and fair
full and
afforded aa full not afforded was not was witnesses
cites to
Defendant cites
hearing. Defendant
preliminary hearing.
the preliminary at the
testify at to testify
called to
not called
were not
they were because they because to
Commonwealth Bazemore, 531 Commonwealth v.v. Bazemore, Pa. 582 531 Pa. (1992) in
582 (1992) support of in support his argument.
ofhis argument. In Bazemore, the In Bazemore, the
from aapreliminary
testimony from
priortestimony ofprior
transcript of
the transcript
that the
held that
Court held
Supreme Court
Pennsylvania Supreme Pennsylvania preliminary
wherethe
trialwhere
admissible atattrial
notadmissible
was not
witness was
Commonwealthwitness
unavailable Commonwealth anunavailable ofan
hearing of hearing the
regardingthis
evidenceregarding
impeachmentevidence
vitalimpeachment
defensevital
thedefense
disclosetotothe
to disclose
failedto
Commonwealthfailed Commonwealth this
onBazemore
relianceon
Defendant'sreliance
hearing. Defendant’s
preliminaryhearing.
thepreliminary
priortoto the witnessprior witness Bazemoretotosupport hisclaim supporthis claim
isisentirely entirelymisplaced. assertionsininthis Defendant'sassertions
misplaced. Defendant’s sectionare thissection notreasoned arenot anddeveloped reasonedand legal developedlegal
thatthese
suggeststhat
Courtsuggests
ThisCourt
authority.This
legalauthority.
relevantlegal
citationstotorelevant
withcitations
supportedwith
argumentssupported arguments these
ofdevelopment.
lackof
forlack
waivedfor
claimisiswaived
thisclaim
andthis
reviewable,and
notreviewable,
arenot
assertionsare assertions development.
Furthermore, Defendantchallenged above,Defendant
SectionDDabove,
forthininSection
setforth
Furthermore,asasset sufficiencyof thesufficiency
challengedthe the ofthe
transcriptof
thetranscript
submittedthe
Commonwealthsubmitted
TheCommonwealth
hearing. The
preliminaryhearing.
thepreliminary
presentedatatthe
evidencepresented evidence of
caseexists.
faciecase
primafacie
thata aprima
proofthat
additionalproof
Hearingasasadditional
PretrialHearing
OmnibusPretrial
2023Omnibus
13,2023
October13, theOctober the exists.
Commonwealth'sEx.
3/12/2024,Commonwealth’s
Hr'g,3/12/2024,
LimineHr’g,
MotionininLimine SeeMotion See Athe 7. At Ex.7. October13,
theOctober 13,2023
2023
(7)law
seven(7)
testimonyofofseven
thetestimony
presentedthe
Commonwealthpresented
theCommonwealth
Hearing,the
PretrialHearing, OmnibusPretrial Omnibus law
enforcement officers,including enforcementofficers, includingPennsylvania OfficeofofAttorney PennsylvaniaOffice NarcoticsAgent GeneralNarcotics
AttorneyGeneral Agent
JustinShaffer
AgentJustin
NarcoticsAgent
GeneralNarcotics
AttorneyGeneral
OfficeofofAttorney
PennsylvaniaOffice
Barna,Pennsylvania JosephBarna, Joseph Shaffer,
Monroeville CityofofWashington Maritz,City
StevenMaritz,
DetectiveSteven
PoliceDetective
MonroevillePolice OfficerJoseph PoliceOfficer
WashingtonPolice Fichter, JosephFichter,
WashingtonPolice
CityofofWashington
Gluth,City
RichardGluth,
DetectiveRichard
ForceDetective
taskForce
Drugtask
CountyDrug
WashingtonCounty Washington Police
Detective Dan Eberman, Eberman, and City of Washington Police Sergeant Sergeant Kent
Kent Mitchell.
Mitchell. Defendant
Defendant was
was
afforded afforded an an opportunity to to cross-examine
cross-examine each
each witness,
witness, through
through counsel,
counsel, at
at the
the October
October 113,
3, 2023
2023
hearing. hearing. See See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 47-58;
47-58; 67-70;
67-70; 82-86;
82-86; 87-88;
87-88; 116-24;
116-24; 126-127;
126-127; 135-
135-
139; 139; 146-149;
146-149; 158-
158- 165,
165, 10/13/2023.
10/13/2023.
Defendant’s Defendant's claim claim lacks
lacks merit
merit and
and should
should be
be dismissed.
dismissed.
F. F. The The use use of
of hearsay
hearsay statements
statements at
at Preliminary
Preliminary Hearing
Hearing relating
relating to
to Confidential
Confidential
Informants Informants aa Direct Direct Violation
Violation and
and Deprivation
Deprivation of
of Defendant’s
Defendant's Constitutional Constitutional Rights
Rights
1.1. Standard
Standard of
ofReview
Review
“The "The evidentiary evidentiary sufficiency
sufficiency of
ofthe
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's prima
prima facie
facie case
case for
for aa charged
chargedcrime
crime
isis aa question question of oflaw
law for
for which
which our
our standard
standard of
ofreview
review isis de
de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review isis
plenary.” plenary." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Harris, Harris, 2022
2022 PA
PA Super
Super 1,1,269
269 A.3d
A.3d 534,
534, 539
539 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022),
2022),
reargument reargument denied denied (Mar.
(Mar. 14,
14, 2022),
2022), appeal
appeal granted,
granted, 285
285 A.3d
A.3d 883
883 (Pa.
(Pa. 2022),
2022), and
and affd,
aft'd, 315
315
A.3d A.3d26 26 (Pa.
(Pa. 2024),
2024), citing
citingtoto Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Wroten, Wroten, 257
257 A.3d
A.3d 734,
734, 742
742 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2021)
2021)
(citation (citationomitted).
omitted).
2.2. Court’s
Court'sAnalysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendantnext nextargues
arguesthat
thatititwas
wasaaviolation
violationof
ofhis
hisconstitutional
constitutionalrights
rightsfor
forthe
the
magisterial magisterialdistrict districtjudge
judgetotorely
relyon
onhearsay
hearsaystatements,
statements,testified
testifiedtotoby
byOfficer
OfficerFichter,
Fichter,relating
relatingtoto
confidential confidentialinformants informants(hereinafter "C.I.")utilized (hereinafter“C.I.”) utilizedby bylaw
lawenforcement
enforcementininthis
thiscase.
case.
Defendant'sargument Defendant’s argumentisissimilar similartotothe
theone
oneset
setforth
forthininSection
SectionDDwhere
wherehe
hechallenges the
challengesthe
use useof ofhearsay hearsaytestimony testimonyatataapreliminary preliminaryhearing.
hearing. Defendant
Defendantinitially
initiallychallenged
challengedthe
theuse
useof
of
hearsay hearsayatatthe thepreliminary
preliminaryhearing
hearingininaapleading
pleadingtitled
titled“Motion(s)-In-Limine”
"Motion(s)-In-Liminewhich whichwas
wasfiled
filedon
on
March March7,7,2024.
2024. The
TheCourt
Courtissued
issuedaaMemorandum
Memorandumand
andOrder
Orderdated
datedApril
April1,1,2024.
2024. The
Thereasons
reasons
for forthe theCourt’s Court'sApril April1,1,2024
2024Order
Orderalready
alreadyappear
appearofofrecord
record ininsaid
saidMemorandum
Memorandumand
andOrder.
Order.
Therefore, hereby incorporates Court hereby
this Court
Therefore, this same as the same
incorporates the its Pa.R.A.P.
as its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) and Memorandum and
1925(a) Memorandum
attaches it hereto. attaches hereto.
Defendant, "Direct Appeal”
his “Direct in his
Defendant, in further argues brief, further
Appeal" brief, that the argues that identity of the identity the confidential of the confidential
informants 27, July 27, on July
Motion on
Pretrial Motion
Omnibus Pretrial an Omnibus
filed an
Defendant filed
revealed. Defendant
been revealed.
have been
should have
informants should
Judge Costanzo,
Identity. Judge
Informant Identity.
Confidential Informant
Reveal Confidential to Reveal
Motion to
included aa Motion
which included 2023, which 2023, Costanzo,
following hearing, denied 2023 hearing,
13, 2023
October 13,
the October
following the motion to the motion
denied the by way to by ofOpinion
way of and Order
Opinion and Order
dated reasons for The reasons
2024. The
26, 2024.
January 26, dated January Court's January the Court’s
for the 26, 2024 January 26, Order already 2024 Order appear of already appear of
as its
same as
the same
incorporates the
hereby incorporates
Courthereby
this Court
Therefore, this
Order. Therefore,
and Order.
Opinion and
said Opinion
in said record in record its
attaches itithereto.
and attaches
Opinion and
1925(a) Opinion
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Pa.R.A.P. hereto.
For well asas 2024, asaswell
April 1,1,2024,
datedApril
Orderdated
and Order
Memorandumand
theMemorandum
forthininthe
set forth
reasons set
thereasons
Forthe
theJanuary the 2024 Opinion 26, 2024
January26, Order,this andOrder,
Opinionand Courtrespectfully this Court thatits submitsthat
respectfullysubmits ordersbe itsorders be
bedismissed.
appealbe
Defendant'sappeal
andDefendant’s
meritsand
themerits onthe
affirmedon affirmed dismissed.
ShouldHave
GapsShould
CustodyGaps ofCustody
Chainof
CocaineChain
Fabrication,Cocaine
andFabrication,
Tamperingand
EvidenceTampering G. Evidence G. Have Deemed Chain to be Deficient Deemed Chain to be Deficient
1.1. Standardof
Standard ofReview
Review
The of abuseof anabuse
foran
evidenceisisfor ofevidence
admissionof
theadmission
relativetotothe
reviewrelative ofreview
"standardof
The“standard
discretion." Commonwealth discretion.” Commonwealthv.v.Feliciano, PASuper 2013PA
Feliciano,2013 117, Super1 A.3d19,
67A.3d
17, 67 27(Pa.
19,27 Super.Ct.
(Pa.Super. Ct.
2013). 2013).
2.2. Court'sAnalysis Court’s Analysis
Defendant custodyregarding chainofofcustody
thechain
gapsininthe
thatgaps
arguesthat
Defendantargues evidencepresented theevidence
regardingthe presentedatat
deemedtotobebedeficient.
beendeemed
havebeen
shouldhave trialshould trial deficient.
"While burdenofofdemonstrating theburden
bearsthe
Commonwealthbears
theCommonwealth
"Whilethe reasonable somereasonable
demonstratingsome
connection thesanctity establishthe
notestablish
neednot
evidence,ititneed
trueevidence,
thetrue
andthe
exhibitsand
profferedexhibits
theproffered
betweenthe
connectionbetween sanctity
notproduce
neednot
Commonwealthneed
TheCommonwealth
certainty.The
moralcertainty.
beyonda amoral
exhibitsbeyond
ofofitsitsexhibits produceevery individual everyindividual
who who came came into into contact contact with
with an
an item
item of
of evidence,
evidence, nor
nor must
must it
it eliminate
eliminate every
every hypothetical
hypothetical
possibility of tampering.” Commonwealth v.v. Cugnini, tampering." Commonwealth Cugnini, 307 Pa.Super.
Pa.Super. 113 (1982)
(1982) (internal
(internal
citations citations omitted).
omitted). A
A completed
completed chain
chain is
is “not
"not required
required so
so long
long as
as the
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's evidence,
evidence,
direct direct and and circumstantial, circumstantial, establishes establishes aa reasonable reasonable inference
inference that
that the
the identity
identity and
and condition
condition of
of the
the
exhibits exhibits have have remained remained the
the same
same from
from the
the time
time they
they were
were first
first received
received until
until the
the time
time of
oftrial.
trial.
Any Any gaps gaps in in testimony testimony regarding
regarding the
the chain
chain of
ofcustody
custody go
go to
to the
the weight
weight to
to be
be given
given the
the testimony,
testimony,
not not to to its its admissibility.”
admissibility." Id.
Id.
The The Commonwealth Commonwealth presented
presented extensive
extensive testimony
testimony and
and evidence
evidence at
at trial
trial demonstrating
demonstrating
the the chain chain of ofcustody
custody of
ofthe
the cocaine
cocaine relating
relating to
to the
the six
six controlled
controlled buys.
buys.
I.I. March March 27,
27, 2019
2019 Controlled
Controlled Buy
Buy
On OnMarch March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, the
the record
record evidence
evidence demonstrates
demonstrates that
that law
law enforcement
enforcement checked
checkedthe
the
C.I.’s C.l.'s vehicle vehicle and andperson.
person. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. I,I, 62,
62, 4/9/2024.
4/9/2024. Agent
AgentJospeh
JospehBarna
Barnatestified
testified that
that law
law
enforcement enforcement followed followedthe
the C.I.
C.I. toto the
the controlled
controlledbuy
buy location,
location, Garden
GardenCity
City Plaza,
Plaza, and
and observed
observed
Defendant Defendantget getout
outof
ofhis
hisgirlfriend’s
girlfriend'svehicle
vehicleand
andenter
enterinto
intothe
theC.I.’s
C.I.'svehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. atat59,
59, 74.
74.
Defendant Defendantthen thenexited
exitedthe
thecar
carand
andlaw
lawenforcement
enforcementfollowed
followedthe
theC.I.,
C.I.,with
withconstant
constantsurveillance,
surveillance,
totoaapredetermined predeterminedlocation.
location. Id.
Id.atat75.
75. The
TheC.I.
C.I.handed
handedover
overwhat
whatlooked
lookedtotobe
beaahalf
halfounce
ounceof
of
cocaine. cocaine. Id.
Id.atat75-76.
75-76. Agent
AgentBarna
Barnacredibly
crediblytestified
testifiedthat
thatno
noone
oneelse
elseinteracted
interactedwith
withthe
theC.I.
C.I.oror
went wentinto intothe theC.I.’s
C.I.'svehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id.atat76.
76. The
Thesubstance
substancewas
wasthen
thentaken
takenimmediately
immediatelytotothe
the
Monroeville MonroevillePolice PoliceDepartment.
Department. Id.
Id.atat81;
81;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/9/2024,
4/9/2024,Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.3.3.
The Thecocaine cocainewas wasentered
enteredonto
ontothe
theevidence
evidencereport
reportlog.
log. Id.
Id.atat83-84;
83-84;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/9/2024,
4/9/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.4.4. The
Theevidence
evidenceseized
seizedfrom
fromthe
thecontrolled
controlledbuy
buywas
wasput
putininan
anenvelope
envelope
and andthen thenthe theenvelope
envelopewas
wassealed
sealedwith
withevidence
evidencetape
tapethat
thatisistamperproof.
tamperproof. Id.
Id.atat131-132.
131-132. The
The
evidence remained sealed after it was was packaged on March 27, 27, 2019.
2019. Id.
Id. at
at 132;
132; see also Jury
Trial, Trial, 4/9/2024, 4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 12.
12.
II. II. June 13, 13, 2019 Controlled Buy
Buy
On On June June 13,
13, 2024,
2024, Agent
Agent Bama
Barna searched
searched the C.I.’s
C.I.'s vehicle
vehicle and
and person.
person. Id.
Id. at
at 91-92.
91-92. The
The
C.I. C.I. was was then then followed to to the
the parking
parking lot
lot and
and was
was continued
continued to
to be
be surveilled.
surveilled. Id.
Id. at
at 97.
97.
Defendant Defendant arrived arrived at
at the
the Speedway
Speedway gas
gas station
station in
in Monroeville.
Monroeville. Id.
Id. at
at 101.
101. He
He got
got into
into the
the C.I.’s
C.I.'s
vehicle vehicle for for less less than
than aa minute,
minute, exited,
exited, and
and then
then drove
drove away.
away. Id.
Id. The
The record
record evidence
evidence
demonstrates demonstrates that that the
the C.I.
C.I. was
was then
then followed
followed to
to aa predetermined
predetermined location
location where
where the
the C.I.
C.I. was
was
searched searched and and provided provided the
the controlled
controlled substance
substance to
to law
law enforcement.
enforcement. Id.
Id. at
at 103.
103. Agent
Agent Bama
Barna
testified testified that that no
no one
one else
else interacted
interacted with
with the
the C.I.
C.I. or
or went
went into
into the
the C.I.’s
C.I.'s vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. at
at 1 1-1 12.
111-112.
The The substance substance was was then
then taken
taken back
back to
to Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department.
Department. Id.
Id. atat 105;
105; see
see also
also Jury
Jury
Trial, Trial, 4/9/2024, 4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 7
7.. The
The controlled
controlled substance
substance was
was placed
placed in
in aa sealed
sealed
envelope envelope and and entered entered into
into evidence
evidence that
that day.
day. Id.
Id. at
at 108,
108, 133;
133; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/9/2024,
4/9/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 13.
13.
III. III. July17.
July 17, 2019
2019 Controlled
ControlledBuy
Buy
On OnJuly July 17,
17, 2019,
2019, aacontrolled
controlledbuy
buytook
tookplace
place atatthe
theExxon
Exxonnear
nearthe
thezoo
zoo in
inAllegheny
Allegheny
County. County. Id.
Id. atat 115-116.
115-116. The
Thedetectives
detectives searched
searchedthe
theC.I.’s
C.I.'sperson
personand
andvehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. atat 113-114.
113-114.
The The detectives detectives then thenfollowed
followedthe
theC.I.
C.I. totothe
thelocation.
location. Id.
Id. atat 118. The
118. TheC.I.
C.I. did
didnot
notinteract
interactwith
with
anyone anyoneelse elsebesides besides Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. atat 122-123.
122-123. The
Thecontrolled
controlledbuy
buyoccurred
occurredand
andthe
theC.I.
C.I.
returned returnedtotoaapredetermined predeterminedlocation.
location. Id.
Id.atat 123.
123. The
Thesuspected
suspectedcocaine
cocainewas
wascollected
collectedby
bylaw
law
enforcement, enforcement,placed placedininaasealed
sealedevidence
evidenceenvelope
envelopeand
andentered
enteredinto
intoevidence
evidencewith
withthe
the
Monroeville MonroevillePolice PoliceDepartment
Departmenton
onthe
thesame
sameday.
day. Id.
Id.atat 125,
125, 134-135;
134-135;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,
4/9/2024, 4/9/2024,Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 10
10and
and14.
14.
IV. IV. Evidence Maintained at at Monroeville Police Department Department
Detective Robert Robert Renk testified that that the evidence from
from the March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June 13,
13,
2019 and July 17, 17, 2019 controlled buys
buys were
were sealed
sealed in envelopes
envelopes with
with tamperproof evidence
tape. tape. Id.
Id. at at 278.
278. Detective
Detective Renk
Renk further
further testified
testified that
that evidence
evidence maintained
maintained at
at the
the Monroeville
Monroeville
Police Police Department Department was was placed
placed in
in aa “slam
"slam locker,”
locker," which
which locks
locks after
after itit isis shut.
shut. Id.
Id. at
at 277.
277. The
The
slam slam locker locker can can only
only be
be opened
opened by
by the
the evidence
evidence custodian
custodian from
from inside
inside the
the evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id.
Once Once closed, closed, the the slam
slam locker
locker cannot
cannot be
be opened
opened from
from the
the outside.
outside. Id.
Id. The
The evidence
evidence remains
remains in
in the
the
evidence evidence room room until until itit isis signed
signed out.
out. Id.
Id. at
at 275-276.
275-276.
V. V. Evidence Evidence Transferred
Transferred to
to Washington
Washington County
County District
District Attorney
Attorney Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force
Office Office
Agent Agent Barna Barna testified
testified that,
that, on
on February
February 4,
4, 2021,
2021, he
he signed
signed the
the three
three items
items of
ofevidence
evidence out
out
of ofthe the Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department
Department evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id. atat 87.
87. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna drove
drove the
the
evidence evidence down down to to Washington
Washington County
County where
where he
he immediately
immediately signed
signed and
and completed
completed aa form
form
transferring transferring the the evidence
evidence over
over to
to Detective
Detective Fichter.
Fichter. Id.
Id. atat 88.
88. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter also
also sisigned
gn ed the
the
form. form. Id.,-
Id.; see see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/9/2024,
4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 11.
11.
Detective’ Detective' Fichter Fichtertestified
testifiedthat,
that, on
onFebruary
February4,4, 2021,
2021,Agent
AgentBarna
Barnabrought
broughtthe
the evidence
evidence
from fromthe theMarch March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June 13,
13, 2019
2019 and
andJuly
July 17,
17, 2019
2019 controlled
controlledbuys
buystotothe
theWashington
Washington
County CountyDrug DrugTask TaskForce
Forceoffice
officewhere
whereDetective
DetectiveFichter
Fichterthen
thentook
tookcustody
custodyof
ofit.it. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II,472,
472,
4/10/2024. 4/10/2024. After Aftertaking
takingcustody
custodyof
ofthe
theevidence,
evidence,Detective
DetectiveFichter
Fichterplaced
placedevidence
evidencetags
tagson
onthe
the
items items and andthen thenhe
heplaced
placedthe
theevidence
evidenceininthe
thetemporary
temporaryholding
holdinglocker.
locker. Id.
Id. Detective
DetectiveFichter
Fichter
explained explainedthat thatthere
thereisisaalog
logthat
thathas
hastotobeen
beencompleted
completedwhen
whenevidence
evidenceisisplaced
placedininthe
thetemporary
temporary
holding holdinglocker.
locker. Id.
Id. atat466.
466. He
Heexplained
explainedthat
thataavery
veryrudimentary
rudimentarylog
logisisutilized
utilizedwhich
whichincludes
includes
the theincident incidentnumber, number,the
theofficer’s
officer'sname,
name,and
andaashort
shortdescription
descriptionof
ofthe
theevidence
evidencethat
thatisisbeing
being
placed placedininthe thetemporary
temporarylocker.
locker. Id.
Id.atat467.
467. Detective
DetectiveFichter
Fichtertestified
testifiedthat
thatthe
theevidence
evidencereceived
received
from from Agent Agent Barna was was placed in
in the temporary locker and logged onto a log log sheet
sheet to denotate
that that he received three evidence bags bags relating to Jason Woodall's oodall's case from
from the Attorney
General’s General's Office.
Office. Id.
Id. at
at 468;
468; see also Jury Trial, Trial, 4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 25.
25. Since
there was was no incident, incident, it was
was placed into the temporary locker locker on the same
same day and time that
that
Agent Agent Barna dropped it off.
off. Id.
Id. at
at 472.
472.
Detective Richard Gluth, Gluth, director of the Washington Washington County District District Attorney Drug
Drug Task
Force, Force, testified at at trial.
trial. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 681-747,
681-747, 4/11/2024.
1/2024. Part
Part of Detective Gluth’s Gluth's duties
duties
include serving serving as as an evidence
evidence custodian.
custodian. Id.
Id. at
at 682.
682. Generally,
Generally, Detective
Detective Gluth either directly
signs signs the the packaged item item into
into evidence
evidence or
or at
at his
his next
next available
available opportunity,
opportunity, withdraws
withdraws the
the
evidence evidence from from the the receiving
receiving locker.
locker. Id.
Id. He
He examines
examines it,
it, corrects
corrects any
any mistakes
mistakes made
made on
on it,
it, and
and
ensures ensures its its packaged packaged properly
properly and
and labeled
labeled properly.
properly. Id.
Id. at
at 682-683.
682-683. He
He then
then completes
completes an
an
evidence evidence log, log, which which lists
lists the
the items
items of
of evidence
evidence and
and some
some basic
basic information
infonnation on
on the
the evidence
evidence log.
log.
Id. Id. at at 683.
683. Detective Detective Gluth
Gluth then
then enters
enters the
the evidence
evidence into
into the
the BEAST,
BEAST, aa state
state computer
computer system
system
used used to to log log evidence evidence for
for laboratory
laboratory analysis.
analysis. Id.
Id. After
After pre-log
pre-log isis completed,
completed, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth
signs signs itit into into evidence
evidence with
with the
the date
date and
and places
places itit into
into their
their evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id.
The The evidence evidence received
received by
by the
the Washington
Washington County
County Drug
Drug Task
Task Force,
Force, from
from Agent
Agent Barna
Barna
on on February February 4, 4, 2021,
2021, was
was assigned
assigned another
another label
label with
with Washington
Washington County’s
County's incident
incident number.
number. Id.
Id.
at at 684;
684; see see also also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 37.
37. The
The evidence
evidence stayed
stayed in
in the
the
temporary temporary secured
Detective Detective Gluth
into secured locker
locker from
Gluth entered
into evidence, from February
entered all
evidence, Gluth Gluth placed
February 4,
all three
placed the
4, 2021
three items
the evidence
2021 to
items into
to February
February 12,
into evidence
evidence in
evidence on
in aa box
12, 2021.
2021. Id.
on February
box with
Id. at
February 12,
with the
at 689-690.
12, 2021.
the completed
completed lab
689-690.
2021. Id. Once
lab submission
I.
Once entered
entered
submission reports
reports for
for
purposes purposes of oftransferring transferring the
the evidence
evidence to
to the
the crime
crime lab
lab for
fortesting.
testing. Id.
Id. atat 692;
692; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial,
4/11/2024, 4/11/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 38
38 and
and 39.
39.
VI. VI. Evidence Submitted Crime Crime Laboratory
Detective Gluth testified that that he
he signed out
out the evidence
evidence from
from the March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June
13, 13, 2019 and July 17, 17, 2019 controlled buys
buys and transported
transported the items
items to the Greensburg Regional Regional
Laboratory (also known known as
as the Pennsylvania State State Police
Police Crime
Crime Laboratory)
Laboratory) on February
February 17,
17,
2021. 2021. Id.
Id. at at 698;
698; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 40.
40.
VII. VII. Evidence Evidence Tested at
at Crime
Crime Laboratory
Laboratory
Sara Sara Lundolh Lundolh testified
testified at
at trial.
trial. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 556,
556, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. She
She isis aa forensic
forensic scientist
scientist
who who specializes specializes in in drug
drug identification.
identification. Id.
Id. Lundolh
Lundolh was
was employed
employed by
by the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State
State
Police Police in in 2021.
2021. Id.
Id. Lundolh
Lundolh testified,
testified, while
while working
working at
at the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State
State Police
Police Crime
Crime
Laboratory, Laboratory, that that she
she received
received evidence
evidence envelopes
envelopes relating
relating to
to the
the March
March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June 13,
13, 2019
2019
and and July July 17, 17, 2019 2019 controlled
controlled buys.
buys. Id.
Id. at
at 559-560.
559-560. Lundolh
Lundolh performed
performed testing
testing on
on each
each item
item of
of
evidence. evidence. Id.
Id. Each
Each of
ofthe
the three
three items
items tested
tested was
was identified
identified as
as cocaine.
cocaine. Id.
Id. atat 562,
562, 565,
565, 567.
567.
Lundolh Lundolh testified testified that that when
when she
she concluded
concludedher
hertesting
testing on
on all
all three
three items
items of
ofevidence,
evidence, she
she sealed
sealed
the the envelopes envelopes at at the
the bottom,
bottom, using
using blue
blue tape.
tape. Id.
Id. atat 567-568.
567-568. Lundol,
Lundol, who
who inspected
inspectedthe
the
envelopes envelopes atat trial, trial, testified
testifiedthat
that envelopes
envelopes remained
remained in
inthe
the same
same sealed
sealed condition
condition atattrial
trial as
as when
when
they theywere were sent sentback
backto
to the
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce.
Force. Id.
Id.
VIII. VIII. Evidence Evidence Returned
ReturnedtotoWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce
Force
On OnApril April 13,
13, 2021,
2021, Detective
DetectiveGluth
Gluthobtained
obtainedthe
theevidence
evidencefrom
fromthe
thelaboratory,
laboratory,
transported transportedititback backtotothe
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce
Forceoffice
officeand
andsigned
signedititback
backinto
into
evidence. evidence.Id.
Id. atat699.
699.
IX. IX. Evidence EvidencePresented
PresentedatatTrial
Trial
Detective Gluth testified testified that
that on April
April 9,
9, 2024,
2024, he signed out
out the evidence and transported
the items items to the courtroom courtroom for the jury trial.
trial. Id.
Id. at
at 699,
699, 717,
717, 727;
727; see also Jury Trial, Trial, 4/1 1/2024,
4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 40.
40.
X. X. August August 31,
31, 2019 Controlled
Controlled Buy
Buy
On On August August 31,
31, 2019,
2019, the
the C.I.
C.I. was
was searched
searched by
by Detective
Detective Fichter.
Fichter. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 412,
412,
4/10/2024. 4/10/2024. The The C.I.
C.I. stayed
stayed within
within view
view of
ofthe
the detectives
detectives at
at all
all times.
times. Id.
Id. Defendant
Defendant showed
showed up
up
to to the the residence residence and and the
the C.I.
C.I. got
got into
into Defendant’s
Defendant's vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. at
at 414.
414. The
The detectives
detectives observed
observed aa
hand-to-hand hand-to-hand exchange.
exchange. Id.
Id. at
at 416.
416. The
The C.I.
C.I. then
then exited
exited the
the vehicle
vehicle and
and Defendant
Defendant left.
left. Id.
Id.
Detective Detective Fichter Fichter testified
testified that
thatthe
the narcotics
narcotics were
were secured
secured from
from the
the C.I.
C.I. Id.
Id. The
The controlled
controlled
substances substances were were returned
returned to
to the
the District
District Attorney’s
Attorney's Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force Office
Office to
to process
process the
the
evidence. evidence. Id.
Id. at
at 417.
417. The
The evidence
evidence was
was put
put in
in aa plastic
plastic bag
bag and
and sealed
sealed with
with evidence
evidence tape
tape and
and
secured secured into into aa temporary temporary evidence
evidence locker.
locker. Id.
Id. at
at 418.
418. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter testified
testified that
that the
the
temporary temporary locker locker isis aa locker
locker with
with aapadlock
padlockthat
that only
only the
the supervisor,
supervisor, Chief
ChiefGluth,
Gluth, has
has access
access to.
to.
Id. Id. Chief ChiefGluth Gluth isis responsible
responsible for
forplacing
placing evidence
evidence into
into the
themain
main evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id. atat418-419;
418-419;
see see also also Jury Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 16
16 and
and 18.
18. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter explained
explainedthat
that
there there isis aa log logthat
thathas
has to
tobeen
beencompleted
completedwhen
when evidence
evidence isisplaced
placedin
inthe
thetemporary
temporaryholding
holding
locker. locker. TT, TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 460,
460, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. He
Heexplained
explainedthat
thataavery
veryrudimentary
rudimentarylog
logisisutilized
utilizedwhich
which
includes includesthe the incident
incidentnumber,
number,the
theofficer
officername,
name, and
andaashort
shortdescription
descriptionof
ofthe
theevidence
evidencethat
thatisis
being beingplaced placedininthe thetemporary
temporarylocker.
locker. Id:,
Id.;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.
25. 25.
On OnSeptember September3,3,2019,
2019,Detective
DetectiveGluth
Gluthentered
enteredthe
thecocaine
cocaineinto
intoevidence.
evidence.TT,
TT,vol.
vol.Ill,
III,
712, 712,4/1 1/2024; see 4/11/2024; seealso alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.45.
45. The
Theevidence
evidencewas
was
signed signedout outby byGluth
Gluthand
andtransported
transportedtotothe
thecrime
crimelaboratory
laboratoryon
onSeptember
September24,
24,2019.
2019. Id.
Id.atat714.
714.
On January January 29, 29, 2020,
2020, Gluth retrieved
retrieved the evidence from from the crime laboratory after it was was tested
tested
and signed signed it back into evidence at at the Washington County Drug Task Force office.
office. Id.
Id. at
at 717;
717;
see also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/11/2024,
1/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 48.
48. On
On April
April 9,
9, 2024,
2024, Detective Gluth
signed signed the evidence and transported it to the courthouse for the jury trial.
trial. Id.
Id.
XL XI. September September 18,
18, 2019 Controlled Buy
Buy
On On September September 18,
18, 2019,
2019, Detective Fichter
Fichter testified that
that the C.I.’s
C.I.'s person and vehicle was was
searched. searched. TT, TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 432,
432, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. The
The team
team set
set up surveillance
surveillance of the location of the buy.
buy.
Id. Id. at at 433.
433. The The C.I.
C.I. stepped
stepped out
out of
of his
his vehicle when
when Defendant
Defendant arrived.
arrived. Id.
Id. at
at 434.
434. Defendant
Defendant
opened opened the the C.I.’s C.1.'s passenger
passenger door,
door, placed something
something in
in the
the vehicle
vehicle and
and then
then aa hand-to-hand
hand-to-hand
interaction interaction was was observed
observed between the
the C.I.
C.I. and
and Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. At
At no
no point
point did
did the
the C.I.
C.I. leave
leave
Detective Detective Fichter’s Fichter's sight.
sight. Id.
Id. at
at 434-435.
434-435. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter was
was able
able to
to positively
positively identify
identify
Defendant. Defendant. Id.
Id. at
at 437.
437. After
After Defendant
Defendant left
left the
the area,
area, Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter search
search the
the C.I.’s
C.I.'s vehicle
vehicle
and and recovered recovered cocaine cocaine that
that was
was placed
placed in
in the
the center
center console
console by
by Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. at
at 440.
440. The
The
cocaine cocaine was was brought brought back
back to
to the
the Washington
Washington County
County Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force Office,
Office, packaged
packaged in
in an
an
evidence evidence envelope envelope and and placed
placed in
in the
the temporary
temporary locker.
locker. Id.
Id. at
at 440-441;
440-441; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial,
4/10/2024, 4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 19,
19, 20,
20, and
and 25.
25.
On On September September 22,
22, 2019,
2019, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth entered
entered the
the cocaine
cocaine into
into evidence.
evidence. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III,
720, 720, 4/1 1/2024; see 4/11/2024; see also also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 49.
49. The
The evidence
evidence was
was
signed signed out out by by Gluth
Gluth and
and transported
transported to
to the
the crime
crime laboratory
laboratory for
for testing
testing on
on September
September 24,
24, 2019.
2019.
Id. Id. at at 721-722;
721-722; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 51.
51. On
On January
January 29,
29, 2020,
2020,
Gluth Gluth retrieved retrieved the the evidence
evidence from
from the
the crime
crime laboratory
laboratory after
after itit was
was tested
tested and
and signed
signed itit back
back into
into
evidence evidence atat the the Washington
Washington County
County Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force Office.
Office. Id.
Id. atat 722;
722; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial,
4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 49.
49. On
On April
April 9,9, 2024,
2024, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth signed
signed the
the evidence
evidence and
and
transported it to the courthouse for the jury trial.
trial. Id.;
Id.; see
see also
also Jury Trial, 1/2024, Trial, 4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 52.
52.
XII. XII. September September 23,
23, 2019 Controlled Buy
Buy
On On September September 23,
23, 2019,
2019, law
law enforcement
enforcement searched
searched the
the C.I.
C.I. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 449,
449, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024.
Surveillance Surveillance was was set
set up
up of
of the
the GetGo
GetGo in
in Washington
Washington County.
County. Id.
Id. at
at 451.
451. The
The C.I.
C.I. was
was followed
followed
by by law law enforcement enforcement to to the
the location.
location. Id.
Id. Once
Once Defendant
Defendant arrived,
arrived, the
the C.I.
C.I. got
got into
into Defendant’s
Defendant's
vehicle. vehicle. Id.
Id. There There was
was an
an exchange
exchange then
then both
both individuals
individuals got
got out
out of
ofDefendant’s
Defendant's vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. at
at
452. 452. The The C.I.
C.I. was
was followed
followed by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement to
to aa predetermined
predetermined location
location where
where Detective
Detective
Fichter Fichter obtained obtained cocaine cocaine which
which the
the C.I.
C.I. had
had purchased
purchased from
from Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. at
at 454.
454. The
The
evidence evidence was was then then packaged
packaged and
and placed
placed into
into the
the lockers
lockers that
that could
couldnot
not be
be re-accessed.
re-accessed. Id.
Id. atat
459-460; 459-460; see see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 22,
22, 23,
23, 24,
24, and
and45.
45.
On On September September26,
26, 2019,
2019, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluthremoved
removedthe
the cocaine
cocaine from
fromthe
thetemporary
temporary
evidence evidence locker locker and
andentered
enteredthe
theitem
iteminto
into evidence.
evidence. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 724,
724, 4/1 1/2024; see
4/11/2024; see also
also Jury
Jury
Trial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 53.
53. The
The evidence
evidencewas
was signed
signedout
outby
byGluth
Gluthand
and
transported transportedtotothe thecrime
crimelaboratory
laboratoryfor
fortesting
testingon
onOctober
October28,
28,2019.
2019. Id.
Id. atat726;
726;see
seealso
alsoJury
Jury
Trial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 55.
55. On
OnJanuary
January29,
29,2020,
2020,Gluth
Gluthretrieved
retrievedthe
theevidence
evidence
from fromthe thecrime crimelaboratory
laboratoryafter
afterititwas
wastested
testedand
andsigned
signedititback
backinto
intoevidence
evidenceatatthe
theWashington
Washington
County CountyDrug DrugTask TaskForce
ForceOffice.
Office.Id.
Id.atat727;
727;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.
56. 56. On OnApril April9,9,2024, 2024,Detective
DetectiveGluth
Gluthsigned
signedthe
theevidence
evidenceand
andtransported
transporteditittotothe
thecourthouse
courthouse
for forthe thejury jurytrial.
trial.Id.
Id.atat727;
727;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's56.
56.
Evidence EvidenceReceived Receivedby
byCrime
CrimeLaboratory
Laboratory
Casey CaseyCastle, Castle,aalab
labtechnician
technicianfor
forthe
thePennsylvania
PennsylvaniaState
StatePolice
PoliceCrime
CrimeLab,
Lab,received
receivedand
and
tested testedthe theevidence evidencerelating
relatingtotothe
theAugust
August31,
31,2019,
2019,September
September18,
18,2019
2019and
andSeptember
September23,
23,2019
controlled controlled buys.
buys. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 540-541,
540-541, 4/1 1/2024; see
4/11/2024; see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024,
4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 18,
18, 20,
20, 24.
24. Castle
Castle testified
testified that
that the
the evidence
evidence received
received by
by the
the crime
crime
laboratory laboratory which which she
she tested
tested was
was submitted
submitted by
by Detective
Detective Gluth.
Gluth. Id.
Id. at
at 541.
541. Castle
Castle explained
explained that
that
one one of of the the first first things
things she
she does
does when
when she
she receives
receives evidence
evidence is
is to
to look
look to
to make
make sure
sure that
that there
there is
is aa
seal seal with with the the proper
proper signature.
signature. Id.
Id. Typically,
Typically, the
the laboratory
laboratory technicians
technicians check
check the
the case
case
information information to to make
make sure
sure that
that itit isis consistent consistent with
with the
the request
request form
form that
that they
they received.
received. Id.
Id. In
In this
this
case, case, all all three three exhibits
exhibits that
that she
she tested
tested were
were sealed
sealed with
with the
the red
red tamperproof
tamperprooftape.
tape. Id.
Id. Castle
Castle
testified testified that that she
she would
would have
have noted
noted if there was
ifthere was any
any improper
improper seal
seal or
or problems
problems with
with packaging.
packaging.
Id. Id. at at 542.
542. Castle
Castle further
further testified
testified that
that the
the evidence
evidence envelopes
envelopes showed
showed no
no signed
signed that
that they
they had
had
been been tempered tempered with.
with. Id.
Id.
Castle Castle explained explainedthat
thatwhen
when evidence
evidence isis received
receivedby
by the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State
State Police
Police Crime
Crime
Laboratory, Laboratory, itit isis assigned assigned aa lab
lab number
number set
set forth
forthon
on aayellow
yellow label
label and
andhas
has Bureau
Bureau of
ofForensic
Forensic
Service Servicetape tapeused usedto
to seal
sealthe
thebottom
bottomof
ofthe
the envelope
envelopewhich
whichbears
bears Castle’s
Castle's signature^
signature, along
alongwith
with
the thedate dateand andtime.
time. Id.
Id. atat543-544.
543-544.
Castle Castleopened openedthe
thesealed
sealedevidence
evidenceenvelopes
envelopeswhile
whileon
onthe
thewitness
witnessstand
standrelating
relatingtotothe
the
August August31, 31,2019, 2019, September
September18,
18,2019
2019and
andSeptember
September23,
23,2019
2019controlled
controlledbuys.
buys. Id.
Id. atat544, 551,
544,551,
553; 553;see seealso alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sExhibit Exhibit 18,
18,20,
20,and
and24.
24. She
Shetestified
testifiedthat
that
she sheconducted conductedtesting testingon
onthe
theitems
itemsinside
insidethe
theenvelopes.
envelopes. Id.
Id. The
Theitems
itemsininthe
thethree
threeevidence
evidence
envelopes envelopeswere wereall
allfound
foundtotobe
becocaine.
cocaine. Id.
Id.atat545,
545,552,
552,554;
554; see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024,
4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.27,
27,28,
28,and
and29.
29. Ms.
Ms.Castle
Castlepersonally
personallyre-seals
re-sealsthe
theenvelopes
envelopesafter
aftertesting.
testing.
Id. Id.atat555.
555.Afterwards, Afterwards,the
theenvelope
envelopegoes
goesback
backtotothe
theevidence
evidencetechnician
technicianwho
whoplaces
placesititininaa
secure securevault vaultwhere whereititawaits
awaitspick
pickup
upfrom
fromthe
thesubmitting
submittingagency.
agency. Id.
Id. The
Theenvelopes
envelopeswere
wereininthe
the
same same condition as when Castle sent sent them
them back to the Washington County Drug Task Force.
Force. Id.
Id.
at at 551, 553, 561.
551,553,561.
The The Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's extensive evidence presented presented at
at trial,
trial, as
as set
set forth in detail
detail above,
above,
establishes a reasonable inference that that the
the identity
identity and
and condition
condition of
of the
the cocaine
cocaine remained
remained the
the
same same from from the the time
time itit was
was first
first received
received until
until the
the time
time of
of trial.
trial.
Defendant Defendant argues
argues that
that the
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's witnesses, witnesses, specifically
specifically law
law enforcement
enforcement
officers officers involved involved in in the
the investigation,
investigation, are
are not
not credible
credible witnesses
witnesses and
and evidence,
evidence, such
such as
as the
the control
control
logs, logs, are are not authentic. ItIt isis well not authentic. well established established under
under Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania law
law that
that "[t]he
"[t]he weight
weight of
ofthe
the
evidence evidence isis exclusively exclusively for
for the
the finder
finder of
offact,
fact, who
who isis free
free to
to believe
believe all,
all, none
none or
or some
some of
ofthe
the
evidence evidence and and to to determine
detennine the
the credibility
credibility of
ofwitnesses."
witnesses." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Fuentes, Fuentes, 2022
2022 PA
PA
Super Super 43, 43, 272 272 A.3d
A.3d 51 1, 516
511, 516 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022);
2022); see
see also
also Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Ghrist, Ghrist, 873
873 WDA
WDA
2015, 2015, 2016 2016 WL WL 5173526,
5173526, at
at 66 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. July
July 13,
13, 2016).
2016).
Defendant Defendant sets
sets forth
forth in
in his
his Concise
Concise Statement
Statement aa broad
broad assertion
assertion that
that documents
documents presented
presented
by by the the Commonwealth Commonwealth atat trial trial relating
relatingto
to chain
chainof
ofcustody
custody were
were fabricated
fabricated and
and fraudulent.
fraudulent. This
This
Court Court finds finds the the statement
statementwholly
wholly inadequate
inadequate to
to state
state aa challenge
challengeto
to the
the evidence
evidencepresented
presented atat
trial. trial. Defendant Defendanthas has failed
failedto
to develop
developmeaningful
meaningful argument
argumentwith
with specific
specificreference
referencetoto the
therecord
record
to to support supporthis his claim
claimon
onappeal
appealthat
thatthe
theevidence
evidencepresented
presentedatattrial
trialregarding
regardingevidence
evidence control
controllogs
logs
were were fabricated fabricated or fraudulent. ItItisis suggested orfraudulent. suggestedthat thatDefendant
Defendanttherefore
thereforehas
haswaived
waivedreview
reviewof
ofthe
the
claims. claims.
H. H. Rule Rule 600,
600, 180 Days
Days of Pretrial
Pretrial Confinement
Confinement
1. 1. Standard of Review Review
"In evaluating Rule “In Rule [600]
[600] issues,
issues, our
our standard of review
review of a trial
trial court's
court's decision is
is
whether whether the the trial trial court
court abused its
its discretion.”
discretion." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Hunt,
Hunt, 858
858 A.2d
A.2d 1234,
1234, 1238 (Pa.
(Pa.
Super. Super. 2004)
2004) (internal (internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).
2. 2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant argues argues that
that he
he was
was “deprived
"deprived of
of Rule
Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(D)(2) &
& (E)
(E) after
after 180
180 days
days of
of
pretrial pretrial confinement.”
confinement." See See Defendant’s
Defendant's Concise
Concise Statement,
Statement, 7/22/2024.
7/22/2024.
Defendant Defendant filed filed aa pro se “Motion
prose "Motion Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Rule
Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(D)(2) and
and (E)”
(E)" on
on February
February
23, 23, 2024 2024 and and presented presented the
the Motion
Motion to
to this
this Court
Court on
on March
March 5,
5, 2024.
2024. This
This Court
Court held
held an
an
evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing on
on March
March 12,
12, 2024
2024 for
for the
the limited
limited purpose
purpose of
ofdetermining
determining whether
whether
Defendant Defendant isis entitled entitled to
to immediate
immediate release
release on
on nominal
nominal bail
bailpursuant
pursuant to
to Rule
Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(D)(2) and
and
(E). (E). See See Rule Rule 600
600 Nominal
Nominal Bail
Bail Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 3/12/2024.
3/12/2024. Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion was
was denied
deniedby
by way
way of
of
Opinion Opinion and and Order Order dated
datedMarch
March 14,
14, 2024.
2024.
The The reasons reasons for
forthe
the Court’s
Court's March
March 14,
14, 2024
2024 Order
Orderalready
already appear
appearof
ofrecord
record in
in said
said
Opinion Opinion and andOrder.
Order. Therefore,
Therefore, this
this Court
Courthereby
hereby incorporates
incorporatesthe
the same
same as
as its
itsPa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a)
Opinion Opinionand and attaches attaches itithereto.
hereto. For
Forthe
thereasons
reasonsset
setforth
forthininthe
theMarch
March 14,
14,2024
2024 Opinion
Opinionand
and
Order, Order, this this Court Courtrespectfully
respectfullysubmits
submitsthat
thatits
itsorder
orderbe
beaffirmed
affirmedon
onthe
themerits
meritsand
andDefendant’s
Defendant's
appeal appealbe bedismissed.
dismissed.
I.I. Unconstitutionally UnconstitutionallyDenied
DeniedBail
Bail
Defendant Defendantargues arguesthat
thathe
hewas
wasillegally
illegallydeprived
deprivedan
anopportunity
opportunitytotopost
postbail
bailand
andJudge
Judge
Valerie ValerieCostanzo Costanzoblatantly blatantlyfailed
failedtotostate
stateon
onthe
therecord
recordwhy
whyshe
shedenied
deniedDefendant
Defendantan
anopportunity
opportunity
atatbail bailpursuant pursuanttotoPa.
Pa.R.
R.Crim.
Crim.P.P.521(c).
521(c).
The was initially bail was
Defendant's bail
that Defendant’s
demonstrates that
record demonstrates
The record by Magisterial denied by
initially denied District Magisterial District
Judge 2023. The 14, 2023.
April 14, on April
Kanalis on
Joshua Kanalis Judge Joshua district judge magisterial district
The magisterial did not judge did set bail
not set on the
bail on the
basis made ten had made
detectives had
(2) detectives
two (2)
that two basis that attempts to (10) attempts
ten (10) arrest Defendant to arrest at his Defendant at residence and his residence and
present. See
never present.
was never
Defendant was Defendant Woodall, MJ-27 Commonwealth v Woodall,
See Commonwealth » 01 -CR-00001 14-2021, MJ-27101-CR-0000114-2021,
an evidentiary
and an
2023 and
16, 2023
May 16, on May
Bail on
Set Bail to Set
Motion to
filed aa Motion
Defendant filed
Docket. Defendant Criminal Docket. Criminal evidentiary
Barna, and
Agent Barna,
Defendant, Agent
Costanzo. Defendant,
Valarie Costanzo.
Judge Valarie
before Judge
2023 before
20, 2023
June 20, on June
held on
was held hearing was hearing and
Hr'g Tr.,
Bail Hr’g
Set Bail
to Set
Motion to
Defendant's Motion
See Defendant’s
hearing. See
the hearing.
at the
testified at
Fichter testified
Detective Fichter Detective Tr.,
forth aa
set forth
hearing, set
the hearing,
presented atat the
evidence presented
the evidence
on the
based on
Commonwealth, based
The Commonwealth,
6/20/2023. The 6/20/2023.
agreedwith
Costanzo agreed
Judge Costanzo
risk. Judge
flightrisk.
be aaflight
maybe
Defendantmay
whyDefendant
Courtwhy
the Court
to the
argumentto
detailed argument detailed with
theevidentiary
afterthe
Bail, after
SetBail,
Motiontoto Set
Defendant'sMotion
denyingDefendant’s bydenying
argumentby
Commonwealth's argument the Commonwealth’s the evidentiary
22, 2023.
June22, onJune
enteredon
orderentered byorder
hearing,by hearing, 2023.
Defendant onJuly Motionon
PretrialMotion
OmnibusPretrial anOmnibus
filedan
Defendantfiled 2023,which 27,2023,
July27, includedaaMotion whichincluded Motion
deniedDefendant’s
hearing,denied
2023hearing,
13,2023
October13,
theOctober
followingthe
Costanzo,following
JudgeCostanzo,
Bail. Judge SetBail.
totoSet Defendant's
devoidof
entirelydevoid
recordisisentirely
"therecord
stating,“the
Opinion,stating,
2024Opinion,
26,2024
January26,
herJanuary
Bailininher
SetBail ToSet MotionTo Motion of
Motionthat
PretrialMotion
OmnibusPretrial
hisOmnibus onhis
hearingon
thehearing
Defendantatatthe byDefendant
presentedby
waspresented
thatwas
evidencethat anyevidence any that
indicatesany indicates circumstancesfollowing changeinincircumstances
anychange denialof thedenial
followingthe Defendant'sinitial ofDefendant’s motiontotoset initialmotion set
amount."See
bailamount.”
Defendanttotoaabail
entitleDefendant
nowentitle
wouldnow
thatwould bailthat bail SeeOpinion andOrder, Opinionand 16,1/26/2024.
Order,16, 1/26/2024.
Defendant,ininsupport Defendant, hisargument, ofhis
supportof Pa.R.Crim.P.521(c), citestotoPa.R.Crim.P.
argument,cites whichrelates 52l(c),which bail relatestotobail
forththat
settingforth
authoritysetting
legalauthority
anylegal
citetotoany
notcite
doesnot
Defendantdoes
guilt.Defendant
findingofofguilt.
aftera afinding after that
herJune
Costanzo,ininher
JudgeCostanzo,
thatJudge
determinedthat
overturnedififititisisdetermined shouldbebeoverturned
convictionshould
Defendant'sconviction Defendant’s June
fordenying
reasonsfor
thereasons
specifythe
adequatelyspecify
notadequately
didnot
Order,did
2023Order, 22,2023 22, Defendant's“Direct bail. Defendant’s
denying.bail. "Direct
overturnthe
argumentotooverturn
hisargument
supporthis
notsupport
doesnot
thatdoes
caselawthat
irrelevantcaselaw
citestotoirrelevant
briefcites Appeal"brief Appeal the
thiscase.
convictionininthis conviction case.
The Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Supreme has clearly Court has
Supreme Court that even stated that
clearly stated if bail even if was improperly bail was set
improperly set
no prophylactic is no
there is
trial, there to trial, prior to prior rule that prophylactic rule new trial that aa new is required.
trial is See Commonwealth required. See Commonwealth vv
537 (1981).
Pa. 537
494 Pa.
Floyd, 494 Floyd, (1981).
The Order already 2024 Order
26, 2024
January 26,
Court's January
the Court’s
for the
reasons for
The reasons already appear in said ofrecord in
appear of said
Opinion Court hereby this Court
Therefore, this
Order. Therefore,
and Order.
Opinion and hereby incorporates same as the same
incorporates the as part its Pa.R.A.P.
ofits
part of Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) Opinion. 1925(a) the reasons For the
Opinion. For set forth reasons set above, this forth above, Court submits this Court that Defendant’s submits that claim Defendant's claim
be dismissed.
should be should dismissed.
J.J. Defendant precluded Defendant from entering precluded from evidence for entering evidence trialpurposes fortrial to show purposes to show
motive targetDefendant suggestively target
motive of law enforcement wanting to suggestively of law enforcement wanting to Defendant
1.1. Standardof
Standard ofReview
Review
“In theadmissibility onthe
rulingon
court's ruling
trial court's
reviewingaatrial
"Inreviewing evidence, [the]
ofevidence,
admissibilityof of standardof
[the] standard
review Commonwealthv.v.Thompson, deference. Commonwealth ofdeference.
oneof
reviewisisone PASuper 2014PA
Thompson,2014 106A.3d 273, 106
Super273, 742(Pa.
A.3d742 (Pa.
Super. theadmissibility concerningthe
Questionsconcerning
2014). Questions
Ct.2014).
Super. Ct. evidenceare ofevidence
admissibilityof within“the arewithin sound
"thesound
discretion andits court,and
trialcourt,
thetrial ofthe
discretionof willnot discretionwill
itsdiscretion bereversed notbe absentaaclear reversedabsent abuseof clearabuse of
discretion."Id. discretion.” Id.
2.2. Court'sAnalysis
Court’s Analysis
Defendant objection, Commonwealth'sobjection,
theCommonwealth's
sustainingthe
erredininsustaining
Courterred
theCourt
arguesthe
nextargues
Defendantnext
motiveofoflaw
showedmotive
arguesshowed
Defendantargues
thatDefendant
evidencethat
offeringevidence
fromoffering
himfrom
precludinghim therebyprecluding thereby law
targetDefendant.
suggestivelytarget
wantingtotosuggestively
enforcementwanting enforcement Defendant.
Defendant soughta apretrial Defendantsought pretrialruling Commonwealth'sobjections regardingCommonwealth’s
rulingregarding relatingtoto objectionsrelating
several trial.See presentatatrial.
wantedtotopresent
Defendantwanted
thatDefendant
documenthat severaldocument ConferenceHr’g PretrialConference
SeePretrial 22, Tr.,22,
Hr'gTr.,
In.In.13-21; 33,In.In.11-18, 13-21;33, 4/8/2024. Defendant 11-18,4/8/2024. setforth Defendantset thatheheintended forththat establishatatrial intendedtotoestablish trialthat that
law retaliation.
formofofretaliation.
donesosoasasa aform
haddone
case,had
instantcase,
theinstant
chargesininthe
thecharges
filingthe
enforcement,ininfiling lawenforcement,
Defendantexplained Defendant couldestablish thathehecould
explainedthat retaliationthrough establishretaliation severaldocuments throughseveral whichhehe documentswhich
wanted wanted to to present present at
at trial
trial and
and have
have admitted
admitted into
into evidence.
evidence. Id.
Id. at
at 17.
17. Defendant
Defendant asserted
asserted that
that the
the
exhibits exhibits he he sought sought to
to use
use at
at trial
trial were
were self-authenticating
self-authenticating documents.
documents. Defendant
Defendant further
further stated
stated
that that he he did did not not intend
intend on
on calling
calling any
any witnesses
witnesses to
to testify
testify at
at trial
trial to
to authenticate
authenticate the
the documents
documents or
or
further further develop develop his his claim
claim regarding retaliation.
retaliation. Id.
Id. at
at 21.
21.
The The Commonwealth Commonwealth did
did not
not stipulate
stipulate to
to the
the issue
issue of
of authentication.
authentication. “Unless
"Unless stipulated,
stipulated, to
to
satisfy satisfy the the requirement requirement of
of authenticating
authenticating or
or identifying
identifying an
an item
item of
of evidence,
evidence, the
the proponent
proponent must
must
produce produce evidence evidence sufficient sufficient to
to support
support aa finding
finding that
that the
the item
item isis what
what the
the proponent
proponent claims
claims itit is.”
is."
Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 901.
901.
The The Court, Court, in
in an
an attempt
attempt to
to fully
fully develop
develop the
the record,
record, reviewed
reviewed each
each exhibit
exhibit in
in detail
detail with
with
the the parties parties and and ruled
ruled on
on objections
objections made
made by
by the
the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth. Id.
Id. atat 25
25 -54.
-54.
Defendant Defendant sought sought to
to use
use atat trial
trial aa copy
copy of
ofaa document
documenttitled
titled Initial
Initial Complaint.
Complaint. Defendant
Defendant
explained explainedthat thatthe
the document
document isis aa copy
copy of
ofaa civil
civil complaint
complaintdated
dated September
September 13,
13, 2018
2018 which
whichhe
he
filed filedagainst againstMonroeville MonroevillePolice
Police Officer
OfficerLouis
Louis Curio
Curio and
andPennsylvania
Pennsylvania Office
Officeof
ofAttorney
Attorney
General GeneralAgent AgentKuneo.
Kuneo. Id.
Id. atat25;
25;see
seealso
alsoDefendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
PretrialMotion
MotionBriefing,
Briefing,
3/7/2024, 3/7/2024,Exhibit ExhibitI.I. Defendant
Defendantacknowledged
acknowledgedthat
thatOfficer
OfficerCurio
Curio and
andAgent
AgentKuneo
Kuneowere
werenot
not
directly directlyrelated relatedtotothe
thepresent
presentcase.
case. Id.
Id. atat20,
20,In.
In. 11-14.
11-14. The
TheCommonwealth
Commonwealthobjected
objectedtotothe
the
document documentbeing beingpresented
presentedatattrial
trialand
andargued
arguedthe
thedocument
documentwas
wasirrelevant
irrelevantsince
sinceititdid
didnot
notrelate
relate
totothe thepresent presentcase caseand
andthe
theofficers
officersreferenced
referencedininthe
thecivil
civilcomplaint
complaintwere
werenot
nottestifying
testifyingatattrial.
trial.
The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthfurther furtherargued
arguedthat
thatthe
thedocument
documentwould
wouldbe
beconfusing
confusingtotothe
thejury.
jury. Id.
Id.atat26.
26.
The TheCourt Courtsustained
sustainedthe
theCommonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sobjection,
objection,ruling
rulingthat
thatthe
theexhibit
exhibitwas
wasirrelevant
irrelevant
totothe thepresent presentcase caseand
andwould
wouldbe
behighly
highlyconfusing
confusingtotothe
thejury.
jury. Id.
Id.atat34.
34. Upon
Uponreview
reviewof
ofthe
the
record, the Court record, the Court is is satisfied
satisfied with
with its
its decision
decision to
to sustain,
sustain, and
and explanation for sustaining, explanation for sustaining, the the
7
Commonwealth's relevance Commonwealth's relevance objection.
objection.7
Defendant sought Defendant to introduce sought to introduce into
into evidence
evidence aa Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department
Department
Investigation report Investigation regarding aa fraud report regarding fraud investigation.
investigation. Id. at 32, Id. at ln. 21-25;
32, In. 21-25; see
see also Defendant's
also Defendant’s
Omnibus Pretrial Omnibus Pretrial Motion Motion Briefing,
Briefing, 3/7/2024,
3/7/2024, Defendant’s
Defendant's Ex.
Ex. B. The Commonwealth
B. The Commonwealth objected objected
to the to the document document on
on grounds
grounds of
ofrelevance
relevance and
andargued
arguedthe
the document
documentwould
wouldbe
beconfusing
confusingtotothe
the
jury. "Relevance jury. Relevance isisthe thethreshold
thresholdfor
foradmissibility ofevidence.”
admissibilityof evidence." Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Tyson, 119 Tyson, 119
A.3d353, A.3d 353,358 358(Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super.2015).
2015). Pursuant
PursuanttotoRule
Ruleof
ofEvidence
Evidence401,
401,evidence
evidenceisisrelevant
relevantif:if:“(a)
"(a)
itithas hasany tendencytotomake anytendency makeaafact factmore
moreororless
lessprobable thanititwould probablethan wouldbe bewithout
withoutthe
theevidence
evidence
and(b) and thefact (b)the factisisof ofconsequence
consequenceinindetermining determiningthe
theaction.”
action." Pa.R.E.
Pa.R.E.401.
401. Moreover,
Moreover,
"[e]vidence [e]videnceisisrelevant relevantififititlogically tendstotoestablish logicallytends establishaamaterial materialfact
factininthe
thecase,
case,tends
tendstotomake
makeaa
factatatissue fact issuemore moreororless
lessprobable
probableororsupports
supportsaareasonable
reasonableinference
inferenceororpresumption
presumptionregarding
regardinga a
materialfact. material fact."Tyson, 119A.3d Tyson,119 A.3datat358.
358. However,
However,“[t]he courtmay
"[t]hecourt excluderelevant mayexclude relevantevidence evidenceitit
itsitsprobative probativevalue valueisisoutweighed
outweighedby
bythe
thedanger of... unfairprejudice, dangerof...unfair confusingthe prejudice,confusing theissues, issues,
misleadingthe misleading thejury, unduedelay, jury,undue delay,wasting time,ororneedlessly wastingtime, needlesslypresenting cumulativeevidence.”
presentingcumulative evidence."
RuleofofEvidence Rule Evidence403.
403. This
ThisCourt
Courtsustained
sustainedthe
theCommonwealth’s
Commonwealth'srelevance
relevanceobjection
objectionasasthe
the
MonroevillePolice Monroeville PoliceDepartment Investigationreport DepartmentInvestigation wasentirely reportwas unrelatedtotothe entirelyunrelated thepresent case.
presentcase.
Defendantsought Defendant soughttotointroduce introduceinto
intoevidence
evidencecopies
copiesofofemails
emailsbetween
betweenthird
thirdparties
partiesnot
not
testifyingatattrial. testifying trial.Pretrial PretrialConference
ConferenceHr’g 31,In.In.3-11;
Hr'gTr.Tr.atat31, 3-11;44-47;
44-47;53-54;
53-54;see
seealso Pretrial
alsoPretrial
Conference,4/8/2024, Conference, 4/8/2024,Ex.
Ex.C(B).
C(B).Defendant
Defendantadvised
advisedthe
theCourt
Courtthat
thathehedid
didnot
notintend
intendonon
presentingany presenting witnessestototestify anywitnesses testifyregarding regardingthethemail
emailcommunications.
communications.Id.Id.at at45,45,In.ln.4-13.
4-13.
7 Defendant also sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a receipt from Monroeville Messenger Service to 7Defendant also sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a receipt from Monroeville Messenger Service to establish establish that that thethe civil
civil complaint
complaint hadhad been
been notarized.Id.Id.
notarized. at at
30,30,
In. ln. 3-24.The
3-24. The Court
Court sustained
sustained thethe Commonwealth's Commonwealth’s
objection, objection, ruling ruling that
that thethe exhibit
exhibit was
was irrelevant
irrelevant to to
thethe present
present case
case andand would
would be be confusing
confusing to to
thethe jury.Id.Id.
j’ury. at 39-40.
at 39-40.
lodged aa
Commonwealth lodged
The Commonwealth
self-authenticating. The
were self-authenticating.
emails were
the emails
that the
argued that
Defendant argued Defendant
relevance to lack objected to
also objected
and also
objection, and
relevance objection, authentication. Id.
of authentication.
lack of at 44, Id. at ln. 16-23.
44, In. The Court
16-23. The Court
sustained Commonwealth's objection the Commonwealth’s
sustained the and precluded objection and from entering Defendant from
precluded Defendant the documents entering the documents
and adequately
foundation and
proper foundation
lay aa proper to lay
witness to
presenting aa witness
without presenting
trial without at trial
evidence at into evidence into adequately
authenticate 901. See Rule 901.
with Rule
accordance with in accordance
documents, in
the documents,
authenticate the Commonwealth v.v. Koch, See Commonwealth PA 2011 PA
Koch, 2011
with personal
witness with
ofaa witness
(Testimony of
2011) (“Testimony
Ct. 2011)
Super. Ct.
(Pa. Super.
1002 (Pa.
996, 1002
A.3d 996, 39 A.3d
201, 39 Super 201, Super personal
The email
sufficient.") The
be sufficient.”)
can be be can to be
claimed to
what itit isis claimed
matter isis what
that aa matter
knowledge that knowledge email
communications Defendant sought communications Defendant have admitted to have
sought to arenot admittedare self-authenticating documents.
not self-authenticating documents.
Pa.R.E. prerequisitetoto admissibility.”
document] isis aaprerequisite [ofaadocument]
"Authentication [of
902. “Authentication
Pa.R.E. 902. 1005.
Koch atat 1005.
admissibility." Koch
The statementsby hearsaystatements
containedhearsay
communication contained
email communication The email thirdparties bythird werenot whowere
partieswho testifying nottestifying
irrelevantasasthey
wereirrelevant
communicationswere
emailcommunications
the email
Furthermore,the
trial. Furthermore, atattrial. notrelate didnot
theydid theissue relatetotothe issue
Courtisis
theCourt
record,the
therecord, ofthe
reviewof
Uponreview
case. Upon
presentcase.
thepresent
regardingthe
innocenceregarding orinnocence
guiltor ofguilt of
theCommonwealth's
sustaining,the
forsustaining,
explanationfor
andexplanation
sustain,and
decisiontotosustain,
itsdecision
withits
satisfiedwith satisfied Commonwealth's
objection ConferenceHr’g PretrialConference
relevance. Pretrial
andrelevance.
authenticationand ofauthentication
groundsof ongrounds
objectionon 46,In.
Tr.,46,
Hr'gTr., 6-19,
ln.6-19,
4/8/2024. 4/8/2024.
Defendant regardingaa sheetregarding
docketsheet
civildocket
copyofofaacivil
evidenceaacopy
intoevidence
introduceinto
soughttotointroduce
Defendantsought
federal Pennsylvaniaatat DistrictofofPennsylvania
WesternDistrict
Court,Western
DistrictCourt,
StatesDistrict
UnitedStates
theUnited
filedininthe
actionfiled
civilaction federalcivil
Docket 16-22;36, 29,In.ln.16-22;
Id.atat29,
2:23-CV-01370-LPL. Id.
No.2:23-CV-01370-LPL.
DocketNo. 36,In.ln.9-11;
9-11;see
seealso Defendant's
alsoDefendant’s
Omnibus action civilaction
relatestotoa acivil
sheetrelates
docketsheet
Thedocket
ExhibitD.D.The
3/7/2024,Exhibit
Briefing,3/7/2024,
MotionBriefing,
PretrialMotion OmnibusPretrial
filed defendant.
nameddefendant.
Moritzisisa anamed
StevenMoritz
OfficerSteven
whichOfficer
1983ininwhich
U.S.C.§ §1983
under4242U.S.C.
Defendantunder byDefendant filedby
The relevancegrounds exhibitononrelevance
theexhibit
presentationofofthe
thepresentation
objectedtotothe
Commonwealthobjected TheCommonwealth andargued groundsand argued
that thejury thathe
issuesthat
theissues
confusethe
wouldconfuse
documentwould thedocument thathe wasresponsible jurywas deciding.Id.Id.atat36, fordeciding.
responsiblefor 36,
In.ln.9-15. TheCommonwealth 9-15.The furtherexplained Commonwealthfurther OfficerMoritz thatOfficer
explainedthat wouldnot Moritzwould calledtototestify notbebecalled testify
at trial as he is active military and was deployed on at trial as he is active military and was deployed on aa ship. Id. at
ship. Id. at 37.
37. Defendant
Defendant argued that the argued that the
document related to Officer Moritz's credibility. Id. The Court agreed with Defendant that the document related to Officer Moritz’s credibility. Id. The Court agreed with Defendant that the document may be document may be relevant
relevant if
ifOfficer
Officer Moritz
Moritz testified
testified at
at trial.
trial. Id.
Id. atat 37-38,
37-38, In.
ln. 38-3.
38-3. The
The Court
Court
withheld making a pretrial ruling regarding the Commonwealth's objections to the admissibility withheld making a pretrial ruling regarding the Commonwealth’s objections to the admissibility
of ofthe thecivil civildocket docketsheet.
sheet. Id.
Id.
Defendant sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a Common Pleas of Allegheny Defendant sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a Common Pleas of Allegheny County Docket Sheet for Docket No. 8529-2019. Id. at 40, ln. 4-5. Defendant asserted that this County Docket Sheet for Docket No. 8529-2019. Id. at 40, In. 4-5. Defendant asserted that this document was relevant as it related to the credibility of Washington County Assistant District document was relevant as it related to the credibility of Washington County Assistant District AttorneyRachel Attorney RachelWheeler Wheeler(hereinafter
(hereinafter“ADA
"ADAWheeler”)
Wheeler")and
andthe
thecredibility
credibilityofofthe
the
Commonwealth's witnesses who, at a prior bail hearing, argued that Defendant was a flight risk. Commonwealth’s witnesses who, at a prior bail hearing, argued that Defendant was a flight risk.
Id. 40,In.ln.19-25;
Id.atat40, 19-25;see seealso
alsoDefendant’s
Defendant'sMotion
MotiontotoSet
SetBail
BailHr’g
Hr'gTr.,
Tr.,6/20/2023.
6/20/2023.Defendant
Defendant
furtherargued further arguedthat thatthis
thisdocument
documentwould
wouldestablish
establishthat
thatDefendant
Defendantwas
wasnot
nota aflight
flightrisk.
risk.The
The
Commonwealth objected to the presentation of the exhibit on relevance grounds and argued that Commonwealth objected to the presentation of the exhibit on relevance grounds and argued that the document would confuse the issues that the jury was responsiblefor the document would confuse the issues that the jury was responsible fordeciding.
deciding.Id.Id.atat40,
40,In.ln.
11-18. "Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must 11-18. “Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must balance evidentiary value against the potentialdangers balance videntiary value against the potential dangersofof unfairly prejudicingthetheaccused, unfairly prejudicing
accused,
inflaming the passions of the jury,oror inflaming the passions of the jury, confusing confusing
the jury."Commonwealth the jury.”
Commonwealthv. v.Brown,
Brown,212
212 A.3d
A.3d
1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E. 1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E.
403 ("The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.") The trial court's undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”) The trial court's ability must be trusted "to oversee the presentation ability must be trusted “to oversee the presentation of evidence 'so that overtly of evidence ‘so that overtly passionate, passionate,
intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom."' Brown, 212 A.3d intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom.’” Brown, 212 A.3d
at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears the
the “heavy burden" to
"heavy burden” to demonstrate demonstrate the
the
trial court trial court abused abused its
its discretion
discretion on
on an
an evidentiary
evidentiary ruling. Id. The ruling. Id. The Court
Court sustained
sustained the
the
Commonwealth's objection, ruling that the exhibit was irrelevant as it was not related to the Commonwealth s objection, ruling that the exhibit was irrelevant as it was not related to the issue of guilt or innocence in the present case and would be highly confusing to the jury. Id. at issue of guilt or innocence in the present case and would be highly confusing to the jury. Id. at
44, 44, In.
ln. 9-15.
9-15.
K. Defendant Precluded From Questioning Officer Fichter Regarding Arrest K. Defendant Precluded From Questioning Officer Fichter Regarding Arrest Warrant ServiceLog. Warrant Service Log.
Defendant next argues that the court erred in sustaining the Commonwealth's relevance Defendant next argues that the court erred in sustaining the Commonwealth's relevance objection and precluding him from questioning Officer Fichter regarding a document relating to objection and precluding him from questioning Officer Fichter regarding a document relating to
service serviceofofthe thearrest
arrestwarrant.
warrant.
"Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must balance evidentiary value against the potentialdangers balance evidentiary value against the potential dangersofofunfairly
unfairlyprejudicing theaccused, prejudicingthe accused,
inflaming the passions of the jury, or confusing the jury.”
Commonwealthv. v.Brown,
inflaming the passions of the jury, or confusing the jury."Commonwealth Brown,212 212A.3d
A.3d
1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E. 1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E. 403, ("The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger 403, (‘The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,confusing of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, theissues,
confusingthe issues,misleading misleadingthethe jury,
jury,
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.") The trial court's undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”) The trial court's ability must be trusted "to oversee the presentation ability must be trusted “to oversee the presentation of evidence 'so that overtly passionate, of evidence ‘so that overtly passionate, intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom."' Brown, 212 A.3d intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom.’” Brown, 212 A.3d at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears the "heavy burden" to demonstrate the at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears the “heavy burden” to demonstrate the trial trial court court abused abused itsits discretion discretion onon
anan evidentiary
evidentiary ruling.Id.Id.
ruling.
This Court recognizes that "the scope of cross-examination falls within a trial court's This Court recognizes that “the scope of cross-examination falls within a trial court's authority, and the trial court's rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of a clear and authority, and the trial court's rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of a clear and manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 577 Pa. 421, 846 A.2d 75, 96 (Pa. manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 577 Pa. 421, 846 A.2d 75, 96 (Pa
2004). The trial court may place reasonable limits on defense counsel's cross-examination of a 2004). The trial court may place reasonable limits on defense counsel's cross-examination of a prosecution witness "based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, prosecution witness “based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077 (Pa.Super. 2016), quoting Delaware v. Van relevant.” Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077 (Pa.Super. 2016), quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall,475 Arsdall, 475U.S.
U.S. 673,
673, 678
678 (1986).
(1986).
In the present case, Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion which included a Motion In the present case, Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion which included a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600 (Lack of Due Diligence) on July 27, 2023. The to Dismiss Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600 (Lack of Due Diligence) on July 27, 2023. The Court held a hearing on October 13, 2023 in which Officer Fichter testified regarding attempts to Court held a hearing on October 13, 2023 in which Officer Fichter testified regarding attempts to serve the warrant. See Omnibus Pre-Trial Hr'g Tr., 129-130, 10/13/2024. The arrest warrant serve the warrant. See Omnibus Pre-Trial Hr’g Tr„ 129-130, 10/13/2024. The arrest warrant was entered into evidence at the hearing. Omnibus Pretrial Hr'g Tr., 107, 10/13/2023; see also was entered into evidence at the hearing. Omnibus Pretrial Hr’g Tr., 107, 10/13/2023; see also Omnibus Pretrial Hr'g, 10/13/2023, Commonwealth's Ex. 3. Officer Fichter documented Omnibus Pretnal Hr’g, 10/13/2023, Commonwealth’s Ex. 3. Officer Fichter documented attempts to serve the warrant by writing the list of dates on the inside of his case file. Omnibus attempts to serve the warrant by writing the list of dates on the inside of his case file. Omnibus Pretrial Hr'g Tr., 108-109, 10/13/2023. Defendant references this list of attempts to serve the Pretnal Hr’g Tr., 108-109, 10/13/2023. Defendant references this list of attempts to serve the warrantasasananarrest warrant arrestwarrant warrantservice
servicelog. TT,vol.
log.TT, vol.I, I,232,
232,4/9/24.
4/9/24.
Defendant, at trial, sought to impeach Officer Fichter with a copy of the arrest warrant Defendant, at trial, sought to impeach Officer Fichter with a copy of the arrest warrant service log. TT, vol. II, 504-505, 4/10/2024. The arrest warrant serve log had not been service log. TT, vol. II, 504-505, 4/10/2024. The arrest warrant serve log had not been presented by the Commonwealth during trial or admitted into evidence. Id. Furthermore, presented by the Commonwealth during trial or admitted into evidence. Id. Furthermore, Officer Fichter did not testify to any issue relating to the service of the arrest warrant or arrest Officer Fichter did not testify to any issue relating to the service of the arrest warrant or arrest warrant warrant serve serve loglog during during direct
direct examination.Id.Id.
examination. at at 386-474.
386-474.
This Court precluded the line of questioning in response to an objection raised by the This Court precluded the line of questioning in response to an objection raised by the Commonwealth. Id. at 505. Defendant's line of questioning was precluded based on concerns Commonwealth. Id. at 505. Defendant’s line of questioning was precluded based on concerns that it would confuse the issues for the jury. The line of questioning was also irrelevant to the that it would confuse the issues for the jury. The line of questioning was also irrelevant to the issue issue of guilt of guilt or innocence.
or innocence.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court submits that it was not error to limit For the reasons set forth above, this Court submits that it was not error to limit Defendant'ss cross-examination Defendant cross-examination regarding the arrest regarding the arrest warrant warrant service
service log.
log.
L. Defendant Not Informed On The Record of Right to File Interlocutory L. Defendant Not Informed On The Record of Right to File Interlocutory Appeal Appeal
Defendant argues that it is a direct violation of his right to Due Process that he was not Defendant argues that it is a direct violation of his right to Due Process that he was not informed by Judge Costanzo, in her January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order in which Defendant's informed by Judge Costanzo, in her January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order in which Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion was denied in its entirety, of his right to file an interlocutory appeal. Omnibus Pretrial Motion was denied in its entirety, of his right to file an interlocutory appeal. Defendantargument Defendant argumentisisnot notdeveloped andsupported developedand withcitations supportedwith citationstotolegal legalauthority.
authority.
Furthermore, the Court notes that Defendant was represented by attorney Adam Y arussi, Esquire Furthermore, the Court notes that Defendant was represented by attorney Adam Yarussi, Esquire when the January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order was entered by Judge Costanzo. Attorney Y arussi when the January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order was entered by Judge Costanzo. Attorney Yarussi withdrewfrom withdrew fromthe thecase
caseon
onFebruary
February22,
22,2024. SeeCourt
2024.See CourtOrder,
Order,2/22/24.
2/22/24.
This Court submits that Defendant's claim under Section Lis meritless and is waived for This Court submits that Defendant’s claim under Section L is meritless and is waived for
lack lackofofdevelopment.
development.
M. Judge Costanzo Errored by Granting Commonwealth Motion to Amend M. Judge Costanzo Errored by Granting Commonwealth Motion to Amend CriminalComplaint. Criminal Complaint.
1. Standard of Review
1. Standard of Review "We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to amend an information for “We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to amend an information for an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Sandoval, 2021 PA Super 242, 266 A.3d 1098, 1101 an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Sandoval, 2021 PA Super 242, 266 A.3d 1098, 1101 (Pa.Super. (Pa. Super.Ct.Ct.2021)
2021) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).
2. 2. Court's Analysis Court’s Analysis
Defendant argues that Judge Costanzo errored by granting the Commonwealth's Motion Defendant argues that Judge Costanzo errored by granting the Commonwealth’s Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint. The Court first notes that, after a thorough review of the record, to Amend Criminal Complaint. The Court first notes that, after a thorough review of the record, no Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint was filed in the instant case. The Commonwealth filed no Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint was filed in the instant case. The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Amend Criminal Information where it set forth in its motion that it did so to clear up a Motion to Amend Criminal Information where it set forth in its motion that it did so to clear up
any confusion of any confusion of the the dates. See Commonwealth’s dates. See Commonwealth's Motion Motion to
to Amend
Amend Crim.
Crim. Info., 12/20/2023.
Info., 12/20/2023.
Defendant further Defendant further contends contends that
that his
his prior counsel, Adam
prior counsel, Adam Yarussi, Yarussi, Esquire, did not Esquire, did not consent
consent to
to an
an
"amended criminal “amended criminal complaint.” The record complaint." The record clearly demonstrates that clearly demonstrates that Defendant, Defendant, through
through
counsel, consented counsel, consented to to the
the December
December 20,
20, 2023
2023 Order
Order of
ofCourt
Court amending the criminal amending the criminal information.
information.
See Court Order, See Court Order, 12/20/2023.
12/20/2023. The
The Amended
Amended Information
Information was
was filed
filed on
on December
December 20,
20, 2023.
2023. This
This
Court submits Court submits that that Defendant
Defendant has
has waived
waived this
this argument
argument for
for the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth above.
above.
Defendant appears Defendant to attempt appears to to raise attempt to raise aa statute statute of
oflimitation
limitation argument
argumentrelating
relating to
to the
the fifiling
ling
8
ofthe of the original criminal complaint.
original criminal Defendant, through complaint.8 Defendant, throughcounsel, counsel, filed
filedan
an extensive
extensive Omnibus
Omnibus
Pre-TrialMotion Pre-Trial Motionon onJuly 27, 2023.
July27, 2023. Defendant Defendantdid
didnot
notinclude
includeaaMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissPursuant
Pursuanttoto
42Pa.C.S. 42 Pa.C.S. §5552(a)
$5552(a)ininhis
hisOmnibus
OmnibusPretrial
PretrialMotion.
Motion. AAhearing
hearingregarding Defendant'sO regardingDefendant’s Omnibus mnibus
PretrialMotion Pretrial Motionwas washeld
heldbefore
beforeJudge Costanzoon
JudgeCostanzo onOctober
October13,
13,2023.
2023. Subsequent
Subsequenttotothe
the
hearing,Defendant’s hearing, Defendant'scounsel counselattempted
attemptedtotoraise
raiseaastatute
statuteof
oflimitations
limitationsargument
argumentininhis
hisbrief
brieffiled
filed
onDecember on December1,1,2023.
2023. InInJudge Costanzo'sJanuary JudgeCostanzo’s 26,2024 January26, 2024Opinion, theargument Opinion,the was argumentwas
acknowledged butdenied acknowledgedbut deniedasaswaived waivedsince
sinceDefendant
Defendantdid
didnot
notfollow
followRule
Rule578
578ofofthe
the
PennsylvaniaRules Pennsylvania RulesofofCriminal CriminalProcedure.
Procedure. The
Thereasons
reasonsfor
forthe
theCourt’s
Court'sJanuary
January26,
26,2024
2024Order
Order
alreadyappear already appearofofrecord recordininsaid
saidOpinion andOrder.
Opinionand Order.Therefore, Therefore,this
thisCourt
Courthereby
herebyincorporates the
incorporatesthe
same sameasasitsitsPa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P.1925(a)
1925(a)Opinion
Opinionand
andattaches
attachesitithereto.
hereto.
N.N. Pa.R.Crim.P.
Pa.R.Crim.P.517(A)
517(A)
Defendantnext Defendant nextargues thathehewas arguesthat wasnot
notimely
timelytransported fromMercer transportedfrom MercerCounty Countytoto
Washington Countyininaccordance WashingtonCounty accordancewith withRule
Rule517(A)
517(A)ofofthe
thePennsylvania
PennsylvaniaRules
RulesofofCriminal
Criminal
Procedure517 Procedure 517ininviolation violationofofhis
hiswell-established
well-establishedconstitutional constitutionalrights.
rights.
8 Defendant did not request for a bill of particulars. Pa.R.Crim.P. 572.“A"A 8Defendant did not request for a bill of particulars. Pa.R.Crim.P. 572.
billofof bill particularsis isintended particulars intendedto togive give
notice to the accused of the offenses notice to the accused of the offenses charged in the indictment so that he may prepare a defense, avoid a surprise, oror charged in the indictment so that he may prepare a defense, avoid a surprise, intelligently intelligently raise raise pleas
pleas ofof double
double jeopardy
jeopardy and
and thethestatute
statute
ofof Commonwealth limitations."Commonwealth limitations.” Champney,514 v. v.Champney 574 Pa.
Pa.
435, 451, 832 A.2d 403, 412 (2003) (internal citations omitted).
435, 451, 832 A.2d 403, 412 (2003) (internal citations omitted).
court case,
in aa court
arrested in
been arrested
has been
defendant has
"[w]hen aa defendant
that “[w]hen
forth that
sets forth
517(A) sets
Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(A) Pa.R.Crim.P. case,
the defendant
issued, the
was issued,
arrest was of arrest
warrant of
the warrant
where the
district where
judicial district
the judicial
outside the
warrant, outside with aa warrant, with defendant
shall delay to unnecessary delay
without unnecessary
taken without be taken shall be proper issuing the proper to the authority in issuing authority the judicial in the district of judicial district of
by law.”
permitted by as permitted
bail, as
posting bail, of posting
purpose of
the purpose
for the arrest for arrest law."
Defendant cite correctly not cite
did not
Defendant did Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(D), to Pa.R.Crim.P.
correctly to sets forth which sets
517(D), which that “[w]hen forth that "[w]hen aa
place of
in aa place
arraignment, in
preliminary arraignment,
without preliminary
more without or more
hours or 48 hours
for 48
held for
been held
has been
defendant has defendant of
inability to
the inability ofthe
because of
issued, because
was issued,
warrant was
the warrant
where the
district where
judicial district
thejudicial
outside the
detention outside detention to
any interested ofany
application of
upon application
custody upon
from custody
discharged from
be discharged
shall be
defendant shall
the defendant
bail, the post bail, post interested
cause shown
upon cause
that,upon
providedthat,
detention; provided ofdetention,'
districtof
judicialdistrict
thejudicial ofthe
courtof
ofaa court
judge of
person toto aajudge person shown
the ormore one or
grantone
maygrant
judgemay thejudge ofthe extensions of
more extensions defendant's detention thedefendant's anearly detentiontoto an date, fixed earlydate, fixedinin
thejudicial
removedtotothe
beenremoved
notbeen
hasnot
andhas
custodyand
remains inincustody
defendantremains
thedefendant
butififthe
order,but theorder, the judicial
thedefendant
period,the
detentionperiod,
extendeddetention
theextended ofthe
endof
theend
issuedatatthe
wasissued
warrantwas
thewarrant
wherethe
districtwhere district defendant
(emphasisadded).
custody."(emphasis
fromcustody.”
dischargedfrom bedischarged shallbe shall added).
Defendant LawrenceCounty 2023ininLawrence
April8,8,2023 onApril
arrestedon
wasarrested hewas
thathe
contendsthat
Defendantcontends Countyregarding regarding
wastransported
Defendantwas
warrants. Defendant
arrestwarrants.
Countyarrest
WashingtonCounty
andWashington
Countyand
MercerCounty
outstandingMercer outstanding transported
warrantwas
arrestwarrant
Countyarrest
MercerCounty
TheMercer
jail. The
Countyjail.
MercerCounty
theMercer
jailtotothe
Countyjail
LawrenceCounty
theLawrence fromthe from was
April1 onApril
Martwinskion
TravisMartwinski
MagistrateTravis byMagistrate
addressedby addressed 1 2023and , 2023 11, Defendantwas andDefendant grantedanan wasgranted
adheringtoto
insteadofofadhering
that,instead
assertsthat,
Defendantasserts
$2,500. Defendant of$2,500.
amountof
theamount
bailininthe
unsecuredbail unsecured
Davistoto
DanielDavis
MagistrateDaniel
CountyMagistrate
MercerCounty
requestedMercer
Countyrequested
WashingtonCounty
517(A),Washington
Pa.R.Crim.P.517(A), Pa.R.Crim.P.
thatthat
arguesthat
furtherargues
Defendantfurther
Defendant. Defendant onDefendant.
bondon
$50,000bond
placea a$50,000
andplace
hearingand
bailhearing holda abail hold that
extensionofofthe
requestingananextension
firstrequesting
withoutfirst
5:00-6:00p.m.without
approximately5:00-6:00p.m.
2023atatapproximately
13,2023
April13, "onApril “on the
dictatesofofabove
hoursdictates
the4848hours
pasthe
wellpast
whichisiswell
5 l 7(A),which
Pa.R.Crim.P.517(A),
dictatesofofPa.R.Crim.P.
hoursdictates 4848hours above
Rule."See Rule.” SeeDefendant’s 1925(b)Concise Defendant's1925(b) ConciseStatement, SectionN.N.Defendant Statement,Section doesassert Defendantdoes assertininhis his
concise statement, and the record is devoid of any evidence to establish that Defendant followed concise statement, and the record is devoid of any evidence to establish that Defendant followed the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(D) and sought to be discharged from custody by making the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(D) and sought to be discharged from custody by making application to the appropriate Mercer County judge. Furthermore, Defendant fails to establish in application to the appropriate Mercer County judge. Furthermore, Defendant fails to establish in any manner how the proper procedures were not followed regarding Chapter 91 of the Judicial any manner how the proper procedures were not followed regarding Chapter 91 of the Judicial Code which provides for the arrest and detention of persons wanted in other counties. Code which provides for the arrest and detention of persons wanted in other counties.
Defendant's legal argument is wholly undeveloped. It contains no citations to legal Defendant's legal argument is wholly undeveloped. It contains no citations to legal authorities other than referencing Pa.R.Crim.P. 5 l 7(A), and therefore no attempt to apply any authorities other than referencing Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(A), and therefore no attempt to apply any authorities to the present case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2l l9(b). This Court submits that Defendant's authorities to the present case. See Pa.R.A.P. 21 19(b). This Court submits that Defendant’s claimlacks claim lacksmerit meritand
andshould
shouldbebedismissed.
dismissed.
O. Defendant Transported Without Lawful Transport Order O. Defendant Transported Without Lawful Transport Order Defendant argues that he was transported from Mercer County to Washington County Defendant argues that he was transported from Mercer County to Washington County without a lawful transportation order. This issue was raised in Defendant's prose "Motion(s)-Inwithout a lawful transportation order. This issue was raised in Defendant’s pro se “Motion(s)-In- Limine filed on March 7, 2024. The Court entered an Opinion and Order on April 1, 2024. Limine filed on March 7, 2024. The Court entered an Opinion and Order on April 1, 2024.
The reasons for this Court's April 1, 2024 Opinion already appear of record in said Opinion and The reasons for this Court’s April 1, 2024 Opinion already appear of record in said Opinion and Order. Therefore, this Court hereby incorporates the same as its Pa.R.A.P. l 925(a) Opinion. Order. Therefore, this Court hereby incorporates the same as its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion.
P. Officers' Names Included in Jury Instructions in Violation of Defendant's P. Officers’ Names Included Constitutional Rights in Jury Instructions in Violation of Defendant’s Constitutional Rights
1. Standard of Review 1. Standard of Review "The nature of a court's instructions to the jury is 'within the discretion of the court, so The nature of a court's instructions to the jury is ‘within the discretion of the court, so long as the court accurately instructs the jury on the appropriate legal principles involved.' This long as the court accurately instructs the jury on the appropriate legal principles inyolyed. • This Court's main concern is 'that the charge clearly, adequately, and accurately presents the law to Court's main concern is ‘that the charge clearly, adequately, and accurately presents the law to the jury for its consideration.' The jury charge must be reviewed 'not in isolated portions but as a the jury for its consideration. ’ The jury charge must be reviewed 'not in isolated portions but as a whole to ascertain whether it fairly conveys the required legal principles at issue."' whole to ascertain whether it fairly conveys the required legal principles at issue.”’
Commonwealth v. Willis, 990 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (internal citations omitted). CommonweM v. Willis, 990 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (internal citations omitted).
2. 2. Court's Analysis Court’s Analysis
Defendant next argues Defendant next the Court’s that the
argues that written jury Court's written which included instruction which
jury instruction witnesses'
included witnesses’
taken verbatim names -- taken names verbatim from the Pennsylvania from the Suggested Standard Pennsylvania Suggested Criminal Jury Standard Criminal Instructions -
Jury Instructions
constitutional rights.
well-established constitutional his well-established violated his violated rights.
4.07 A, Identification
Section 4.07A,
utilized Section
instructions, utilized
jury instructions,
its jury
preparing its in preparing
Court, in
The Court, The Identification
instructed the
and instructed
Instructions and
Jury Instructions
Criminal Jury
Standard Criminal
Suggested Standard
Pennsylvania Suggested
the Pennsylvania ofthe
Testimony, of Testimony, the
as follows:
jury as jury follows:
John Pioth,
Renk, John
Robert Renk,
Shaffer, Robert
Justin Shaffer,
Barna, Justin
Joseph Barna,
testimony, Joseph
their testimony,
In their In Pioth, and Kent
Eberman, and
Dan Eberman,
Fichter, Dan
Joseph Fichter,
Krut, Joseph
William Krut,
White, William
Mathew White, Mathew Kent thedefendant.
identified the
has identified
Mitchell has Mitchell defendant.
factorsininaddition
followingfactors
thefollowing
considerthe
shouldconsider
youshould
testimony,you
theirtestimony,
evaluatingtheir Inevaluating In addition testimony of
the testimony
judgingthe
forjudging
you for
providedtoto you
haveprovided
will have
instructions IIwill
other instructions
the other
toto the of witnesses: witnesses:
theperpetrator
observethe
timetotoobserve
enoughtime
andenough
opportunityand
goodopportunity
haveaagood
witnesshave
thewitness
Didthe Did perpetrator theoffense? ofthe of offense?
theirobservations?
maketheir
themtotomake
forthem
lightingfor
enoughlighting
thereenough
Wasthere Was observations?
otherphysical
andother
facial and
his facial
notehis
individualtotonote
the individual
enough toto the
close enough
they close
Were they Were physical waswearing? hewas
clothinghe
anyclothing
wellasasany
characteristics,asaswell characteristics, wearing?
hedging oror
any hedging
by any
qualified by
was itit qualified
positive oror was
identification positive
their identification
Was their Was inconsistencies? inconsistencies?
theincident?
duringthe
witnessduring
thewitness
wasthe
attentivewas
Howattentive How incident?
IfIfyou considerthe
youconsider witness'slevel thewitness's certaintyininmaking levelofofcertainty identification, theidentification,
makingthe
you levelofofcertainty thelevel
thathe
recognizethat
shouldrecognize
youshould canchange certaintycan thetime betweenthe
changebetween the timeofofthe
levelofof
thelevel
Considerififthe
court.Consider
identificationinincourt.
lateridentification
thelater
andthe
identificationand
initialidentification initial certainty andifif identification,and
initialidentification,
theinitial
timeofofthe
thetime
policeatathe
thepolice
recordedbybythe
wasrecorded
certaintywas
that Youmay court.You
identificationinincourt.
lateridentification
thelater
certaintyininthe
levelofofcertainty
thelevel
fromthe
differsfrom
thatdiffers may
consider any consider reasons for any reasons for any in the change in
any change the witness's witness's level
level of
of certainty
certainty between
between the
the
initial initial identification identification and
and the
the later
later identification
identification in
in court.
court.
If the If the police failed to
police failed to record
record the
the initial
initial level
level of
of certainty,
certainty, you
you may
may consider
consider
any reason given any reason the police by the
given by for their police for their failure
failure to
to record
record the
the witness's
witness's level
level of
of
certainty certainty at at the
the time
time of
ofthe
the initial
initial identification.
identification.
Consider also Consider also any other evidence any other evidence on
on the
the issue
issue of
ofthe
the level
level of
ofcertainty
certainty of
ofthe
the
in-court in-court identification.
identification. Please consider Please consider that
that aa victim
victim or
or another
another witness
witness can
can sometimes
sometimes make
make aa
mistake when mistake when trying to identify trying to the criminal.
identify the If certain criminal. If certain factors factors are
are present,
present, the
the
accuracy ofidentification accuracy of identification testimony testimony isis so
so doubtful
doubtful that
that you must receive
you must receive itit with with
caution. caution.
Identificationtestimony Identification mustbe testimonymust bereceived receivedwith
withcaution:
caution:
a.a. ififthe
thewitness
witnessbecause
becauseof ofbad
badposition,
position,poor
poorlighting,
lighting,or
orother
otherreasons
reasonsdid
did
not nothave haveaagood goodopportunity opportunitytotoobserve
observethe
thecriminal
criminal
b.b. ifif the
the witness's
witness's positive
positive testimony
testimony asas toto identity identity isis weakened
weakened by
by
qualifications,hedging, qualifications, hedging,ororinconsistencies inconsistenciesininthe
therest
restof
oftheir
theirtestimony.
testimony.
You You should
should consider
consider all
all evidence
evidence relevant
relevant toto the
the question
question of
of who
who
committed committedthe thecrime,
crime,including
includingthethetestimony
testimonyofofJoseph
JosephBarna,
Barna,Justin
JustinShaffer,
Shaffer,
Robert RobertRenk, Renk,John
JohnPioth,
Pioth,Mathew
MathewWhite,
White,William
WilliamKrut,
Krut,Joseph
JosephFichter,
Fichter,Dan
Dan
Eberman, Eberman,and andKent
KentMitchell,
Mitchell,and
andany
anyevidence
evidenceofoffacts
factsand
andcircumstances
circumstances
from fromwhich whichidentity,
identity,orornon-identity, non-identity,ofofthe
thecriminal
criminalmay
maybebeinferred.
inferred.
Youcannot You cannotfind
findthe
thedefendant
defendantguilty
guiltyunless
unlessyou
youare
aresatisfied
satisfiedbeyond
beyonda a
reasonabledoubt reasonable doubtby byallallthe
theevidence,
evidence,direct
directand
andcircumstantial,
circumstantial,not
notonly thatthe
onlythat the
crimewas crime wascommitted committedbut buthat
thatititwas
wasthe
thedefendant
defendantwho
whocommitted
committedit.it.
TT, TT,vol.
vol.Ill,
III,790-793,
790-793,4/1 1/24 (emphasis 4/11/24 ( emphasisadded).
added).
Defendant'sclaim Defendant’s claimisiswithout withoutmerit
meritbecause
becausethe
thetrial
trialcourt
courtquoted verbatimfrom quotedverbatim fromSection Section
4.07 Aofof 4.07A thePennsylvania the PennsylvaniaStandard StandardSuggested CriminalJury SuggestedCriminal Instructionsononthe JuryInstructions theissue issueofof
IdentificationTestimony. Identification SeeCommonwealth Testimony.See Commonwealthv. v.Sandusky, Sandusky,7777A.3d
A.3d663,
663,674 (Pa.Super.
674 (Pa. Super.2013),
2013),
(where where trial trial court court quoted near
near verbatim
verbatim from
from Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Standard Criminal
Criminal Jury
Jury
Instructions, Instructions, trial trial court
court committed no error in charging jury).
jury).
Furthermore, Furthermore, the the Court
Court held
held aa conference
conference on
on April
April 11,
11, 2024
2024 following
following the
the completion
completion of
of
presentation of of evidence
evidence and
and prior
prior to
to the
the jury
jury charge.
charge. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 767,
767, 4/1 1/24. The
4/11/24. The purpose
purpose of
of
the the conference, conference, also also called
called aa charging
charging meeting,
meeting, was
was to
to provide
provide Defendant
Defendant and
and the
the
Commonwealth Commonwealth an an opportunity
opportunity to
to review
review the
the Court’s
Court's proposed
proposed jury
jury instruction.
instruction. A
A copy
copy of
ofthe
the
proposed proposedjury jury instructions instructions were
were provided
provided to
to both
both the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth and
and Defendant
Defendant for
for purpose
purpose
of ofreview.
review. Defendant Defendant had
had an
an opportunity
opportunity to
to review
review the
thejury
jury instructions
instructions and
and raise
raise objections.
objections. Id.
Id.
Defendant Defendant did did not
not raise
raise an
an objection
objection to
tothe
the use
use of
ofSection
Section 4.07
4.07A,
A, Identification
Identification Testimony, Testimony, of
ofthe
the
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Suggested Suggested Standard
Standard Criminal
Criminal Jury
Jury Instructions
Instructions which
which included
included the
the names
names of
oflaw
law
enforcement enforcement witnesses.
witnesses. Id.
Id. atat 767-778.
767-778. ItIt isis well
well established
establishedthat,
that, “in
"in order
order to
to preserve
preserve an
an issue
issue
for forappellate appellate review, review, aaparty
partymust
must make
make aatimely
timely and
and specific
specific objection
objection atatthe
the appropriate
appropriate stage
stage
of ofthe theproceedings proceedings before beforethe
thetrial
trial court.
court. Failure
Failureto
to timely
timelyobject
objectto
to aabasic
basic and
and fundamental
fundamental
error, error, such suchas as an
anerroneous
erroneousjury
juryinstruction,
instruction,will
willresult
resultin
inwaiver
waiverof
ofthat
thatissue.
issue.On
Onappeal,
appeal, the
the
Superior SuperiorCourt Courtwill
willnot
notconsider
consideraaclaim
claimwhich
whichwas
wasnot
notcalled
calledtotothe
thetrial
trialcourt's
court'sattention
attentionatataa
time timewhen whenany anyerror
errorcommitted
committedcould
couldhave
havebeen
beencorrected....
corrected ....By
Byspecifically
specificallyobjecting
objectingtotoany
any
obvious obviouserror, error,the thetrial
trialcourt
courtcan
canquickly
quicklyand
andeasily
easilycorrect
correctthe
theproblem
problemand
andprevent
preventthe
theneed
needfor
for
aanew newtrial.”
trial."Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.McCullum, McCullum,2018
2018WL
WL4062302,
4062302,quoting
quotingFillmore
Fillmorev.v. Hill,
Hill,445
445
Pa.Super. Pa.Super.324, 324,665
665A.2d
A.2d514,
514,515-16
515-16(1995).
(1995).
This ThisCourt Courtsubmits
submitsthat,
that,by
byfailing
failingtototimely
timelyobject
objecttotothe
thejury
juryinstruction,
instruction,Defendant
Defendanthas
has
waived waivedthis thisissue issuefor
forpurposes
purposesof
ofappeal.
appeal.
Q. Q. to each Standing Objection to Side-Bar Ruling each Side-Bar Ruling
Defendant has aa “standing he has
that he
asserts that
next asserts
Defendant next "standing objection” each side-bar to each
objection" to ruling that side-bar ruling was
that was
constitutional rights.
well-established constitutional his well-established against his against rights.
The Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior has clearly Court has
Superior Court that “when stated that
clearly stated court has "when aa court to guess has to what
guess what
when aa
Similarly, when
review. Similarly,
meaningful review.
for meaningful
enough for
not enough
that isis not
appealing, that
defendant isis appealing, issues aa defendant issues
pursued on be pursued to be
sought to
issues sought
the issues
manner the
concise manner
in aa concise
identify in to identify
adequately to
fails adequately
defendant fails defendant on
to those
pertinent to
which isis pertinent
analysis which
legal analysis
ofaa legal
preparation of
its preparation
in its
impeded in
court isis impeded
trial court
the trial
appeal, the appeal, those
issues. statement which concise statement
words, aa concise
other words,
In other
issues. In vague to too vague
which isis too allowthe to allow courtto
the court identifythe to identify the
statement atat all.”
concise statement
no concise ofno
equivalent of
functional equivalent
the functional
appeal isisthe
on appeal
raised on issues raised issues all."
Commonwealthv.v. Dowling, also Commonwealth
seealso
2006);see
Super. 2006);
(Pa. Super.
A.2d 11 (Pa.
907A.2d
Reeves, 907
Commonwealthv.v. Reeves, Commonwealth Dowling,
Super. 2001).
(Pa. Super.
683 (Pa. 2d683
A. 2d 778 A. 778 2001 ).
Defendant forthaadeveloped setforth
failedtotoset
hasfailed
Defendanthas developedlegal thissection argumentininthis
legalargument sectionsupported supported
SectionQQisis
underSection
claimunder
Defendant'sclaim
thatDefendant’s
submitsthat
Courtsubmits
ThisCourt
authority.This
legalauthority.
citationstotolegal withcitations with
ofdevelopment.
lackof
andlack
vaguenessand
forvagueness
waivedfor
claimisiswaived
thisclaim
andthis
reviewable,and notreviewable, not development.
R. R. DefendantDenied Defendant OpportunitytotoPresent DeniedOpportunity Proofof PresentProof EmploymenttotoJury ofEmployment Jury
1.1. StandardofofReview Standard Review
standardofof
[the]standard
evidence,[the]
admissibilityofofevidence, theadmissibility onthe
rulingon
court'sruling
trialcourt's
reviewingaatrial
"Inreviewing “In
deference.Commonwealth ofdeference.
oneof
reviewisisone review Commonwealthv.v.Thompson, Thompson,2014 PASuper
2014PA 273,106
Super273, A.3d742
106A.3d 742(Pa.
(Pa.
"thesound
within“the
arewithin
evidenceare
admissibilityofofevidence theadmissibility
concerningthe
Questionsconcerning
2014). Questions
Ct.2014).
Super.Ct. Super. sound
abuseofof
clearabuse
absenta aclear
reversedabsent
notbebereversed
willnot
discretionwill
anditsitsdiscretion
court,and
trialcourt,
thetrial
discretionofofthe discretion
discretion."Id.Id discretion.”
2. 2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant next next argues
argues that
that his
his constitutional
constitutional rights were were violated because he
he was
was denied
the opportunity to present present proof of employment employment to the
the jury.
jury.
At At trial, trial, Defendant
Defendant sought
sought to introduce documents documents demonstrating
demonstrating Defendant’s Defendant's
employment employment and and sources
sources of
of income.
income. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 752,
752, 4/11/2024.
4/11/2024. Defendant
Defendant argued
argued that
that Agent
Agent
Barna’s Bama's testimony, testimony, stating stating that
that Defendant
Defendant did
did not
not work,
work, was
was untruthful.
untruthful. Id.
Id. at
at 753.
753. After
After the
the
Commonwealth Commonwealth rested, rested, Defendant
Defendant informed
informed the
the Court
Court that
that he
he had
had no
no witnesses
witnesses to
to present
present at
at trial.
trial.
Defendant Defendant further further advised
advised the
the Court
Court that
that he
he did
did not
not intend
intend to
to testify
testify at
at trial.
trial. Id.
Id. at
at 748;
748; see
see also
also
U.S. U.S. Const, Const. amend. V. (“[No amend. V. ("[No person]
person] shall
shall be
be compelled
compelled in
in any
any criminal
criminal case
case to
to be
be aa witness
witness
against against himself.
himself...”).
"). The
The Court
Court conducted
conducted aa colloquy
colloquy to
to ensure
ensure Defendant
Defendant understood
understood both
both his
his
right right to to testify testify and
and his
his right
right to
to remain
remain silent.
silent. Id.
Id. at
at 748-749.
748-749. Both
Both Defendant
Defendant and
andADA
ADAWheeler
Wheeler
stated stated that that they they were
were ready
ready to
to begin
begin closing
closing arguments.
arguments. Id.
Id. at
at 752.
752.
After After the the colloquy,
colloquy, Defendant
Defendant then
then indicated
indicated that
that he
he had
had evidence
evidence that
thathe
he “wanted
"wanted the
the
jury jury to to see”
see" to
to establish
establishhis
his sources
sources of
ofincome.
income. Id.
Id. atat 753.
753. The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth did
didnot
not stipulate
stipulate
to to the the documents documents being being admitted
admitted into
into evidence.
evidence. Id.
Id. atat 753-756.
753-756. “Unless
"Unless stipulated,
stipulated, to
to satisfy
satisfythe
the
requirement requirement of ofauthenticating
authenticating or
oridentifying
identifying an
anitem
itemof
ofevidence,
evidence, the
theproponent
proponentmust
mustproduce
produce
evidence evidence sufficient sufficienttoto support
supportaafinding
findingthat
thatthe
theitem
itemisiswhat
whatthe
theproponent
proponentclaims
claims ititis.”
is."Pa.R.E.
Pa.R.E.
901. 901. Defendant Defendant did didnot
notargue
arguethat
thatthe
thedocuments
documentswhich
whichhe
hesought
soughttotobe
beadmitted
admittedinto
into evidence
evidence
and andshown showntotothe thejury
jurywere
wereself-authenticating.
self-authenticating. See
SeePa.R.E.
Pa.R.E. 902.
902. Defendant
Defendantwas
wasprecluded
precludedfrom
from
entering enteringthe thedocuments
documentsinto
intoevidence
evidencetrial
trialwithout
withoutpresenting
presentingaawitness
witnesstotolay
layaaproper
proper
foundation foundationand andadequately
adequatelyauthenticate
authenticatethe
thedocuments,
documents,ininaccordance
accordancewith
withRule
Rule901.
901. Id.
Id.atat754.
754.
See SeeCommonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Koch, Koch,201 1 PA
2011 PASuper
Super201,
201,39
39A.3d
A.3d996,
996, 1002
1002(Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super.Ct.
Ct.2011)
2011)
("Testimony of (“Testimony of aa witness witness with
with personal
personal knowledge
knowledge that
that aa matter is what
matter is what it
it is
is claimed
claimed to
to be
be can
can be
be
sufficient.”). sufficient.").
For the For reasons set the reasons set forth
forth above, this Court
above, this respectfully submits Court respectfully submits that that its
its ruling
ruling be
be affirmed
affirmed
on the on the merits merits and Defendant’s appeal and Defendant's appeal be be dismissed.
dismissed.
S. S. Rule 600(A)
Rule 600(A) Lack
Lack of
of Due
Due Diligence
Diligence
1. 1. Standard of
Standard of Review
Review
"In evaluating “In evaluating Rule Rule [600]
[600] issues, our standard issues, our of review standard of review of
of aa trial
trial court's
court's decision
decision is
is
whether the whether the trial trial court
court abused
abused its
its discretion.”
discretion." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.
v. Hunt, 858 A.2d
Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234,
1234, 1238
1238 (Pa.
(Pa.
Super. 2004) Super. 2004) (internal (internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).
2. 2. Court's Analysis
Court’s Analysis
Defendant, through Defendant, through counsel, counsel, filed
filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion Motion which
which included
included aa Motion
Motion
to Dismiss Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant to to Pa.R.Crim.
Pa.R.Crim. Rule
Rule 600
600 (Lack
(Lack of
of Due
Due Diligence)
Diligence) on
on July 27, 2023.
July 27, 2023.
Defendant had Defendant had asserted, asserted, pursuant
pursuant to
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, that Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth failed failed to
to exercise
exercise
due diligence in due diligence bringing Defendant in bringing Defendant to
to trial.
trial. See
See Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion,
7/27/23; see 7/27/23; see also Defendant’s Brief also Defendant's Brief in in Support of Defendant’s Support of Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion(s),
Motion(s),
12/1/23. More 12/1/23. More specifically, specifically, Defendant
Defendant contended that the contended that the extensive extensive period
period of
of time
time that
that it
it took
took to
to
execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant
warrant on
on Defendant
Defendant was
was aa result
result of
of the
the Commonwealth’s failure to Commonwealth's failure to act act with
with
the the requisite requisite due due diligence.
diligence. The
The Court
Court held
held aa hearing thereon on hearing thereon on October October 13,
13, 2023. Defendant’s
2023. Defendant's
motion was motion was denied denied by
by way
way of
of Opinion
Opinion and Order entered and Order entered January January 26,
26, 2024.
2024. The reasons for
The reasons for the
the
Court's January Court’s January 26, 2024 Order 26, 2024 Order already
already appear of record in appear ofrecord in said
said Opinion
Opinion and
and Order. Therefore,
Order. Therefore,
this this Court Court hereby hereby incorporates
incorporates the
the same
same as
as its
its Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a) Opinion
Opinion and
and attaches
attaches it
it hereto.
hereto.
For the reasons For the reasons set set forth
forth in
in the
the January
January 26, 2024 Opinion
26, 2024 and Order, Opinion and Order, this
this Court
Court respectfully
respectfully
submits that its submits that order be its order be affirmed
affirmed on
on the
the merits
merits and
and Defendant’s
Defendant's appeal
appeal be
be dismissed.
dismissed.
T. T. Double
Double Jeopardy
Jeopardy Clause Pursuant to Clause Pursuant to 18
18 PA
PA CS
CS 110
110
1. 1. Standard
Standard of Review
of Review
The Superior The Court’s scope Superior Court's scope and and standard
standard of
of review is that
review is that "[
“[a]n appeal grounded
]n appeal grounded in
in
double jeopardy raises double jeopardy raises aa question question of
of constitutional
constitutional law. scope of review law. This Court's scope in making review in making a
determination determination on on aa question
question of
of law
law is,
is, as
as always,
always, plenary.
plenary. As
As with
with all
all questions
questions of
of law,
law, the
the
appellate appellate standard standard of review is
ofreview is de
de novo.”
novo." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Taylor,
Taylor, 120
120 A.3d 1017, 1021
A.3d 1017, 1021 (Pa.
(Pa.
Super. Super. 2015)
2015) (internal (internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).
2. 2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant next
next argues
argues that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth failed
failed to
to file
file all
all of
of the
the criminal
criminal charges
charges at
at
one one time time pursuant pursuant to to 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §110
§110 which
which is
is in
in violation
violation of
of his
his well-established
well-established constitutional constitutional
rights. rights.
Defendant, Defendant, through
through counsel,
counsel, filed
filed an
an Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion
Motion which
which included
included aa Motion
Motion
to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to
to 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §§110
110 on
on July
July 27,
27, 2023.
2023. The
The Court
Court held
held aa hearing
hearing thereon
thereon on
on
October October 13, 13, 2023.
2023. Judge
Judge Costanzo
Costanzo denied
denied the
the motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss by
by way
way of
of Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order
dated dated January January 26, 26, 2024.
2024. The
The reasons
reasons for
for the
the Court’s
Court's January
January 26,
26, 2024
2024 Order
Order already
already appear
appear of
of
record record in in said said Opinion
Opinion and
and Order.
Order. Therefore,
Therefore, this
this Court
Court hereby
hereby incorporates
incorporates the
the same
same as
as its
its
Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a) Opinion
Opinion and
and attaches
attaches itit hereto.
hereto. For
For the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth in
in the
the January
January 26,
26,
2024 2024 Opinion Opinion and and Order,
Order, this
this Court
Court respectfully
respectfully submits
submits that
that its
its order
order be
be affirmed
affirmed on
on the
the merits
merits
and and Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be
be dismissed.
dismissed.
U. U. Cumulative
Cumulative Prosecutorial
Prosecutorial Misconducts Misconducts
1. 1. Standard
Standard of
of Review
Review
“Prosecutorial "Prosecutorial misconduct misconduct is
is evaluated
evaluated under
under aa harmless
harmless error
error standard.”
standard." Commonwealth
Commonwealth
v.v. Santiago-Burgos, Santiago-Burgos, 2024 2024 PA
PA Super
Super 73, 314 A.3d
73,314 A.3d 535, 548 (Pa.
535,548 (Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2024).
2024).
-
2. 2. Court's Analysis
Court’s Analysis
Defendant next Defendant next argues argues that
that Rachel
Rachel Wheeler,
Wheeler, the
the Washington
Washington County
County Assistant
Assistant District
District
Attorney who Attorney who served served as
as the
the prosecutor
prosecutor at
at trial,
trial, engaged
engaged in
in “blatant
"blatant and
and cumulative prosecutorial cumulative prosecutorial
misconducts" throughout misconducts” throughout the the case.
case. Defendant,
Defendant, in
in his
his Concise
Concise Statement,
Statement, fails
fails to
to cite
cite to
to specific
specific
incidents to incidents to support support his
his claim.
claim. Rather,
Rather, Defendant
Defendant states
states that
that the prosecutorial misconduct the prosecutorial misconduct has has
been so been so “egregiously outrageous” that "egregiously outrageous" that it it is
is impossible to give
impossible to give specific specific examples
examples of
of the
the
misconduct. See misconduct. See Defendant’s Defendant's 1925(b) Concise Statements, 1925(b) Concise Statements, Section Section U.
U.
The standard The standard for for the
the grant of aa new
grant of new trial
trial as
as aa result
result of
of prosecutorial
prosecutorial misconduct
misconduct is
is very
very
strict. strict. Our Our appellate appellate court
court has
has repeatedly
repeatedly stated
stated that:
that: “[t]o
"[t]o prevail
prevail on
on aa prosecutorial
prosecutorial misconduct
misconduct
claim, Defendant claim, Defendant must must show
show the
the prosecutor's
prosecutor's actions
actions had
had the
the unavoidable
unavoidable effect
effect of
of undermining
undermining
the fact-finder's the fact-finder's neutrality neutrality so
so as
as to preclude aa true
to preclude true verdict.”
verdict." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Philistin,
Philistin, 617
617 Pa.
Pa.
358, 387, 53 358,387, 53 A.3d 1, 17 A.3d 1, 17 (2012),
(2012), citing
citing to
to Commonwealth v. Kennedy, Commonwealth v. 598 Pa.
Kennedy, 598 Pa. 621, 959 A.2d 621,959 A.2d 916,
916,
923-24 (2008). 92324 (2008).
Defendant, in Defendant, in his his “Direct
"Direct Appeal” brief, cites Appeal" brief, cites to
to specific
specific incidents
incidents to
to support
support his
his claim
claim of
of
prosecutorial misconduct. prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant Defendant broadly
broadly asserts
asserts that
that ADA
ADA Wheeler
Wheeler knowingly
knowingly and
and willfully
willfully
elicited “false elicited perjurious testimony”
"false perjurious from Washington testimony" from Washington County Drug Task County Drug Task Force
Force Supervisor
Supervisor
Richard Gluth, to Richard Gluth, to support support the
the use of “knowingly
use of "knowingly fraudulent fraudulent fabricated
fabricated evidence
evidence control
control logs”
logs"
during trial. during trial. See See Defendant’s
Defendant's Direct
Direct Appeal,
Appeal, Prosecutorial
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Misconduct.
With With respect respect to
to “prosecutorial
"prosecutorial misconduct,”
misconduct," Defendant
Defendant has
has established
established nothing
nothing by way of
by way of
facts or evidence facts or evidence to to show
show that
that the
the evidence
evidence control
control logs
logs were
were somehow
somehow fabricated
fabricated or
or changed.
changed.
To the To the contrary, contrary, as as set
set forth
forth in Section G
in Section G above,
above, extensive
extensive testimony
testimony and
and evidence
evidence was
was presented
presented
at trial relating at trial relating to to the
the evidence control logs.
evidence control logs. There There is simply no
is simply in the testimony in no testimony the record record which
which
would establish would establish that that these
these documents
documents were
were fabricated.
fabricated.
Defendant Defendant next next argues
argues that
that ADA
ADA Wheeler
Wheeler elicited
elicited “perjurious
"perjurious preliminary
preliminary hearing
hearing
testimony double testimony double hearsay”
hearsay" from
from Officer
Officer Fichter at the
Fichter at the preliminary preliminary hearing
hearing on
on May
May 3,
3, 2023.
2023.
Defendant again Defendant again sets sets forth
forth an
an entirely
entirely undeveloped
undeveloped legal
legal argument,
argument, with
with no
no citation
citation to relevant
to relevant
legal authority, legal authority, that that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth suppressed
suppressed exculpatory
exculpatory evidence
evidence at
at the preliminary
the preliminary
hearing hearing stage stage by by not
not calling
calling certain
certain witnesses
witnesses to
to testify
testify at
at that
that hearing. Defendant cites hearing. Defendant cites to to
Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Bazemore, Bazemore, 531
531 Pa. 582 (1992)
Pa. 582 (1992) is
is support
support of
of his
his argument.
argument. In Bazemore,
Bazemore, the
the
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court
Court held
held that
that the transcript of
the transcript of prior
prior testimony
testimony from
from aa preliminary
preliminary
hearing of hearing of an an unavailable Commonwealth witness unavailable Commonwealth witness was was not
not admissible
admissible at
at trial
trial where
where the
the
Commonwealth failed Commonwealth failed to to disclose
disclose to
to the
the defense
defense vital
vital impeachment
impeachment evidence
evidence regarding
regarding this
this
witness prior to witness prior to the the preliminary
preliminary hearing.
hearing. Defendant’s reliance on Defendant's reliance on Bazemore Bazemore to
to support
support his
his claim
claim
is is entirely entirely misplaced.
misplaced. Defendant
Defendant also
also cites
cites to
to United
United States
States v.
v. Rispo,
Rispo, where
where the
the United
United States
States
Court of Court of Appeals, Appeals, Third Circuit, Court Third Circuit, Court stated stated that
that “the
"the district
district attorney
attorney knowingly
knowingly concealed
concealed the
the
exculpatory testimony exculpatory testimony of of an
an eye
eye witness
witness to
to aa crime.
crime. If
If the
the district
district attorney
attorney had
had knowingly
knowingly used
used
perjured testimony, perjured testimony, there there would
would have
have been
been grounds
grounds for
for an
an automatic reversal.” 460 automatic reversal." 460 F.2d F.2d 965,
965, 974
974
(3d Cir. 1972). (3d Cir. 1972). In In the
the instant
instant case,
case, there is no
there is no record
record evidence
evidence to
to demonstrate
demonstrate that
that ADA
ADA Wheeler
Wheeler
knowingly knowingly concealed concealed exculpatory
exculpatory testimony
testimony or
or knowingly
knowingly elicited
elicited perjured
perjured testimony.
testimony. There
There is
is
no no testimony testimony to to support
support the
the claim
claim that
that ADA
ADA Wheeler
Wheeler knowingly
knowingly elicited
elicited perjurious
perjurious testimony
testimony at
at
the the preliminary preliminary hearing.
hearing.
Defendant Defendant also also contends
contends that
that ADA
ADA Wheeler
Wheeler presented
presented aa “fabricated
"fabricated fraudulent
fraudulent warrant
warrant
service log” service log" at at trial.
trial. Defendant’s
Defendant's argument
argument is misplaced. As is misplaced. As set
set forth
forth in
in Section
Section K
K above,
above, the
the
Commonwealth did Commonwealth did not not present
present Officer
Officer Fichter’s
Fichter's arrest
arrest service
service log
log at
at trial.
trial. Defendant
Defendant sought
sought to
to
use aa copy use copy of of the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant service log to
service log to cross-examine cross-examine Officer
Officer Fichter
Fichter at
at trial.
trial. This Court
This Court
precluded the precluded the line line of
of questioning
questioning in
in response
response to
to an objection raised
an objection raised by
by the
the Commonwealth. TT,
Commonwealth. TT,
vol. vol. II, II, 505, 505, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Defendant’s
Defendant's line
line of
of questioning
questioning was
was precluded based on
precluded based on concerns concerns that it
that it
would would confuse confuse the the issues
issues for
for the jury. The
the jury. The line
line of
of questioning
questioning was also irrelevant was also irrelevant to
to the issue of
the issue of
guilt guilt or or innocence.
innocence.
Officer Fichter testified Officer Fichter testified at at an Omnibus Pretrial
an Omnibus Hearing as Pretrial Heating as to
to the
the way he documented
way he documented
attempts attempts to to serve serve the
the warrant by writing
warrant by writing the
the list
list of
of dates
dates on
on the
the inside
inside of
of his
his case file. Omnibus
case file. Omnibus
Pretrial Pretrial Hr’g Hr' Tr., Tr., 108-109,
108-109, 10/13/2023.
10/13/2023. Defendant
Defendant references
references this
this list of attempts
list of attempts to
to serve
serve the
the
warrant warrant as as an an arrest
arrest warrant
warrant service
service log.
log. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. I,
1, 232,
232, 4/9/24.
4/9/24. With
With respect
respect to
to “prosecutorial
"prosecutorial
misconduct,” misconduct," Defendant Defendant has
has established
established nothing
nothing by
by way
way of facts or
of facts or evidence
evidence to
to show
show that
that Officer
Officer
Fichter’s Fichter's arrest arrest warrant
warrant service
service log
log was
was fabricated
fabricated or
or changed.
changed.
This This Court Court submits
submits that,
that, for
for the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth above,
above, there
there is
is no
no merit
merit to
to Defendant's
Defendant's
claim claim of of prosecutorial prosecutorial misconduct.
misconduct.
U. U. Suggestive Suggestive Single
Single Photo
Photo Identification
Identification Procedure
Procedure99
1. 1. Standard
Standard of
of Review
Review
“When "When determining determining the
the admissibility
admissibility of
of identification
identification testimony, testimony, this
this Court
Court has
has held
held that
that
suggestiveness suggestiveness in in the
the identification
identification process
process is
is aa factor
factor to
to be
be considered
considered in
in determining
determining the
the
admissibility admissibility of of such
such evidence,
evidence, but
but ‘suggestiveness
'suggestiveness alone
alone does
does not
not warrant
warrant exclusion.’
exclusion.' A
A pretrial
pretrial
identification identification will will not
not be
be suppressed
suppressed as
as violative
violative of
of due
due process
process rights
rights unless
unless the
the facts
facts
demonstrate demonstrate that that the
the identification
identification procedure
procedure was
was so
so infected
infected by
by suggestiveness
suggestiveness ‘as
'as to
to give
give rise
rise to
to
aa substantial substantial likelihood likelihood of
of irreparable
irreparable misidentification.’”
misidentification.'" Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Kubis,
Kubis, 2009
2009 PA
PA
Super Super 140, 140, 978 978 A.2d
A.2d 391, 396 (Pa.
391,396 (Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2009)
2009) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).
9Defendant’s Defendant's 1925(b)
1925(b) Concise
Concise Statement
Statement categorizes
categorizes two
two (2)
(2) separate
separate claims
claims as
as Section
Section “U.”
9 "U."
2. 2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant next next argues
argues that
that the
the single
single suggestive photo identification suggestive photo identification procedure procedure utilized
utilized
by law by law enforcement enforcement during during its
its investigation
investigation was
was highly prejudicial to highly prejudicial to Defendant Defendant and
and gave
gave rise to
rise to
aa very very substantial substantial likelihood likelihood of
of irreparable
irreparable wanton
wanton misidentification.
misidentification.
An An unlawfully unlawfully obtained
obtained pretrial
pretrial identification
identification will
will be
be excluded from trial
excluded from trial if
if its
its
admissibility admissibility is is raised
raised in
in aa pretrial
pretrial motion
motion and
and ruled
ruled upon
upon by
by the
the Court
Court in
in aa pretrial
pretrial evidentiary
evidentiary
hearing. hearing. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.
v. Jenkins,
Jenkins, 232
232 Pa.Super.
Pa.Super. 523
523 ((1975).
((1975). The
The Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Supreme
Supreme
Court Court has has clearly clearly stated
stated that
that where
where aa defendant
defendant did
did not,
not, either
either before or during
before or during trial,
trial, raise
raise the
the
issue issue that that the the pretrial
pretrial identification
identification procedure
procedure used
used by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement was
was impermissibly
impermissibly
suggestive, suggestive, the the issue
issue was
was waived.
waived. See
See Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Harris,
Harris, 479
479 Pa.
Pa. 131
131 (1978).
(1978).
Defendant Defendant filed filed an
an Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial motion
motion in
in this
this case,
case, however
however that
that motion
motion did
did not
not
relate relate to to the the pretrial
pretrial identification
identification issue.
issue. See
See Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion, 7/27/2023.
7/27/2023.
Furthermore, Furthermore, this this evidence
evidence was
was not
not objected
objected to
to at
at the time it
the time it was
was introduced
introduced at
at trial.
trial. Defendant
Defendant
cites cites to to Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Dupont, Dupont, No.
No. 721
721 MDA
MDA 2019,
2019, 2020
2020 WL
WL 886133
886133 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Feb.
Feb. 24,
24,
2020), 2020), superseded, superseded, 237 237 A.3d
A.3d 426
426 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2020)
2020) and
and Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Small,
Small, 741
741 A.2d
A.2d 666
666
(Pa. (Pa. 1999)
1999) in in his
his “Direct
"Direct Appeal”
Appeal" brief
brief to
to support
support his
his argument.
argument. Defendant
Defendant fails
fails to
to recognize
recognize
that that the the legal legal authority authority that
that he
he uses
uses to
to support
support his
his argument
argument involve
involve pretrial
pretrial identification
identification issues
issues
which which were were addressed addressed by
by the
the Court
Court at
at aa suppression
suppression hearing.
hearing.
This This Court Court submits
submits that,
that, for
for the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth above,
above, Defendant
Defendant has
has waived
waived this
this issue.
issue.
V. V. Failing Failing to
to Disclose
Disclose GPS
GPS Tracker
Tracker Information is aa Brady Information is Brady Violation Violation
1. 1. Standard
Standard of Review
of Review
Whether Whether aa Brady Brady violation
violation warrants
warrants aa new
new trial presents aa question trial presents question of of law,
law, for
for which
which the
the
standard standard of of review review is
is de
de novo
novo and
and the
the scope of review
scope of review is plenary. See is plenary. See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.
v. Bagnall,
Bagnall,
661 661 Pa.
Pa. 123, 235 A.3d 123,235 A.3d 1075 (2020).
1075 (2020).
2. 2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis
Defendant Defendant argues argues that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth purposely
purposely failed
failed to
to disclose, prior to
disclose, prior to trial, trial,
evidence evidence regarding regarding the the use
use of
of the
the GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device
device such
such as
as affidavits,
affidavits, warrants
warrants and/or
and/or court
court
orders orders in in violation violation of
of his
his constitutional
constitutional right
right to
to due
due process
process as
as recognized
recognized in
in Brady
Brady v. Maryland,
v. Maryland,
373 373 U.S.
U.S. 83, 83, 83 83 S.Ct.
S.Ct. 1194
1194 (1963).
(1963).
“(T]o "[T]o establish establish aa Brady
Brady violation,
violation, aa defendant
defendant is
is required
required to
to demonstrate
demonstrate that
that exculpatory
exculpatory
or or impeaching impeaching evidence, evidence, favorable
favorable to
to the
the defense,
defense, was
was suppressed
suppressed by
by the
the prosecution,
prosecution, to
to the
the
prejudice prejudice of of the
the defendant.”
defendant." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Gibson,
Gibson, 597
597 Pa.
Pa. 402,
402, 429,
429, 951
951 A.2d
A.2d 1110,
1110, 1126
1126
(2008). (2008). In other other words:
words: “there
"there are
are three
three necessary
necessary components
components that
that demonstrate
demonstrate aa violation
violation of
of
the the Brady Brady strictures:
strictures: the
the evidence
evidence was
was favorable
favorable to
to the
the accused,
accused, either
either because
because itit is
is exculpatory
exculpatory
or or because because itit impeaches;
impeaches; the
the evidence
evidence was
was suppressed
suppressed by
by the
the prosecution,
prosecution, either
either willfully
willfully or
or
inadvertently; inadvertently; and and prejudice
prejudice ensued.”
ensued." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Lambert, Lambert, 884
884 A.2d
A.2d 848
848 (Pa.
(Pa. 2005),
2005),
citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Burke.
Burke. 781
781 A.2d
A.2d 1136,
1136, 1141 (Pa.2001).
1141 (Pa.2001). To
To show
show prejudice,
prejudice, it
it must
must be
be
established established that that the
the new
new information
information “would
''would have
have changed
changed the
the outcome
outcome of
of the
the trial
trial if
if itit had
had been
been
introduced.” introduced." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Sattazahn, Sattazahn, 869
869 A.2d
A.2d 529,
529, 534
534 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2005).
2005).
With With respect respect to
to the
the first
first prong,
prong, Defendant
Defendant clearly
clearly fails
fails to
to establish
establish that
that the
the information
information
relating relating to to the the use
use of
of the
the GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device
device is
is favorable
favorable to
to Defendant
Defendant because
because itit is
is exculpatory.
exculpatory.
In In the the present present case, case, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth did
did not
not present
present any
any evidence
evidence to
to the
the jury
jury that
that aa GPS
GPS
tracking device was was utilized
utilized by law
law enforcement
enforcement during the six six controlled
controlled buys
buys which resulted
resulted in
in
the fding filing of charges charges against
against Defendant.
Defendant. Defendant
Defendant also fails to demonstrate how how this
information would serve to impeach Agent Agent Barna,
Barna, or any of the law
law enforcement
enforcement witnesses at
at
trial, trial, when their testimony strictly strictly related to physical physical surveillance of the controlled buys.
buys.
With respect respect to the second prong, prong, namely,
namely, that
that the prosecution suppressed the evidence, evidence,
either either willfully or or inadvertently,
inadvertently, the
the record evidence demonstrates demonstrates that
that Defendant
Defendant was
was not
not
provided information, information, in discovery, discovery, regarding law
law enforcement’s
enforcement's utilization of aa tracking device
during during their their investigation.
investigation. The
The record
record evidence further
further demonstrates
demonstrates that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth was
was
unaware unaware of of the the use of
of aa tracking
tracking device
device and
and was
was not
not in
in possession of
of these
these documents
documents prior
prior to
to
trial. trial. As As aa result, result, the
the information
information was
was not
not turned
turned over
over to
to Defendant
Defendant in
in pre-trial
pre-trial discovery.
discovery. TT,
TT,
vol. vol. II, II, 7, 7, lines lines 6-25,
6-25, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna testified
testified that
that he
he did
did not
not turn
turn over
over to
to the
the Washington
Washington
County County District District Attorney’s Attorney's office,
office, in
in discovery,
discovery, any
any information
information regarding
regarding the
the tracking
tracking device
device
utilized utilized by by the the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Office
Office of
ofAttorney
Attorney General.
General. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. I,I, 21,
21, 4/9/24.
4/9/24. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna
testified testified that that the
the GPS
GPS tracker
tracker was
was not
not used
used as
as evidence
evidence for
for anything
anything other
other than
than furthering
furthering the
the
investigation. investigation. Agent Agent Barna
Barna further
further explained
explained that
that the
the GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device
device was
was not
not used
used during
during
the the controlled controlled buys buys relating
relating to
to Defendant’s
Defendant's case;
case; instead,
instead, law
law enforcement
enforcement only
only utilized
utilized physical
physical
surveillance surveillance for for the
the controlled
controlled buys.
buys. Id.
Id. at
at 25.
25.
Pursuant Pursuant to to Brady
Brady and
and its
its progeny,
progeny, the
the prosecutor
prosecutor “has
"has aa duty
duty to
to learn
learn of
ofany
any favorable
favorable
evidence evidence known known to to the
the others
others acting
acting on
on the
the government's
government's behalf
behalfin
in the
the case,
case, including
including the
the
police.” police." Kyles Kyles v.• Whitley, Whitley, 514
514 U.S.
U.S. 419,
419, 437,
437, 1
115 S.Ct.
S.Ct. 1555,
1555, 131
131 L.Ed.2d
L.Ed.2d 490
490 (1995).
(1995). However,
However,
there there isis “no "no constitutional
constitutional requirement requirement that
that the
the prosecution
prosecution make
make aa complete
complete and
and detailed
detailed
accounting accounting to to the
the defense
defense of
ofall
all police
police investigatory
investigatory work
work on
on aa case.”
case." Moore
Moore v.v. Illinois,
Illinois, 408
408 U.S.
U.S.
786, 786, 795, 795, 92 92 S.Ct.
S.Ct. 2562,
2562, 33
33 L.Ed.2d
L.Ed.2d 706
706 (1972).
(1972). “The
"The mere
mere possibility
possibility that
that an
an item
item of
of
undisclosed undisclosed information information might
might have
have helped
helped the defense, or
the defense, or might
might have affected the
have affected the outcome outcome of
of
the the trial, does not trial, does not establish establish ‘materiality’
'materiality' in
in the
the constitutional sense.” United constitutional sense." United States v.
v. Agurs,
Agurs, 427
427
U.S. U.S. 97, 97, 109-10, 109-10, 96 96 S.Ct.
S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d
2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). As 342 (1976). As set
set forth
forth in
in Kyles,
Kyles, there
there is
is no
no
constitutional constitutional requirement requirement that
that the
the prosecution
prosecution make
make aa complete
complete accountings
accountings to
to the
the defense
defense of all
of all
police police investigatory investigatory work work performed
performed by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement in
in this case, such
this case, such as
as the
the use
use of
of aa
tracking tracking device, device, when when the
the device
device was
was only
only used
used to
to further
further the
the investigation
investigation and
and not
not utilized
utilized
during during the the six six controlled
controlled buys.
buys.
Defendant’s Defendant's argument argument is
is lacking
lacking as
as it
it relates
relates to
to the
the third
third Brady prong. Under
Brady prong. Under the
the third
third
prong, prong, Defendant Defendant must must establish
establish that
that the
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's failure
failure to
to disclose
disclose information,
information,
including including the the affidavit,
affidavit, warrant
warrant and/or
and/or court
court order
order relating
relating to
to the
the use
use of
of aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device,
device,
prejudiced prejudiced Defendant Defendant at
at trial.
trial. “To
"To satisfy
satisfy the
the prejudice
prejudice inquiry,
inquiry, the
the evidence
evidence suppressed
suppressed must
must
have have been been material material to
to guilt
guilt or
or punishment.”
punishment." Gibson,
Gibson, 951
951 A.2d
A.2d at
at 1126-1 127 (Pa.2008).
1126-1127 (Pa.2008). “Where "Where
evidence evidence material material to to the
the guilt
guilt or
or punishment
punishment of
of the
the accused
accused is
is withheld,
withheld, irrespective
irrespective of
of the
the good
good
or or bad bad faith faith of of the
the prosecutor,
prosecutor, aa violation
violation of
of due
due process
process has
has occurred.”
occurred." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v.
Strong, Strong, 563 563 Pa.
Pa. 455, 462, 761
455,462, 761 A.2d
A.2d 1167,
1167, 1171
1171 (2000)
(2000) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted)
omitted) (emphasis
(emphasis
added). added). “(F]avorable "[F]avorable evidence evidence is
is material,
material, and
and constitutional
constitutional error
error results
results from
from its
its suppression
suppression
by by the the government, government, if if there
there is
is aa reasonable
reasonable probability
probability that,
that, had
had the
the evidence
evidence been
been disclosed
disclosed to
to
the the defense, defense, the the result
result of
of the
the proceeding
proceeding would
would have
have been
been different.”
different." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Cam
Cam Ly,
Ly,
602 602 Pa.
Pa. 268, 294, 980 268,294, 980 A.2d A.2d 61,
61, 76
76 (2009),
(2009), citing
citing to
to Kyles
Kyles v.v. Whitley,
Whitley, 514
514 U.S.
U.S. 419,
419, 433^434,
433-434, 115
115
S.Ct. S.Ct. 1555, 1555, 131 131 L.Ed.2d490
L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).
(1995).
Here, Here, Defendant Defendant has
has failed
failed to
to demonstrate,
demonstrate, in
in any
any specific
specific way,
way, how
how the
the information
information
regarding regarding the the tracking
tracking device
device was
was material
material or
or would
would have
have changed
changed the
the outcome
outcome of
of the
the trial.
trial. As
As
set set forth forth above, above, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth did
did not
not present
present any
any evidence
evidence to
to the
the jury
jury that
that aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking
device was was utilized utilized by law
law enforcement
enforcement during the six six controlled
controlled buys.
buys. It is the defendant's
burden to demonstrate the materiality of the evidence.
evidence. See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Santiago, Santiago, 654 A.2d
1062, 1062, 1072 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 1994).
1994).
This This Court Court submits
submits that,
that, for the reasons
reasons set
set forth above,
above, Defendant’s
Defendant's claim
claim should be
dismissed. dismissed.
Defendant Defendant cites to Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Chamberlain, Chamberlain, that
that states “the
"the Due
Due Process
Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment requires
requires defendants
defendants be
be provided
provided access
access to
to certain kinds
kinds of evidence
prior prior to trial, trial, so they may may ‘be
'be afforded a meaningful meaningful opportunity to to present
present a complete
complete defense.’”
defense.'"
612 612 Pa.
Pa. 107, 107, 142, 142, 30
30 A.3d
A.3d 381,
381, 402
402 (201
(201 1)
1) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted). Defendant
Defendant fails
fails to
to
acknowledge, acknowledge, however, however, that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth did
did not
not submit
submit evidence
evidence to
to the
the jury
jury of
of the
the
tracking tracking device device at at trial.
trial. Defendant
Defendant fails
fails to
to set
set forth
forth and
and articulate
articulate in
in his
his Concise
Concise Statement
Statement or
or
written written “Direct "Direct Appeal”
Appeal" brief
brief how
how disclosure
disclosure of
of the
the affidavit,
affidavit, warrant
warrant and/or
and/or court
court order
order
regarding regarding the the use
use of
of aa tracking
tracking device
device by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement during
during its
its investigation
investigation would
would have
have
resulted resulted in in aa different different outcome
outcome at
at trial.
trial. Therefore,
Therefore, Defendant’s
Defendant's claim
claim must
must fail.
fail.
W. W. Ineffective Ineffective Assistance
Assistance of
of Pretrial
Pretrial Counsel
Counsel
Defendant Defendant next next contends
contends that
that his
his prior
prior attorney,
attorney, Adam
Adam Yarussi,
Yarussi, Esquire,
Esquire, was
was ineffective
ineffective
for for failing failing to to obtain
obtain preliminary
preliminary hearing
hearing transcripts
transcripts for
for use
use in
in drafting
drafting an
an Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial
Motion Motion and and Motion Motion to
to Set
Set Bail.
Bail. Defendant
Defendant also
also argues
argues that
that Yarussi
Yarussi failed
failed to
to properly
properly raise
raise and
and
preserve preserve the the statute
statute of
oflimitations
limitations issue
issue regarding
regarding counts
counts 77 through
through 12
12 (simple
(simple possession)
possession) of
ofthe
the
Bill Bill of ofInformation.
Information.
The The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme
Supreme Court
Court has
has clearly
clearly stated
stated that
that “ineffectiveness
"ineffectiveness claims
claims are
are not
not to
to
be be raised raised in in the
the first
first instance
instance on
on direct
direct appeal
appeal but
but must
must await
await collateral
collateral review.”
review." Commonwealth
Commonwealth
v.v. Crosby, Crosby, 844 844 A.2d
A.2d 1271
1271 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2004).
2004). The
The Supreme
Supreme Court
Court has
has held,
held, however,
however, that
thatwhere
where
the trial court court has
has held a hearing on a claim claim of trial counsel's ineffectiveness, ineffectiveness, and the record has has
been fully developed on that that issue,
issue, it is appropriate for this Court Court to review
review an ineffectiveness
claim claim on direct direct appeal.
appeal. Id., citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Bomar,
Bomar, 573 Pa.
Pa. 426,
426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003).
(2003).
Here, Here, Defendant Defendant has
has raised ineffective assistance of counsel counsel claims
claims for the first time in
his Direct Direct Appeal.
Appeal. See Defendant’s
Defendant's 1925(b)
1925(b) Concise Statement, Statement, Section V.
V. The
The trial
trial court
court has
has
not not held aa hearing on Defendant’s Defendant's claims
claims of pretrial
pretrial counsel's ineffectiveness.
ineffectiveness. As
As the record has
has
not not been fully fully developed regarding this issue, issue, this Court
Court suggests
suggests that
that it is not
not appropriate for
for the
Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania to review
review these claims
claims on
on direct
direct appeal.
appeal.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
For For the reasons reasons set
set forth
forth above,
above, the
the undersigned
undersigned respectfully
respectfully submits
submits that
that the judgment
judgment of
of
sentence sentence should should be be affirmed.
affirmed.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2024
n-, :1..4
1'. "l CI
&
IN INTHE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON
COMMONPLEAS
PLEAS OF
OFWASHINGTON
WASHINGTON COUNTY.
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEALTH OF OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, ))
))
vv. )) No.
No. 746-2023
746-2023
))
JASON JASON WOODALL, WOODALL, ))
))
Defendant. Defendant. ))
OPINION OPINION AND
AND ORDER
ORDER
This This matter matter comes
comes before
before the
the Court
Court upon
upon Defendant,
Defendant, Jason
Jason Woodall’s
Woodall 's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial
Motion. Motion. By By way way of
of an
an amended
amended Bill
Bill of Information filed oflnfonnation filed on
on December
December 20,
20, 2023,
2023, the
the
Commonwealth Commonwealth charged charged Defendant
Defendant with
with six
six counts
counts of
ofPossession
Possession with
with Intent
Intent to
to Deliver
Deliver aa
Controlled Controlled Substance, Substance, cocaine,
cocaine, 35
35 P.S.
P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(30), an 780-113(a)30), an ungraded ungraded Felony;
Felony; and
and six
six counts
counts of
of
Possession Possession of of aa Controlled
Controlled Substance,
Substance, cocaine,
cocaine, 35
35 P.S.
P.S. §$ 780-113(a)(16),
780-113(a)016), an
an ungraded
ungraded
1
Misdemeanor. Misdemeanor.1
Defendant Defendant filed filed the
the instant
instant Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion on July 27,
27, 2023,
2023, and the
the Court
Court held
aa hearing hearing thereon thereon on
on October
October 13,
13, 2023.
2023. Present
Present at
at this
this hearing
hearing were
were Rachel
Rachel Wheeler,
Wheeler, Esquire,
Esquire,
representing representing the the Commonwealth,
Commonwealth, and
and Adam
Adam Yarussi,
Yarussi, Esquire,
Esquire, representing Defendant.
Defendant. At
At the
the
close of the hearing, hearing, this Court
Court ordered
ordered both parties
parties to submit
submit proposed
proposed findings
findings of fact
fact and
conclusions conclusions of of law
law thirty days
days after
after the
the filing
filing of the
the official
official transcript.
transcript. The
The official
official transcript
transcript of
the Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Hearing was was filed
filed on November
November 9,
9, 2023.
2023. Thereafter,
Thereafter, Defendant
Defendant and
the Commonwealth timely submitted their proposed proposed findings of fact fact and conclusions
conclusions of law.
law.
Upon examining examining the relevant relevant facfehfidlla^lthis'
faclh01l6,this!'( Court.
ti~issues 6 the following opinion and order, order.
g;:
t; SLUB
al 03 J 2 gp;pp i • -. i'-
i·
'On 1On December December 20, 20, 2023,
2023, the
the Commoig&aS
Cormo~&a di a9i2>Wt81i9Snd S%lfblnd the the original original Bill
Bill of
of Information
Information filed
filed on
on May
May
15, 2023 15, 2023 in order order to
to clarify
clarify the
the date
date ranges corresponding to ranges corresponding to the the Possession
Possession of
of aa Controlled
Controlled Substance
Substance charges.
charges. This
This
Court Court subsequently subsequently granted granted the
the Commonwea^li’s.,motion.
Commonwealth'smgtion. _
{
gs:;5 «
p->
g.j us?} 3:
!
'•>»? .urf %h a t
i
f '
CONCLUSIONS LAW
OF LAW
CONCLUSIONS OF
I.I. to Dismiss Motion to Motion Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant Rule 600 to Rule 600
The Dismiss to Dismiss
Motion to
Motion isis aa Motion
Pretrial Motion
Omnibus Pretrial
his Omnibus
in his
Defendant in by Defendant
raised by
issue raised
first issue
The first
Pursuant basedupon 600 based
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600
to Pa.R.Crim.P.
Pursuantto assertionthat his assertion
uponhis the Commonwealth that the has failed Commonwealth has to failed to
exercise diligenceininbringing duediligence
exercisedue Defendanttoto trial.
bringingDefendant See Omnibus trial. See Pre-Trial Motion, OmnibusPre-Trial 7/27/23;
Motion, 7/27/23;
See alsoBrief Seealso BriefininSupport Defendant'sOmnibus ofDefendant’s
Supportof Pre-TrialMotion(s), OmnibusPre-Trial More 12/1/23.More
Motion(s), 12/1/23.
specifically, extensiveperiod theextensive
thatthe
contendsthat
Defendantcontends
specifically,Defendant timethat oftime
periodof tooktotoexecute thatitittook the executethe
arrest the withthe
actwith
failuretotoact
Commonwealth'sfailure
theCommonwealth’s ofthe
resultof
theresult
wasthe
Defendantwas onDefendant
warranton arrestwarrant
requisite duediligence. requisitedue Forthe Id.For
diligence.Id. theforegoing Defendant'sclaim reasons,Defendant’s
foregoingreasons, lacksmerit claimlacks thatwould meritthat would
himtotorelief.
entitlehim entitle relief.
The rightotoa aspeedy Theright "oneofofthe trialisis“one
speedytrial mostbasic themost basicrights
rightspreserved ourConstitution.”
byour
preservedby Constitution."
Commonwealth Barbour,189 Commonwealthv. v.Barbour, 954(Pa.
994,954
A.3d994,
189A.3d (Pa.2018) omitted)."The citationsomitted).”
(internalcitations
2018)(internal The
government's government powertotodetain exerciseofofitsitspower s exercise individualduring detainananindividual pendencyofofa acriminal thependency
duringthe criminal
prosecution burdenupon heavyburden
placesa aheavy
prosecutionplaces accused.Id.Id.AsAssuch, theaccused.
uponthe "thespeedy such,“the guarantee‘is'is trialguarantee
speedytrial
safeguardtotoprevent
importantsafeguard ananimportant andoppressive undueand
preventundue priortototrial, incarcerationprior
oppressiveincarceration minimize trial,totominimize
anxiety concernaccompanying andconcern
anxietyand accompanyingpublic andtotolimit accusationand
publicaccusation thepossibilities limitthe thatlong possibilitiesthat delay longdelay
will ’” Id.Id.
himself.'"
defendhimself.
accusedtotodefend
ananaccused
abilityofof
impairthetheability willimpair
Rule600, Rule which 600,which forth
setsforth sets thethespeedy trialrequirements, speedytrial requirements, provides,inin provides, pertinent pertinent part,asas
part,
follows:
follows:
: Ha0 N[IN9HA-
Rule Rule 600.Prompt 600. Prompt
•
Trial
i ]. ·±
Trialg;ypp' Trial^,
·>
m.rs4:a
bid Hu j j-j yri'.'}
+' •
W1 3 ’to {l
(A)(2)(a) (A)(2)(a) Trial idin,a copt a court case in in
ggse, which
which @ written complaint is filed against the defendant, a written complaint is filed against the defendant, when the defend~nt when the defendant iS'at ;&k idls} 6d%~tsk~ commence no later than 365 days from the daditm^Js^E commence no later than 365 days from the date onon date which
which th?th~ complaint complaint
I
is filed. is filed.
' j l 8 I fi w *«* 8&
•i ' 2
(C)(1) (C)(l) For For purposes
purposes of
of paragraph
paragraph (A),
(A), periods
periods of
of delay
delay at
at any
any stage
stage of
of the
the proceedings
proceedings
caused by caused the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth when when the the Commonwealth
Commonwealth has has failed to exercise failed to exercise due
due
diligence shall be diligence shall be included included in the computation in the computation of the time of the time within
within which trial must which trial must
commence. commence. AnyAny other other periods
periods of
of delay
delay shall
shall be excluded from
be excluded the computation.
from the computation.
(D)(l) When (D)(1) When aa defendant defendant has has not
not been
been brought to trial brought to trial within
within the
the time
time periods
periods set
set forth
forth in
in
paragraph (A), paragraph (A), anyat at any time
time before
before trial,
trial, the
the defendant’s
defendant's attorney,
attorney, or
or the
the defendant
defendant if
if
unrepresented, may unrepresented, may file file aa motion
motion requesting that the requesting that the charges charges be
be dismissed
dismissed with
with prejudice
prejudice
on the on the ground ground that this rule
that this rule has
has been
been violated.
violated. AA copy
copy of
of the
the motion
motion shall
shall be
be served
served on
on the
the
attorney for attorney the Commonwealth for the Commonwealth concurrently concurrently with
with filing.
filing. The judge shall
The judge shall conduct conduct aa
hearing hearing on on the
the motion.
motion.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.
As As the the text text of
of Rule
Rule 600
600 makes
makes clear,
clear, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth is
is generally
generally required to bring required to bring aa
defendant to trial defendant to trial within 365 days within 365 days from
from tlie
the date on which
date on the criminal which the criminal complaint complaint was
was filed.
filed.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). Where Where the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth fails to bring fails to bring aa defendant to trial defendant to trial within within
the time prescribed the time prescribed by the rule, by the rule, he
he may
may request
request that the charges
that the against him charges against him be
be dismissed
dismissed with
with
prejudice on prejudice on the the grounds that the
grounds that the Commonwealth Commonwealth has
has violated
violated Rule
Rule 600. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1).
600. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)1 ).
Under the old Under the old version version of Rule 600,
of Rule 600, aa court
court assessing
assessing aa Rule 600 claim Rule 600 was to
claim was to account
account for
for two
two
mutually mutually exclusive exclusive categories:
categories: “excludable
"excludable time”
time and “excusable delay.”
and "excusable delay." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.
Wiggins, 248 Wiggins, 248 A.3d A.3d 1285,
1285, 1288
1288 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2021). “Excludable time"
2021). "Excludable time” was was defined
defined by
by our
our
appellate courts appellate courts as as “delay
"delay that
that is
is attributable to the
attributable to the defendant defendant or
or his
his counsel[,]”
counsel[,]" whereas
whereas
'excusable delay” "excusable delay" was was defined
defined as
as “delay that occurs
"delay that occurs as
as aa result
result of
of circumstances
circumstances beyond the
beyond the
Commonwealth’s control Commonwealth's control and and despite its due
despite its due diligence.” Id. at diligence." Id. at 1288-1289 1288-1289 (internal
(internal citations
citations
omitted). omitted).
However, following However, following alterations to Rule alterations to Rule 600,
600, “(t]he
"[t]he new
new Rule
Rule 600 eliminated distinction 600 eliminated distinction
between between these these-two two buckets
buck~ts of^p^a^j^
ofgpyah}s time. Under $@l9\la9lg time. Under its its new
new verbiage,
verbiage, ‘periods of
'periods of
; S!gg I uj
delay at delay at any stage of any stage of the* proceedings the]proceedin causedby by the caused' the Commonwealth
Commonwealth when the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth
ihas ; gs2J 92N, h7a , has failed failed to to exercise
exercise due diligence'W duei diligence W'f
forms forris the
i basis of what tl~'b~d'of what is
is known
known as time.'’
includable time.
as 'includable
Conversely, all Conversely, all other other periods
periods of
of delay
delay are
are excluded
excluded from
from the
the Rule
Rule 600
600 calculation.”
calculation." Wiggins,
Wiggins, 248
248
A.3d at A.3d at 1289.
1289.
Thus, “when Thus, "when aa court court is
is faced
faced with
with aa Rule
Rule 600
600 motion
motion asserting
asserting aa facial
facial violation
violation of
of the
the new
new
Rule 600, Rule 600, the the onus
onus is
is on
on the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth to demonstrate that to demonstrate that it engaged in it engaged in due
due diligence
diligence in
in at
at
least least being being capable capable of
of bringing
bringing aa defendant
defendant to
to trial
trial within
within the
the prescribed
prescribed time
time parameters.”
parameters."
Wiggins, 248 Wiggins, A.3d at 248 A.3d at 1289.
1289. In showing
showing that
that the
the Commonwealth acted with Commonwealth acted with due due diligence,
diligence, it
it must
must
prove so by prove so by aa preponderance preponderance of
of the
the evidence.
evidence. Id.
Id. Further,
Further, “[d]ue
"[d]ue diligence
diligence is
is aa fact-specific
fact-specific
concept that concept that must must be
be determined
determined on
on aa case-by-case
case-by-case basis.
basis. Due
Due diligence
diligence does
does not
not require
require perfect
perfect
diligence and diligence and punctilious care, but punctilious care, but rather rather aa showing
showing by
by the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth that
that aa reasonable
reasonable
effort has effort has been been put
put forth.” Id.
forth." Id.
Turning to Turning to the the instant
instant matter,
matter, die
the evidence
evidence introduced by the introduced by the Commonwealth Commonwealth and
and adduced
adduced
through through the the testimony testimony at
at the
the hearing
hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion, established, by Motion, established, by aa
preponderance of preponderance of the evidence, that the evidence, that the
the investigating
investigating officers
officers in
in this
this matter
matter acted
acted with
with due
due
diligence in diligence executing the in executing the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant for
for Defendant.
Defendant.
On March On March 2, 2, 2021,
2021, aa criminal complaint was criminal complaint was filed filed against
against Defendant
Defendant in
in the
the present
present matter.
matter.
Contemporaneously, an Contemporaneously, arrest warrant an arrest warrant was
was issued
issued for
for Defendant,
Defendant, listing
listing 556
556 Sunnyfield
Sunnyfield Drive,
Drive,
Monroeville, Pennsylvania Monroeville, Pennsylvania as as Defendant’s
Defendant's place
place of residence. Ultimately, ofresidence. Ultimately, Defendant Defendant was
was
arrested on arrested on the the warrant
warrant on
on April
April 14,
14, 2023.
2023.
With With regard regard to
to the
the efforts
efforts of
of law enforcement to
law enforcement execute the to execute the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant on
on Defendant,
Defendant,
Agent Agent Joseph Joseph Barna Barna of
of the
the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office credibly testified Office credibly testified at at the
the
;; . V4 NO!9NIHSV-
Vd 03 N019N1HW
03
hearing on hearing Defendant's,initiafik's'sell'if@at on Defendant’s |initial^(^l£omWsteb^ following the following the issuance
issuance of
of the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant
for for Defendant, Defendant, he notifi'ed he nous% afiiK,Nd.$
ea tl^^rMsLvSS P^i&©®epartment, if&Department, Penn
Penn Hills Police Department, Hills Police Department,
i
I
Plum Plum Boro Bora Police Police Department,
Department, as
as well
well as
as various
various other
other police
police departments
departments in
in surrounding
surrounding areas
areas
of ofthe the warrant warrant and and provided
provided them
them with
with aa description
description of
ofDefendant’s
Defendant's vehicle
vehicle to
to assist
assist in
in the
the
2
apprehension apprehension of of Defendant.
Defendant. Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit
Exhibit 22 at
at 32: 6-3 ,
32:16-33:1.2
Agent Agent Barna
Barna further
further credibly
credibly testified
testified at
at the
the bail
bail hearing
hearing regarding
regarding his
his knowledge
knowledge of
ofthe
the
efforts efforts that that the the Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department
Department went
went to
to in
in executing
executing the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant on
on
Defendant, Defendant, specifically specifically stating
stating that,
that, “Monroeville
"Monroeville definitely
definitely stopped
stopped there
there and
and very
very proactive
proactive
guys were guys were looking, looking, but
but his
his vehicle
vehicle didn’t come back
didn't come back [to
[to the
the residence.]
residence.] He
He simply
simply moved
moved away.
away.
There was There was surveillance surveillance done
done on
on the
the residence, and he
residence, and he wasn’t
wasn't viewed
viewed coming
coming or
or going
going from
from the
the
residence residence anymore anymore like
like he
he was
was before
before in
in the
the past.”
past." Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Exhibit
Exhibit 22 at
at 34:7-12.
34:7-12. Agent
Agent
Barna Barna also also provided provided credible
credible testimony
testimony regarding
regarding efforts
efforts on
on the
the part
part of
of investigating
investigating officers
officers to
to
track track down down Defendant Defendant through
through other
other individuals,
individuals, including
including Defendant’s
Defendant's girlfriend,
girlfriend, which
which
evidently evidently were were to
to no
no avail.
avail. Id.
Id. at
at 35:14-24.
35:14-24.
At At the
the hearing
hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion,
Motion, Agent
Agent Barna
Barna again
again provided
provided
further further credible credible testimony testimony concerning
concerning the
the efforts
efforts that
that his
his office
office put
put into
into executing
executing Defendant’s
Defendant's
arrest warrant, arrest warrant, stating stating that
that he,
he, as
as well as other
well as other agents,
agents, had
had spent
spent countless
countless hours
hours attempting
attempting to
to
)
locate locate and and serve serve the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant on
on Defendant.
Defendant. Hrg.
Hrg. Tr.,
Tr., 10/13/23
10/13/23 at
at 46:15-19.
46:15-19.
The The testimony
testimony provided
provided by
by Agent
Agent Barna
Barna regarding
regarding the
the efforts
efforts on
on the
the part
part of
of the
the
Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department
Department to
to execute
execute the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant on
on Defendant
Defendant was
was bolstered
bolstered by
by the
the
testimony testimony of of Sergeant
Sergeant Steven
Steven Maritz
Maritz of
of the
the Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department,
Department, who
who testified
testified that
that his
his
department, department, on on numerous
numerous occasions,
occasions, attempted
attempted to
to execute
execute the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant by
by visiting
visiting
!
. } '{gg±24g Defendant’s Defendant's residence at residence aft 556
556 3\jfi8Ihjj~ g Tr, 10/13/23 10/13/23 at
at 84:9-15.
84:9-15.
- -&S £S:?
ZW nd 92NF7p7.
The transcript The 2 transcript of of Defendant’s initial bail Defendant's initial hearing held bail hearing held on
on June
June 20,
20, 2023
2023 was
was introduced
introduced and
and admitted
admitted at
at the
the hearing
hearing
on -~ cl
on Defendant’s Derendanrs Omnibus omnibus Pritrial
Pr~tia! MotiQn",as,.“Cornmonxyealth’s Mo"g"pSomgonweattt s Exhibit Exhibit 2.”
2.°
: UMlhl ' wt a.d.
? i ~
a~l
t 5
l
I
In addition to In addition to the the efforts
efforts on
on the
the part
part of
of Agent
Agent Barna and Sergeant
Barna and Sergeant Maritz, Maritz, Detective
Detective
Joseph Joseph Fichter Fichter of of the
the Washington
Washington County
County District
District Attorney’s Drug Task Attorney's Drug Task Force provided credible Force provided credible
testimony testimony at at the
the initial
initial bail
bail hearing
hearing regarding
regarding his
his efforts to execute
efforts to execute the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant on
on
Defendant. Defendant. Specifically, Specifically, Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter credibly
credibly testified that on testified that on four separate occasions, four separate occasions, he he
personally personally attempted attempted to
to execute
execute the
the arrest
arrest warrant.
warrant. Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Exhibit
Exhibit 22 at
at 45:13-46:3.
45:13-46:3. In
In
addition addition to to attempting attempting personal
personal service
service of
of the
the arrest
arrest warrant,
warrant, Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter provided
provided aa copy
copy
of of the the warrant warrant to to the
the Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department,
Department, and notified the and notified the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Attorney
Attorney
General’s General's Office Office after
after obtaining
obtaining the
the warrant.
warrant. Id.
Id. at
at 46:4-13.
46:4-13.
Detective Detective Fichter’s Fichter's testimony,
testimony, along
along with
with the
the testimony
testimony of
of the
the other
other law
law enforcement
enforcement
officials, officials, concerning concerning their
their efforts
efforts to
to execute
execute the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant were
were further
further bolstered
bolstered by
by
Detective Detective Fichter’s Fichter's credible
credible testimony
testimony at
at the
the hearing
hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion
regarding regarding the the dates
dates on
on which
which he
he was
was notified
notified of,
of, or
or personally
personally attempted
attempted to
to serve
serve the
the warrant.
warrant.
Specifically, Specifically, Detective Detective Fichter
Fichter testified
testified that
that attempts
attempts by
by the
the investigating
investigating officers
officers to
to execute
execute the
the
arrest arrest warrant warrant on on Defendant
Defendant occurred
occurred on
on March
March 9,
9, 2021,
2021, March
March 17,
17, 2021,
2021, May
May 17,
17, 2021,
2021, August
August
2, 2, 2021, 2021, January January 17, 17, 2022,
2022, December
December 5,
5, 2022,
2022, and
and January
January 31,
31, 2023.
2023. Hrg.
Hrg. Tr.,
Tr., 10/13/23
10/13/23 at
at
110:24-115:8. 110:24-115:8. In addition addition to
to bolstering
bolstering the
the credibility
credibility of
of the
the officers’
officers' testimony,
testimony, the
the
aforementioned aforementioned testimony testimony regarding
regarding the
the dates
dates on
on which
which attempts
attempts were
were made
made to
to execute
execute the
the arrest
arrest
warrant warrant demonstrate demonstrate an an exhaustive
exhaustive effort
effort on
on the
the part
part of
of the
the investigating
investigating officers
officers to
to serve
serve the
the
warrant. warrant.
Further, Further, Detective Detective Ficlrter
Fichter credibly
credibly testified
testified that
that along
along with
with the
the efforts
efforts on
on the
the part
part of
of the
the
investigating investigating officers officers to
to personally
personally
t
^^e*i^^a]t^£daw exggutethg v I, rltWi gap@p;law
t enforcement
enforcement officials
officials regularly
regularly
[ in is;r I siunob
.siH jfmrin qjygg .xi .r • ii
attempted attempted to to ascertain
ascertain new
new addresses
addresses for
for Defendant,
Defendant, utilizing
utilizing PennDOT,
PennDOT, Google,
Google, andand other
other
€s?2 92NF 02,
platforms. platforms. Hrg.Tr., Hrg.Tr., 10/13/23
10/13/23 at
at 125:6-11.
125:6-11. Despite
Despite these
these efforts,
efforts, investigating
investigating officers
officers were
were unable
unable
to to obtain obtain an an address
address for
for Defendant
Defendant aside
aside from
from the
the 556
556 Sunnyfield
Sunnyfield Drive
Drive address.
address.
Lastly, Lastly, Detective Detective Richard
Richard Gluth
Gluth of
ofthe
the Washington
Washington County
County District
District Attorney’s
Attorney's Drug
Drug Task
Task
Force also Force also provided provided credible
credible testimony
testimony of
ofthe efforts on
the efforts on the
the part
part of
ofthe
the investigating
investigating officers
officers to
to
execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant
warrant on
on Defendant.
Defendant. Specifically,
Specifically, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth credibly
credibly testified
testified that
that he
he
emailed emailed and and faxed faxed the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant to
to the
the Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department.
Department. Hrg.Tr.,
Hrg.Tr., 10/1 3/23 at
10/13/23 at
129:21-130:8. 129:21-130:8. Detective Detective Gluth
Gluth further
further credibly
credibly testified
testified that
that he
he was
was notified
notified on
on numerous
numerous
occasions occasions by by Detective
Detective James
James Monkelis
Monkelis of
ofthe
the Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department
Department regarding
regarding the
the
continuing continuing attempts attempts to
to execute
execute the
the arrest
arrest warrant.
warrant. Id.
Id. at
at 130:9-131:5.
130:9-131:5.
As As the the aforementioned
aforementioned testimony
testimony firmly
firmly established,
established, the
the investigating
investigating officers
officers in
in this
this
matter matter acted acted with with aa significant
significant degree
degree of
of due
due diligence
diligence in
in executing
executing the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant on
on
Defendant. Defendant. The The credible
credible testimony
testimony provided
provided by
by the
the investigating
investigating officers
officers at
at the
the initial
initial bail
bail
hearing hearing on on June June 20,
20, 2023
2023 and
and at
at the
the hearing
hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion
demonstrated demonstrated an an organized
organized and
and exhaustive
exhaustive effort
effort on
on the
the part
part of
of various
various investigating
investigating offices
offices and
and
police police departments departments to to attempt
attempt to
to ascertain
ascertain the
the whereabouts
whereabouts of
of Defendant
Defendant and
and serve
serve the
the arrest
arrest
warrant. Although warrant. Although the the attempts
attempts to
to serve
serve the warrant on
the warrant on Defendant
Defendant at
at his
his only
only known
known address
address at
at
556 556 Sunnyfield Sunnyfield Drive Drive were
were fruitless,
fruitless, the
the investigating
investigating officers
officers nevertheless
nevertheless continued
continued to
to surveille
surveille
and and attempt attempt service service at
at the
the residence.
residence. Additionally,
Additionally, the
the investigating
investigating officers
officers regularly
regularly engaged
engaged in
in
efforts efforts to to attempt attempt to
to locate
locate Defendant
Defendant elsewhere,
elsewhere, continuously
continuously checking
checking for
for an
an updated
updated address
address
and and investigating investigating leads leads into
into Defendant’s
Defendant's known
known associates,
associates, including
including his
his girlfriend.
girlfriend. The
The fact
fact that
that
the the investigating investigating officers officers were
were unable
unable to
to effectuate
effectuate service
service at
at Defendant’s
Defendant's only
only known
known address
address
j; W 03 N013NIHSW
Vd NIB!IHSY
was was by by no no means means the
the fault
fault of
of aa lack
lack of
of Sde^3iTi^ehB&‘oik^^
@l'@f1gel@e~kt&ir part, part, but but rather,
rather, because
because Defendant
Defendant
“coincidentally” "coincidentally" decided decided to
to move to Skillen@iK{kt@Ke move' to S&f^H^eniJ^Onl^ Sae . same
same month
month that
hat the
the warrant
warrant for
for
his arrest his arrest was was issued
issued and
and failed
failed to
to update
update his address at
his address at any
any point
point thereafter.
thereafter.33
While While Rule
Rule 600
600 was
was
designed designed to to protect protect the
the accused’s
accused's right
right to
to aa speedy
speedy trial,
trial, “the
"the administrative
administrative mandate
mandate of
ofRule
Rule
[600] [600] was was not not designed
designed to
to insulate
insulate the
the criminally
criminally accused
accused from
from good
good faith
faith prosecution
prosecution delayed
delayed
through through no no fault fault of
of the
the Commonwealth.”
Commonwealth." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Hunt,
Hunt, 858
858 A.2d
A.2d 1234,
1234, 1239
1239 (Pa.
(Pa.
Super. Super. 2004)
2004) (internal (internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).
Accordingly, Accordingly, for for the
the aforementioned
aforementioned reasons,
reasons, Defendant’s
Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to
Rule Rule 600 600 is is without without merit.
merit.
II. II. Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 110
110
The The second second issue issue raised
raised by
by Defendant
Defendant in
in his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion is
is aa motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss
two of two of the the six six counts
counts of
of Possession
Possession with Intent to with Intent to Deliver
Deliver aa Controlled
Controlled Substance
Substance and
and two
two of
of the
the
six six counts counts of of Possession
Possession of
of aa Controlled
Controlled Substance
Substance that
that occurred
occurred in
in Allegheny
Allegheny County,
County, based
based
upon upon his his contention contention that that prosecution
prosecution of
of said
said charges
charges is
is barred
barred by
by 18Pa.C.S.
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 110.
110. See
See Omnibus
Omnibus
Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/23.
7/27/23. More
More specifically,
specifically, Defendant
Defendant argues
argues that
that because
because the
the aforementioned
aforementioned
charges charges occurred occurred in in Allegheny
Allegheny County,
County, said
said charges
charges should
should have
have been
been brought
brought in
in Allegheny
Allegheny
County County while while Defendant Defendant was
was under
under investigation
investigation at
at Allegheny
Allegheny County
County Docket
Docket Number
Number
CP-020CR-0004608-2020. CP-020CR-0004608-2020. Id.
Id.
In In an an order order dated
dated November
November 9,
9, 2023,
2023, this
this Court
Court directed
directed both
both Defendant
Defendant and
and the
the
Commonwealth Commonwealth to to file
file aa brief
brief regarding
regarding the
the issues
issues raised
raised by
by Defendant
Defendant in
in his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial
Motion. Motion. See See Order Order Directing
Directing Briefs
Briefs to
to be
be Filed,
Filed, 11/9/23.
11/9/23. Curiously,
Curiously, Defendant
Defendant wholly
wholly failed
failed to
to
,.
develop, let develop, let alone alone mention,
mention, the
the instant
instant issue
issue in his brief.
in his brief. As
As such,
such; due
due to
to Defendant’s
Defendant's failure
failure to
to
- i• WOMOINIMSVI Vd 03 N010NIHSW .
3Per Defendant’s Per Defendant's testimony testimony at
at the
the hearing
hearing on
on Def^d^ifi^ifioHon’tcrsgfb'ail Def@di@9foti~ t~$@fbail held held on on June
June 20,
20, 2023,
2023, Defendant,
Defendant,
himself, stated himself, stated that that the
the 556
556 Sunnyfield
Sunnyfield Drive
Drive address was his
address was his only
only address
address since
since 1988.
1988. Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Exhibit
Exhibit 22 at
at
23:21-24:10. While 23:21-24:10. While Defendant Defendant diddid testify
testify that h^m^d to^h^^iil^q^lyan^ that hggy?] tpshgppygsy#yania, doing doing so
so quite
quite significantly
significantly in
in
March of March of 2021 2021 when
when the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant wad issud,' inqicatea was issuecfhe uiat ne amnot ind~ate'ht'e dd'hot update update his
his address
address from
from the
the 556
556
Sunnyfield Sunnyfield Drive Drive address.
address. Id.
Id. at
at 8:10-9:5;
8:10-9:5; 24:5-10.
24:5-10.
.. g
sufficiently sufficiently develop develop his
his Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 110
110 and
and present
present legal
legal
argument argument in in support support thereof,
thereof, Defendant
Defendant has
has waived
waived the
the issue.
issue.
Even Even assuming assuming arguendo that that Defendant
Defendant properly
properly preserved
preserved the
the present
present issue
issue for
for
consideration, consideration, the the motion
motion nevertheless
nevertheless fails
fails on
on its
its merits.
merits. 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §§ 110
110 provides,
provides, as
as follows:
follows:
§110. $110. When When prosecution
prosecution barred
barred by
by former
former prosecution
prosecution for
for different
different offense
offense
Although Although aa prosecution prosecution isis for
for aa violation
violation of
of aa different
different provision
provision of
of the
the statutes
statutes than
than aa
former prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution fonner prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution under under the the following
following circumstances:
circumstances:
(1) ( 1) The
The former
former prosecution
prosecution resulted
resulted in in an
an acquittal
acquittal or or in
in aa conviction
conviction as as defined defined in in
section section 109109 of of this this title
title (relating
(relating to to when
when prosecution
prosecution barredbarred by by former former
prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution isis for: prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution for: (i) () any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the the
first first prosecution;
prosecution;
(ii) (ii) any offense based any offense based on on the the same
same conduct
conduct or or arising
arising fromfrom thethe samesame criminal criminal episode,
episode, if if such
such offense
offense waswas known
kown to to the
the appropriate
appropriate
prosecuting prosecuting officerofficer at at the the time
time ofof the
the commencement
commencement of of the the first
first trial
trial
and occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution and occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution unless unless the the court
court ordered
ordered aa separate
separate trial
trial of
ofthe
the charge
charge of of such
such offense
offense
or the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or or the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted acquitted was was aa summary summary offense offense or or aa summary summary traffictraffic offense;
offense; or or
(iii) (iii) thethe same
same conduct,
conduct, unless:
unless:
(A) (A) the the offense
offense of ofwhich
which the the defendant
defendant was was formerly fonnerly convicted
convicted or or
acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each each requires
requires proof
proof of ofaa fact
fact not
not required
required by by the
the other
other andand thethe law
law
defining defining eacheach of ofsuch such offenses
offenses isis intended
intended to to prevent
prevent aa
substantially substantially different
different harmharm or or evil;
evil; or
or
(B) (B) thethe second
second offense
offense was was not
not consummated
consummated when when the the former former trialtrial
began. began.
(2) (2) The
The former
formerprosecution
prosecution was was terminated, terminated, afterafter the the indictment
indictment was was found, found, by by an
an
acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant which has not been acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant which has not been set set aside,
aside, reversed
reversed or or vacated
vacated and and which
which acquittal,
acquittal, final
final order
order or orjudgment
judgment
necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact which must necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact which must bebe established for conviction of the second offense. established for conviction of the second offense.
(3) (3) The
The former
formerprosecution
prosecution was was improperly improperly terminated,
terminated, as as improper impropertermination
termination isis
defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecutio'n former prosecution . for^g^q^i^n^ for the [same
veueu1ah4st' offense?), the subsequent ad the subsequentprosecution prosecution isis for for an an offense
offense of ofwhich
which theS&t&®9^t‘^uic^
the @lbf~id@ntcoil-jive been been convicted convicted had had the the former former
prosecution not been improperly terminated. prosecution not been improperly terminated.
:8 18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. 8$ 110.
110.
£s·? 92 r zaz
At At the the hearing hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion, Sergeant Meritz Motion, Sergeant provided testimony Meritz provided testimony
regarding the regarding charges filed the charges against Defendant filed against Defendant in in Allegheny County at
Allegheny County at docket docket number
number
CP-020CR-0004608-2020. CP-020CR-0004608-2020. Specifically, Specifically, Sergeant
Sergeant Meritz credibly testified Meritz credibly that in testified that in 2020,
2020, he
he filed
filed
“traffic "traffic and and possession possession charges”
charges" against
against Defendant
Defendant in Allegheny County.
in Allegheny County. Hrg. Tr., 10/13/23 Hrg. Tr, at
10/13/23 at
79:15-80:2. 79: 15-80:2. Relevantly, Relevantly, with
with respect
respect to
to the
the disposition of the
disposition of the Allegheny County case, Allegheny County case, Sergeant Sergeant
Meritz Meritz credibly credibly testified testified that
that the
the charges
charges were
were nolle
nolle prossed
prossed due
due to changes in
to changes in case
case law
law
governing governing vehicle vehicle searches.
searches. Id.
Id. at
at 80:3-17.
80 :3-17. Thus,
Thus, because
because the
the Allegheny County case Allegheny County case did did not
not
result result in in an an acquittal,
acquittal, conviction,
conviction, or
or final
final order
order or
or judgment
judgment for
for Defendant
Defendant as
as Section
Section 110
110
mandates, mandates, but but rather,
rather, was
was nolleprossed,
nolle prossed, prosecution prosecution of
of the
the four
four charges
charges related
related to
to Allegheny
Allegheny
County County in in the the instant
instant matter
matter is
is not
not barred
barred by
by Section
Section 110.
110. Accordingly,
Accordingly, Defendant’s
Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to
Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 110 is
110 is without
without merit.
merit.
III. III. Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to 42
42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 5552(a)
5552(a)
In In Defendant’s Defendant's brief, brief, he
he appears
appears to
to raise,
raise, for
for the
the first
first time,
time, aa motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss counts
counts seven
seven
through through twelve twelve of of the
the Bill
Bill of
of Information
Information pursuant
pursuant to
to 42
42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 5552(a).
5552(a). See
See Brief
Brief in
in Support
Support
of Defendant’s Omnibus ofDefendant's Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s),
Motion(s), 12/1/23.
12/1/23. Defendant,
Defendant, however,
however, is
is estopped
estopped from
from
raising raising said said issue issue at
at this
this juncture,
juncture, as
as he
he failed
failed to
to properly
properly raise
raise the
the issue
issue in
in his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial
Motion. Motion.
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rule Rule of
of Criminal
Criminal Procedure
Procedure 578
578 (Omnibus
(Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion for
for Relief)
Relief)
expressly expressly states states that,
that, “all
"all pretrial
pretrial requests
requests for
for relief
relief shall
shall be
be included
included in
in one
one omnibus
omnibus pretrial
pretrial
motion.” motion." Pa.R.Crim.P.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 578.
578. Per
Per Rule
Rule 578,
578, Defendant
Defendant was
was required
required to
to raise
raise his
his motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss
; !
pursuant pursuant to to 42 42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 5552(a)
5552(a) in
ij his
his &h@fl&Bill9M~ltion. Having Having failed
failed to
to do
do so,
so, the
the
; SI0
·w)_40 27
.:¢_i,
Court Court shall shall not not consider
consider the
the merits
merits thercof,_as, the issue the;epf,3ps,[he has been issue,hgs bpeen waived.
waived.
ES· Hd S?Hf WAZ
IV. IV. Motion Motion to
to Dismiss:
Dismiss: Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
The The third third issue issue raised
raised by
by Defendant
Defendant in
in his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion is
is aa motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss
two of two of the the six six counts
counts of
of Possession with Intent Possession with Intent to to Distribute
Distribute aa Controlled
Controlled Substance
Substance and
and two
two of
of
the the six six counts counts of ofPossession
Possession of
of aa Controlled
Controlled Substance
Substance for
for lack
lack of
ofvenue
venue and
and subject
subject matter
matter
jurisdiction. jurisdiction. See See Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion, 7/27/23.
7/27/23. More
More specifically,
specifically, Defendant
Defendant argues
argues that
that
because because these these four four charges
charges stemmed
stemmed from
from conduct
conduct occurring
occurring in
in Allegheny
Allegheny County,
County, this
this Court
Court
lacks lacks subject subject matter matter jurisdiction
jurisdiction over
over the
the prosecution
prosecution of
of said
said charges
charges and
and further,
further, that
that venue
venue isis
improper improper in in Washington Washington County.
County. Id.
Id.
Interestingly, Interestingly, Defendant, Defendant, again,
again, entirely
entirely fails
fails to
to develop,
develop, let
let alone
alone mention,
mention, the
the instant
instant issue
issue
in his in his brief.
brief. The The Court
Court need
need only
only reiterate that itit directed reiterate that directed Defendant Defendant to
to brief
brief the
the issues
issues that
that he
he
raised raised in in his his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion.
Motion. See
See Order
Order Directing
Directing Briefs
Briefs to
to be
be Filed,
Filed, 11/9/23.
11/9/23.
Accordingly, Accordingly, due due to
to Defendant’s
Defendant's failure
failure to
to develop
develop his
his motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss for
for improper
improper venue
venue and
and
lack lack of of subject subject matter matter jurisdiction
jurisdiction and
and provide
provide any
any legal
legal arguments
arguments thereto,
thereto, said
said issue
issue has
has been
been
waived. waived.
Regardless, Regardless, had had Defendant
Defendant preserved
preserved his
his Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss for
for Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of
Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, said
said motion
motion is
is nonetheless
nonetheless without
without merit.
merit. Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Rule
Rule of
of
Criminal Criminal Procedure Procedure 130 130 (Venue;
(Venue; Transfer
Transfer of
of Proceedings)
Proceedings) provides,
provides, in
in pertinent
pertinent part:
part:
Rule Rule 130.
130. Venue;
Venue; Transfer
Transfer of
of Proceedings
Proceedings
(A) (A) Venue.
Venue. AllAll criminal
criminal proceedings
proceedings in in summary summary and
and court
court cases
cases shall
shall be
be brought
brought
before before the
the issuing
issuing authority
authority for for the
the magisterial
magisterial district
district in
in which
which the
the offense
offense isis
alleged alleged toto have
have occurred
occurred or
or before
before anan issuing
issuing authority
authority on on temporary temporary assignment
assignment
to to serve
serve such
such magisterial
magisterial district,
district, subject,
subject, however,
however, to to the
the following
following exceptions:
exceptions:
!, . H4p}NI@uryp
V.t,1 .Ji.' ;Jmn�v · h . d occur . more than (3) When charges (3)wh .en charges ansing arising{fpii}@$@j@jjjjjal1 episode episode occur in in more l one
than one
judicial judicial district,
district, theicriminal
the'criminal proceeding
proceeding bn on all
all the
the charges
charges may
may be
be brought
brought before
before
one one issuing
issuing authority
authority injagn^i^ri^^fr^ in@gv@it[gris?jj#yithin any any of of the
the judicial
judicial districts
districts in
in
which which the
the charges
charges arising
arising from
from the the same
same criminal
criminal episode
episode occurred.
occurred.
raw, j «
(B) (B) Transfer of Proceedings Proceedings in Court
Court Cases
Cases.
(1) Prior
Prior to
to the
the completion of
of the
the preliminary hearing:
hearing:
(a) (a) When
When charges
charges arising
arising from
from aa single
single criminal
criminal episode,
episode, which
which occurred
occurred in
in
more more than one
one judicial
judicial district,
district,
(ii) (ii) are
are filed
filed in
in one
one judicial
judicial district,
district, upon
upon the
the filing
filing of
of aa written
written agreement
agreement
by by the
the attorneys
attorneys forfor the
the Commonwealth,
Commonwealth, the the proceedings proceedings shall
shall be
be
transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by the the
attorneys attorneys forfor the
the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth.
Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 130.
130.
At At the
the hearing
hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion,
Motion, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth introduced
introduced aa
“McPhail "McPhail Letter”
Letter'' that
that was
was sent
sent from
from the
the Washington
Washington County
County Office
Office of
ofthe
the District
District Attorney
Attorney to
to
Rebecca Rebecca Spangler, Spangler, Esquire,
Esquire, First
First Assistant
Assistant District
District Attorney
Attorney at
at the
the Allegheny
Allegheny County
County District
District
Attorney’s Attorney's Office. 4As Office." As evidenced
evidenced by
by said
saidletter,
letter, on
on January
January 13,
13, 2021,
2021, the
the Washington
Washington County
County
Office Officeof ofthe theDistrict
District Attorney
Attorney contacted
contactedthe
theAllegheny
Allegheny County
CountyDistrict
DistrictAttorney’s
Attorney's Office
Office to
to
request requestthat thatAllegheny Allegheny County
Countycede
cedejurisdiction
jurisdiction over
overthe
theinstant
instantmatter
matterand
andpennit
permitthe
the
Washington WashingtonCounty County Office
Officeof
ofthe
theDistrict
DistrictAttorney
Attorneytotoproceed
proceedwith
withthe
theprosecution
prosecutionof
ofthe
thepresent
present
charges, charges,including includingthose
thosethat
thatare
arealleged
allegedtotohave
haveoccurred
occurredininAllegheny
AlleghenyCounty,
County,pursuant
pursuanttotoRule
Rule
130. 130.See SeeCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'sExhibit
Exhibit 1.1.Per
Peran
anemail
emailfrom
fromRebecca
RebeccaSpangler,
Spangler,Esquire,
Esquire,on
onJanuary
January
15, 15,2021, 2021,the theAllegheny
AlleghenyCounty
CountyDistrict
DistrictAttorney’s
Attorney'sOffice
Officeinformed
informedthe
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
County
Office Officeof ofthe theDistrict
DistrictAttorney
Attorneythat
thatAllegheny
AlleghenyCounty
Countyconsented
consentedtotoceding
cedingjurisdiction
jurisdictionand
and
prosecution prosecutionof ofthe
theinstant
instantmatter
mattertotothe
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyOffice
Officeof
ofthe
theDistrict
DistrictAttorney.
Attorney.Id.
Id.
Accordingly, Accordingly,asasevidenced evidencedby
bythe
theMcPhail
McPhailLetter
Lettersent
sentby
bythe
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyOffice
Officeof
ofthe
the
District DistrictAttorney, Attorney,and
andthe
theAllegheny
AlleghenyCounty
CountyDistrict
DistrictAttorney’s
Attorney'sOffice’s
Office'sresponse
responsethereto,
thereto,the
the
Commonwealth, Commonwealth,ininaccordance accordanceand andcompliance compliancewith
withRule
Rule130,
130,properly
properlytransferred
transferredthe
theinstant
instant
t }] Vd03NOJLBNIHgVM.
SI;n
{QI5NJ&; r si "$? ii
\i i7
proceedings proceedingstotoWashington WashingtonCoUnty. !J I
t
County. 'Si =i i;
£G:2 N 92NE a
4The ' The“McPhail Letter”
"McPhail Letter"was wasintroduced
introducedand
andadmitted
admittedatatthe
thehearing on Defendant’s hi~~ring'''f' Defendant'sOmnibus OmnibusPretrial
PretrialMotion
Motionasas
“Commonwealth’s "Commonwealth'sExhibit Exhibit1.”
1" .
,
I
V. V. Motion to Reveal Reveal Confidential
Confidential Informant
Informant Identity
The The fourth issue raised by Defendant Defendant in his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion is a motion motion to reveal
reveal
the identity of the confidential confidential informant
informant in
in this
this matter.
matter. See
See Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion, 7/27/23.
7/27/23.
For For the the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion is
is without
without merit.
merit.
“Under "Under Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rule
Rule of
of Criminal
Criminal Procedure
Procedure 573,
573, aa trial
trial court
court has
has the
the discretion
discretion to
to
require require the the Commonwealth Commonwealth to
to reveal
reveal the
the names
names and
and addresses
addresses of
ofall
all eyewitnesses,
eyewitnesses, including
including
confidential confidential informants, informants, where
where aa defendant
defendant makes
makes aa showing
showing of
ofmaterial
material need
need and
and
reasonableness])]” reasonableness[.]" Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Marsh,
Marsh, 997
997 A.2d
A.2d 318,
318, 321
321 (Pa.
(Pa. 2010)
2010) (internal
(internal citations
citations
omitted) omitted) (emphasis (emphasis added).
added). Rule
Rule 573
573 relevantly
relevantly states:
states:
Rule Rule 573.
573. Pretrial
Pretrial Discovery
Discovery and
and Inspection
Inspection
(B) (B) Disclosure
Disclosure by
by the
the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth.
(2) (2)Discretionary
Discretionary With
With the
the Court.
Court.
(a) (a) In
In all
all court
courtcases,
cases, except
exceptasas otherwise
otherwise provided
provided ininRules
Rules 230
230
(Disclosure of Testimony Before Investigating Grand Jury) and (Disclosure of Testimony Before Investigating Grand Jury) and 556.10 556.10 (Secrecy;
(Secrecy; Disclosure),
Disclosure), ififthe
the defendant
defendantfiles
files aamotion
motion forfor
pretrial discovery, the court may order the Commonwealth to allow pretrial discovery, the court may order the Commonwealth to allow the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy the defendant's attorney to inspect and copy or photograph any of or photograph any of the thefollowing
followingrequested
requesteditems,
items, upon
upon aashowing
showingthat
thatthey
they are
are
material to the preparation of the defense, and that the request isis material to the preparation of the defense, and that the request reasonable: reasonable: (i) () the thenames
names and
andaddresses
addresses of ofeyewitnesses eyewitnesses
Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(i).
573(B)(2)(a)(i).
The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthpossesses
possessesaaqualified
qualifiedprivilege
privilegetotowithhold
withholdthe
theidentity
identityof
ofaa
confidential confidentialsource.
source.Marsh,
Marsh, 997
997A.2d
A.2datat321.
321.To
Toovercome
overcomethis
thisqualified
qualifiedprivilege
privilegeand
andobtain
obtainthe
the
identity identityof ofaaconfidential
confidentialinformant,
informant,aadefendant
defendantmust
mustestablish,
establish,pursuant
pursuanttotoRule
Rule573(B)(2)(a)(i),
573(B)(2)(a)(i),
. . .·
,that ,the . information • Vd tp?NOIQNIHS#M..
03 N015NJHS W defense and that the request is that "materialtoto fr~paratioiigfjledefense the information isis“material and that the request is
reasonable.” Id. Only reasonable." Id. Onlyafter afterthte
thde^d^n^sho^
ede~Salkho9&((b’aftl^jdentity @i@f #gidentityofofthe
theconfidential
confidentia informant
informantisis
! ·
] ' G31H
material to the material to the defense defense is
is the
the trial
trial court
court required to exercise required to exercise its discretion to its discretion to determine determine whether
whether
the information the should be infonnation should be revealed revealed by
by balancing
balancing relevant factors, which relevant factors, which are are initially
initially weighted
weighted
towards the towards the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth. Id.
Id. at
at 321-322.
321-322.
In balancing In balancing the the relevant factors, the relevant factors, trial court the trial court must
must consider
consider the
the following
following principles:
principles:
A further A further limitation
limitation on the applicability on the applicability of the privilege of the privilege arises arises from
from the
the
fundamental fundamental requirements
requirements of fairness. Where of fairness. Where the the disclosure disclosure of of an
an informant’s
informant's
identity, or identity, or of
of the
the contents
contents of
of his
his communication,
communication, is is relevant relevant and helpful to and helpful to the
the
defense defense ofof an
an accused,
accused, or
or is
is essential to aa fair
essential to fair determination determination of of aa case, case, the
the
privilege privilege must give way.
must give way. In
In these
these situations[,]
situations[,] the
the trial
trial court
court may
may require
require
disclosure, and, disclosure, and, if
if the
the Government
Government withholds
withholds thethe information, information, dismiss
dismiss thethe action.
action.
[N]o [N]o fixed
fixed rule
rule with
with respect
respect to
to disclosure
disclosure is
is justifiable.
justifiable. The
The problem
problem is
is one that
one that
calls for calls for balancing
balancing the
the public
public interest
interest in
in protecting
protecting the
the flow
flow of
of information
information against
against
the individual’s the individual's right
right to
to prepare
prepare his
his defense.
defense. Whether
Whether aa proper
proper balance
balance renders
renders
nondisclosure erroneous nondisclosure erroneous must must depend
depend on the particular on the particular circumstances circumstances ofof each
each
, case, taking into case, taking into consideration consideration the
the crime
crime charged, the possible charged, the possible defenses, defenses, the
the
possible significance of possible significance the infonner’s of the testimony, and infonner's testimony, and other other relevant
relevant factors.
factors.
Marsh, Marsh, 997 997 A.2d A.2d at
at 322.
322.
Furthermore: Furthermore:
Before the informant’s Before the informant's identity identity may
may be
be revealed,...the accused must revealed,...the accused must show the show the
information is information is material to the material to the defense
defense and the request and the request isis reasonable.
reasonable. The
The defendant
defendant
need need not
not predict
predict exactly
exactly what
what thethe infonnant
infonnant will
will say,
say, but
but he
he must
must demonstrate
demonstrate aa
reasonable reasonable possibility the informant possibility the informant could give evidence could give evidence that that would
would exonerate
exonerate
him. More him. More than
than aa mere
mere assertion that disclosure assertion that disclosure of of the the informant’s
informant's identity
identity must
must
be helpful be helpful is
is necessary.
necessary. Only
Only after
after this
this threshold
threshold showing that the showing that the information information is
is
material and material the request and the request reasonable reasonable is is the
the trial
trial court
court called
called upon to determine upon to determine
whether the whether the information
information isis to
to be
be revealed.
revealed.
Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Ellison, Ellison, 213
213 A.3d312, 317 (Pa.
A.3d312, 317 (Pa. Super.
Super. 2019) (internal citations 2019) (internal citations omitted).
omitted).
Here, Here, Defendant, Defendant, in
in his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion and
and brief,
brief, asserts
asserts that
that disclosure
disclosure of
of the
the
confidential confidential informant’s informant's identity
identity is
is material to the
material to the defense
defense of
of mistaken
mistaken identity.
identity. See
See Omnibus
Omnibus
WO0N019HIHSW Va4 03 N0Ip!IHS
Pre-Trial Motion, Pre-Trial Motion, 7/27/23;
7/27/23; See s~p~rF p ~f
als#ER SiippW of Defendant’s See alscmn&Art Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial
Motion(s), 12/1/23. Motion(s), 12/1/23. Defendant, ii Nd,a#l#?0Ho elaborate
Defendant, ^^^^4vlS^^iy£l®ib elaborate further further on
on precisely
precisely how
how
such such disclosure disclosure would would assist
assist him
him in
in raising
raising the
the defense
defense of
of mistaken
mistaken identity.
identity. Specifically,
Specifically,
Defendant failed Defendant failed to to elicit
elicit any
any testimony
testimony at
at the hearing on
the hearing on his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion as
as to
to how
how
the the identity identity of of the
the confidential
confidential informant,
informant, and
and any
any evidence
evidence that
that they
they may
may provide,
provide, would
would have
have aa
reasonable reasonable possibility possibility to
to exonerate
exonerate Defendant.
Defendant. Rather,
Rather, what
what Defendant
Defendant presented
presented to
to the
the Court
Court
amounts amounts to to aa mere mere assertion
assertion that
that the
the disclosure
disclosure of
ofthe
the confidential
confidential informant’s
informant's identity
identity would
would be
be
helpful. helpful. As As the the Ellison
Ellison Court
Court stated,
stated, such
such aa bald
bald assertion
assertion isis far
far from
from adequate
adequate in
in compelling
compelling the
the
disclosure disclosure of of aa confidential
confidential informant’s
informant's identity.
identity. 213
213 A.3d
A.3d at
at 317.
317.
Moreover, Moreover, even even had
had Defendant
Defendant satisfied
satisfied the
the aforementioned
aforementioned threshold
threshold inquiry,
inquiry, his
his motion
motion
isis still still without without merit.
merit. At
At the
the hearing
hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion,
Motion, extensive
extensive and
and
credible credible testimony testimony was was presented
presented by
by Agent
Agent Justin
Justin Shaffer,
Shaffer, Agent
Agent Joseph
Joseph Barna,
Barna, Detective
Detective Steven
Steven
Maritz, Maritz, Detective Detective Joseph Joseph Fichter,
Fichter, Detective
Detective Daniel
Daniel Eberman,
Eberman, and
and Detective
Detective Kent
Kent Mitchell
Mitchell that
that
demonstrated demonstrated that that Defendant
Defendant was
was identified
identified by
by the
the aforementioned
aforementioned officers
officers at
at each
each controlled
controlled
buy buy that that was was conducted conducted during
during the
the investigation
investigation into
into this
this matter.
matter.
To briefly To briefly summarize, summarize, during
during the
the controlled
controlled buy on March
buy on March 27,
27, 20 1
9, Agent 2019, Agent Barna
Barna and
and
Agent Agent Shaffer Shaffer positively positively identified
identified Defendant
Defendant at
at the
the controlled
controlled buy
buy location.
location. Hrg.
Hrg. Tr.,
Tr, 10/13/23
10/13/23 at
at
31:1-16; 31:1-16; 61:9-63:25.
61:9-63:25. On On June
June 13,
13, 2019,
2019, Defendant
Defendant was
was again
again identified
identified during
during the
the controlled
controlled buy
buy
conducted that conducted that day, day, this
this time
time by
by Agent
Agent Barna and Detective Barna and Detective Maritz.
Maritz. Id.
Id. at
at 35: 16-25; 74:
35:16-25; 17-76:2.
74:17-76:2.
Next, Next, on on July July 17, 17, 2019,
2019, Defendant
Defendant was
was positively
positively identified
identified by
by Agent
Agent Barna,
Barna, Agent
Agent Shaffer,
Shaffer, and
and
Detective Detective Maritz Maritz during
during the
the controlled
controlled buy.
buy. Id.
Id. at
at 40:19-41:3;
40:19-41:3; 64:15-66:8;
64:15-66:8; 77:16-79:1.
77: 16-79: 1. Defendant
Defendant
was was again again identified identified during
during aa controlled
controlled buy
buy conducted
conducted on
on August
August 31, 2019,
31, 2019, this
this time
time by
by
Detective Detective Fichter, Fichter, Detective
Detective Eberman^gi^D^^fj^®^ Ebermarggns!Petptjye}{jghell. Id.
Id. at
at 95:24-97:7;
95:24-97:7; 141:7-143:7;
141:7-143:7;
;• simho?
S1400 Jn
.4n iii
ls a lt"
151:1-153:2. 151:1-153:2. A A short
short time
time later,
later, on
on September
September 18,
18, 2019,
2019, Defendant
Defendant was
was again
again identified
identified during
during
ES=Z €s·2 Hd
M4 9ZNSCK®
92NP +a2
one one of of the the controlled controlled buys
buys by
by Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter and
and Detective.
Detective Mitchell.
Mitchell. Id.
Id. at
at 100:17-102:23;
100:17-102.:23;
, a7
-,5 ? .“J
15 -?
'
I
i '
153:22-155:12. 153:22-155:12. Lastly, Lastly, on
on September
September 23,
23, 2019,
2019, Defendant
Defendant was
was positively
positively identified
identified during
during the
the
controlled controlled buy buy that
that day
day by
by Detective
Detective Fichter,
Fichter, Detective
Detective Eberman,
Eberman, and
and Detective
Detective Mitchell.
Mitchell. Id.
Id. at
at
104:4-105:21; 104:4-105:21; 144:3-145:18;
144:3-145:18; 156:12-157:18.
156:12-157:18.
Due Due to to the
the numerous
numerous positive
positive identifications
identifications of
ofDefendant
Defendant made
made on
on six
six separate
separate occasions
occasions
by by six six different different investigating investigating officers,
officers, Defendant’s
Defendant's need
need for
for disclosure
disclosure of
of the
the confidential
confidential
informant’s informant's identity identity is
is significantly
significantly lessened,
lessened, as
as there
there was
was minimal
minimal risk
risk of
ofmisidentification
misidentification on
on
the the part part of of the the officers,
officers, and
and while
while not
not legally
legally determinative,
determinative, said
said observations
observations heavily
heavily weigh
weigh in
in
favor favor of of maintaining maintaining the the Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's privilege
privilege in
in withholding
withholding the
the identity
identity of
ofthe
the
confidential confidential informant informant in
in this
this matter.
matter. See
See Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Bing,
Bing, 713
713 A.2d
A.2d 56
56 (Pa.
(Pa. 1998)
1998)
(holding (holding that that the the defendant
defendant was
was not
not entitled
entitled to
to the
the disclosure
disclosure of
of the
the confidential
confidential informant’s
informant's
identity identity where where the the defendant’s
defendant's identity
identity was
was based
based on
on seven
seven separate
separate observations
observations by
by three
three
separate separate individuals).
individuals).
Accordingly, Accordingly, for for the
the aforementioned
aforementioned reasons,
reasons, Defendant
Defendant has
has failed
failed to
to establish
establish that
that the
the
disclosure disclosure of of the
the confidential
confidential informant’s
informant's identity
identity is
is reasonable
reasonable and
and material
material to
to his
his defense.
defense.
VI. VI. Motion Motion to
to Set
Set Bail
Bail
The The fifth fifth issue
issue raised
raised by
by Defendant
Defendant in
in his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion is
is aa Motion
Motion to
to Set
Set
Bail. Bail. By By way way of of background,
background, Defendant’s
Defendant's bail
bail was
was denied
denied by
by Magisterial
Magisterial District
District Judge
Judge Joshua
Joshua
Kanalis on Kanalis on April April 14,
14, 2023.
2023. Thereafter,
Thereafter, on May 16,2023, on May 16,2023, Defendant Defendant filed
filed aa motion
motion to
to set
set bail
bail and
and
aa hearing hearing was was held
held thereon
thereon on
on June
June 20,
20, 2023.
2023. Following
Following the
the hearing,
hearing, this
this Court
Cami denied
denied
Defendant’s Defendant's initial initial motion
motion to
to set
set bail.
bail. . WA03
Vd NO)9NINSV#
03 N0J.9NIHSVM exam SI8n jf • iii. . .
Now, Now, Defendant Defendant attempts,
attempts, once
once again,
ag@ii, to raise a~niotion to f~is~ motion to
to set
set bail.
bail. The
The Court,
Court, however,
however, is
is
';/'gas?@.leeretsy
unpersuaded persuaded byby Defendant’s request.^Notably^the rec&Td^ Defendanesre«a devoid devoid ofof any
any evidence
evidence that
that
I
I-
4jU
was was presented presented by by Defendant
Defendant at
at the
the hearing
hearing on
on his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion that
that indicates
indicates any
any
change change in in circumstances circumstances that
that occurred
occurred following
following the
the denial
denial of
ofDefendant’s
Defendant's initial
initial motion
motion to
to set
set
bail bail that that would would now
now entitle
entitle Defendant
Defendant to
to aa bail
bail amount.
amount. As
As such,
such, Defendant’s
Defendant's second
second request
request to
to
set set bail bail in in this this matter
matter isis denied.
denied.
VII. VII. Motion Motion to
to Compel
Compel Discovery
Discovery
Finally, Finally, Defendant Defendant raises
raises aa Motion
Motion to
to Compel
Compel Discovery.
Discovery. Specifically,
Specifically, Defendant
Defendant requests
requests
the the following following discovery discovery from
from the
the Commonwealth:
Commonwealth:
I.I. Allegheny
Allegheny County
County Evidence
Evidence Inventory
Inventory and
and Control
Control Log;
Log;
II. II. Photographs
Photographs and
and serial
serial numbers
numbers for
for the
the amount
amount of
of $2,600.00
$2,600.00 of
of Currency
Currency
as as itit relates
relates to
to 19-
19-176(c);
6( c );
III. III. Complete
Complete record
record of
of text
text messages
messages from
from the
the confidential
confidential informants
informants to
to the
the
following following phone
phone numbers:
numbers:
1.1. 412-551-7472
412-551-7472
2. 2. 412-657-6457
412-657-6457
IV. Iv. Complete
Complete records
records of
of Facebook
Facebook Messenger
Messenger between
between Confidential
Confidential
Informants Informants and
and allegedly
allegedly the
the Defendant
Defendant that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth has
has in
in its
its
possession. possession.
See See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion, 7/27/23.
7/27/23. In
In addition
addition to the
the aforementioned
aforementioned pieces
pieces of
of discovery,
discovery,
Defendant, for Defendant, for the the first
first time
time in
in in his brief,
in his brief, requests
requests an
an additional
additional piece
piece of
of discovery,
discovery, namely,
namely,
“Detective "Detective Fichter’s Fichter's file
file cover
cover sheet
sheet that
that depicts
depicts the
the dates
dates when
when law
law enforcement
enforcement attempted
attempted to
to
execute execute on on the the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant at
at Defen^jc^^^i^^HS
Defend( Wb j&Silk8ill3 [Ee Brief
·±8n10 46 3·7
Brief in
in Support
Support of
of Defendant’s
Defendant's
CSSHd £s 92NT w22
SZNVrwoz
Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s), Motion(s), 12/1/23.
12/1/23. For
For the
the reasons
reasons that
that follow,
follow, Defendant’s
Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to
Compel Compel Discovery Discovery isis mostly mostly moot,
moot, and
and otherwise,
otherwise, without
without merit.
merit.
Prior Prior to to the
the presentation
presentation of
of testimony
testimony at
at the
the hearing
hearing on
on Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial
Motion, Motion, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth informed
informed the
the Court
Court that
that itit had
had provided
provided Defendant
Defendant with
with two
two of
ofthe
the
four four pieces pieces of of the
the requested
requested discovery,
discovery, specifically,
specifically, the
the Allegheny
Allegheny County
County evidence
evidence and
and
inventory log, inventory log, as as well
well as
as the
the photographs and serial photographs and serial numbers numbers for
for the
the currency.
currency. Hrg.
Hrg. Tr.,
Tr., 10/13/23
10/13/23
at at 7:12-8:12.
7: 12-8: 12. As As such,
such, Defendant’s
Defendant's request
request for
for these
these two
two pieces
pieces of
of discovery
discovery isis moot.
moot.
As As to to the
the third
third and
and fourth
fourth items,
items, the
the text
text messages
messages from
from the
the confidential
confidential informants
informants and
and
the the Facebook Facebook messages messages between
between Defendant
Defendant and
and the
the confidential
confidential informants,
informants, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth
averred at averred at the the hearing
healing that
that those
those texts
texts and messages do
and messages do not
not exist
exist and
and therefore,
therefore, are
are not
not in
in the
the
possession possession of of the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth and
and cannot
cannot be
be turned
turned over
over to
to Defendant
Defendant for
for that
that reason.
reason. Hrg.
Hrg.
Tr., Tr., 10/13/23 10/13/23 at at 8:13-25.
8:13-25. As
As such,
such, Defendant’s
Defendant's request
request for
for the
the text
text messages
messages and
and Facebook
messages messages from from the the confidential
confidential informants
informants is
is moot
moot and
and without
without merit.
merit.
Lastly, Lastly, with with regard
regard to
to Defendant’s
Defendant's newly
newly raised
raised request
request for
for Detective
Detective Fichter’s
Fichter's file
file cover,
cover,
while while the the issue issue is
is waived,
waived, having
having not
not been
been raised
raised in
in Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion,
Motion, the
the
Commonwealth, Commonwealth, in in its
its brief,
brief, avers
avers that
that itit nonetheless
nonetheless has
has provided
provided aa copy
copy of
of the
the cover
cover sheet
sheet to
to
Defendant. Defendant. See See Brief
Brief in
in Opposition
Opposition to
to Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion, 12/1 1/23 at
12/11/23 at 22-23.
22-23.
As As such, such, this this issue issue is
is also
also moot.
moot.
To the To the extent extent that
that the
the Court
Court shall address the
shall address the issue
issue of
of discovery
discovery any
any further,
further, the
the Court
Court
would would merely merely state state that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth has
has aa continuing
continuing obligation
obligation to
to turn
turn over
over any
any
discovery discovery to to Defendant
Defendant asas it
it comes
. VJ 9°jwwhsvm
g WO.LSNIHS HM
comes imi'tWGoinmbhWealth’s ii6 f8Go'fr~iwie~lth's possession.
possession.
€$ ?2 N 92NVF 707
18 '
ORDER
And And now, now, this
this 26th
26th day
day of
of January,
January, 2024, upon consideration 2024, upon consideration of of the
the Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial
Motion Motion filed filed by by Defendant,
Defendant, and
and following
following aa hearing thereon, it hearing thereon, it is
is hereby
hereby ORDERED,
ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, ADJUDGED, and and DECREED
DECREED that
that Defendant’s motion is Defendant's motion is DENIED DENIED in its entirety.
in its entirety.
BY THE COURT: BY THE COURT:
V, '>
STAPHS W
■ sj.<?noo,“?h
Copies Copies to:
to: ADA ADA Rachel
Rachel Wheeler; -
Wheeler; Defendant;
Defendant; Assistant
Assistant Public
Public Defender
Defender Pati.^K
Pat, Fitch
Fitch -
IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON
COMMON PLEAS
PLEAS OF
OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEAL TH OF OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, ))
)) )
vs. vs. )) No. 746-2023 No. 746-2023
)
JASON JASON M.
M. WOODALL, WOODALL, ))
))
Defendant. Defendant. ))
OPINION OPINION AND
AND ORDER
ORDER
This matter This matter comes
comes before
before the
the Court
Court upon
upon Defendant,
Defendant, Jason Woodall’s Pro Jason Woodall's Pro Se
Se Motion
Motion
Pursuant to Rule Pursuant to Rule 600(B), (D)(2) and 600(B), (D)(2) (E). By and (E). By way
way of
of an
an amended
amended Bill
Bill of
of Information
Information filed
filed on
on
December 20, December 20, 2023, 2023, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth charged
charged Defendant
Defendant with
with six
six counts
counts of
of Possession
Possession with
with
Intent to Intent to Deliver Deliver aa Controlled
Controlled Substance,
Substance, cocaine,
cocaine, 35
35 P.S.
P.S. §§ 780-1 13(a)(30), an 780-113(a)(30), an ungraded ungraded Felony;
Felony;
and six and six counts counts of of Possession
Possession of
of aa Controlled Substance, cocaine, Controlled Substance. cocaine. 35 35 P.S.
P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(16), an 780-113(a)(16), an
ungraded ungraded Misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor.
Defendant filed the Defendant filed the instant instant Motion
Motion on
on February
f 23, 2024
23, 2024 and
and presented
presented the
the Motion
Motion to
to the
the
Court on Court on March March 5, 5, 2024.
2024. The
The Court scheduled an
Court scheduled an evidentiary evidentiary hearing
hearing for
for March 12, 2024,
March 12, 2024, for
for
the limited the limited purpose purpose of
of determining
determining whether
whether Defendant
Defendant is
is entitled
entitled to immediate release to immediate release on
on
nominal nominal bail bail pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(B)
600(8) and
and (D)(2).
(D)(2).11 Present
Present at
at this
this hearing
hearing was
was Assistant
Assistant
District Attorney District Attorney Rachel Rachel Wheeler,
Wheeler, representing
representing the
the Commonwealth,
Commonwealth, and
and Defendant,
Defendant, aa Pro-Se
Pro-Se
Litigant. Litigant. Assistant Assistant Public Defender Patrick Public Defender Patrick Filch, Fitch, who
who was
was appointed
appointed on
on March 5, 2024
March 5, 2024 to
to serve
serve
1 1The Defendant, through The Defendant, through prior prior counsel,
counsel, filed
filed an
an Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion on July
Motion on 2023 and 27, 2023
July 27, and asserted, asserted, pursuant
pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P. to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600600 that the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth failed failed to
to exercise due diligence exercise due bringing Defendant in bringing
diligence in Defendant toto trial.
trial. See
See
Omnibus Pre-Trial Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/23;
7/2 See also
See also Brief in Support Brief in Support ofof Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion(s), 12/1/23.
Pre-Trial Motion(s), 12/1/23.
More specifically, the More specifically, the Defendant Defendant contended
contended that
that the
the extensive
extensive period of time period of time that
that it
it took
took to
to execute
execute the
the arrest
arrest warrant
warrant
on Defendant was on Defendant was aa result of the result of the Commonwealth’s failure to Commonwealth'sfailure to act act with the requisite
with the Id. Judge diligence. Id.
due diligence.
requisite due Judge Valarie Va
Costanzo, after Costanzo, after aa hearing on the hearing on issue, denied the issue, denied Defendant’s Defendant's motion
motion byby way
way ofof an Opinion and
an Opinion Order dated and Order dated January January
26, 26. 2024.
2024.
as as standby standby counsel counsel toto aid
aid the
the Defendant
Defendant ififand
and when
when he
he requests
requests help,
help, was
was also
also present.
present.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS OF
OF LAW
LAW
The The right right to
to aa speedy,
speedy, public
public trial
trial isis “one
"one of
orthe
the most
most basic
basic rights
rights preserved
preserved by
by our
our
Constitution.” Constitution." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Barbour, Barbour, 189
189 A. 3d 944,
A.3d 944, 954
954 (Pa.
(Pa. 2018)
2018) (internal
(internal citations
citations
omitted). omittcd). The The government’s
governments exercise
exercise of
ofits
its power
power to
to detain
detain an
an individual
individual pending
pending aa criminal
criminal
prosecution prosecution places places aa heavy
heavy burden
burden upon
upon the
the accused.
accused. Id.
Id. The
The guarantee
guarantee to
to aa speedy
speedy trial
trial “is
"is an
an
important important safeguard safeguard to
to prevent
prevent undue
undue and
and oppressive
oppressive incarceration
incarceration prior
prior to
to trial,
trial, to
to minimize
minimize
anxiety anxiety and and concern concern accompanying
accompanying public
public accusation
accusation and
and to
to limit
limit the
the possibilities
possibilities that
that long
long delay
delay
will will impair impair the the ability
ability of
of an
an accused
accused to
to defend
defend himself.”
himself." Id.
Id.
Rule Rule 600, 600, which
which sets
sets forth
forth the
the speedy
speedy trial
trial requirements,
requirements, provides,
provides, in
in pertinent
pertinent part,
part, as
as
follows: follows:
Rule Ruic 600.
600. Prompt
Prompt Trial.
Trial.
(B) (B) Pretrial Incarceration. Except Pretrial Incarceration. Except in in eases cases in in which
which the the defendant
defendant is is not
not
entitled entitled toto release release on on bail
bail as
as provided
provided by by law,
law, nono defendant
defendant shall shall bebe held held inin
pretrial pretrial incarceration incarceration in in excess excess ofof
(1) ( 1) 180
180 days
days from
from the
the date
date on
on which
which the the complaint
complaint isis filed;
filed; or
or
(2) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed transferring aa court (2) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed transferring court case case from
from the
the juvenile
juvenile court
court to
to the
the trial
trial or
or criminal
criminal division;
division; or or
(3) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed terminating aa (3) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed terminating defendant's defendant's participation participation in in the
the ARD
ARD program
program pursuant
pursuant to to Rule
Rule 3 18; or
318; or
( 4) 120 (4) 120 days
days from
from the
the dale
date on which the
on which the order
order of of the
the trial
trial court
court isis filed
filed
granting granting aa new new trial trial when
when nono appeal
appeal hashas been
been perfected;
perfected; or or
(5) (5) 120 days from the date of the written notice from the appellate 120 days from the date or the written notice from the appellate courtcourt to to the the parties
parties that
that the
the record
record was
was remanded.
remanded.
(C) (C) Computation of Time.
Time.
(2) (2) For
For purposes
purposes of of paragraph paragraph (B),(B), only
only periods
periods of of delay
delay caused
caused by by the
the
defendant defendant shallshall bebe excluded excluded from
from the thc computation
computation of of the the length
length of of time
time of of
any any pretrial
pretrial incarceration.
incarceration. AnyAny other other periods
periods of of delay
delay shall
shall be
be included
included in in
the the computation.
computation.
(D) (D) Remedies.
Remedies.
(2) Except in (2) Except in cases
cases inin which
which thethe defendant
defendant is is not
not entitled
entitled toto release
release on on bail
bail
as as provided provided by by law,
law, when
when aa defendant
defendant is is held
held in in pretrial
pretrial incarceration
incarceration beyond
beyond the the
time time set sct forth
forth in
in paragraph
paragraph (BOt at
(B), any time $nfc before trial,trial, the the defendant's
defendant's attorney,
attorncy,
or or the the defendant
defendant if if unrepresented, unrepresented, may may file file aa written
written motion
motion requesting
requesting that that the
the
defendant defendant be
be released
released immediately
immediately on on nominal nominal bail
bail subject
subject to
to any
any nonmonetary
nonmonetary
conditions conditions of
ofbail
bail imposed
imposed by by the
the court
court as
as permitted
permitted by
by law.
law. AA copy
copy of
ofthe
the motion
motion
shall be served on the attorney for the Commonwealth concurrently with filing. shall be served on the attomey for the Commonwealth concurrently with filing. The Thejudge
judge shall
shall conduct
conduct aa hearing
hearing onon the
the motion.
motion.
Pa. Pa. R.
R. Crim.
Crim. P.
P. 600.
600.
The The record record demonstrates
demonstrates that
that on
on March
March 2,
2, 2021,
2021, aa criminal
criminal complaint
complaint was
was filed
filed against
against
Defendant Defendant in in the
the present
present case
case and
and an
an arrest
arrest warrant
warrant was
was issued.
issued. Defendant
Defendant was
was subsequently
subsequently
arrested arrested on on the
the warrant
warrant on
on April
April 14,
14, 2023.
2023. Defendant
Defendant has
has been
been incarcerated
incarcerated since
since his
his arrest.
arrest.
Defendant’s Defendant's bail bail was
was denied
denied by
by Magisterial
Magisterial District
District Judge
Judge Joshua
Joshua Kanalis
Kanalis on
on April
April 14,
14, 2023.
2023.
Defendant, through Defendant, through prior prior counsel,
counsel, filed
filed aa Motion
Motion to Set Bail
to Set Bai I on
on May
May 16,
16, 2023.
2023. A
A hearing
hearing to
to
address address Defendant’s Defendant's bail bail motion
motion was
was held
held on
on June
June 20,
20, 2023
2023 before
before Judge
Judge Valarie
Valarie Costanzo.
Costanzo.
Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo denied denied Defendant’s
Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Set
Set Bail
Bail by
by order
order dated
dated June
June 20,
20, 2023.
2023.22
The The preliminary preliminary hearing
hearing was
was originally
originally scheduled
scheduled for
for April
April 24,
24, 2023,
2023, but
but was
was continued
continued
to to May May 3, 3, 2023 2023 at
at Defendant’s
Defendant's request.
request. See
See Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Exhibit
Exhibit 3.
3. The
The nine
nine day
day delay
delay isis
attributed to attributed to the the Defendant
Defendant and
and excludable
excludable for purposes of for purposes of Rule
Rule 600
600 since
since the
the delay
delay was
was caused
caused
by by Defendant.
Defendant. Pa.
Pa. R.
R. Crim.
Crim. P.
P. 600(C)(2).
600(C)(2).
Defendant Defendant filed filed an
an Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion
Motion on
on July
July 27,
27, 2023.
2023. See
See Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's
Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4. A A hearing
hearing on
on that
that Motion was scheduled Motion was scheduled and
and held
held on
on October
October 13,
13, 2023.
2023. See
See
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 4.
4. At
At the
the close
close of
oCthe hearing,
hearing, Judge
Judge Costanzo
Costanzo ordered
ordered both
both parties
parties to
to
submit briefs submit briefs thirty thirty days
days after
after the
the filing of the
filing of the official
official transcript.
transcript. The
The official
official transcript
transcript of
of the
the
Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion Hearing
Hearing was
was filed
filed on
on November
November 9,
9, 2023.
2023. See
See Order
Order Directing
Directing Briefs
Briefs to
to
be be Filed, Filed, 11/9/23. Thereafter, 11/9/23. Thcreallcr, Defendant Defendant and
and the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth timely
timely submitted
submitted their
their briefs.
briefs.
2A Second Request A Request to to Set
Set Bail
Bail was
was set forth in
in Defendant’s
Defendant's July 27,
27, 2023 Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion.
Motion. Judge
Judge
Costanzo denied Costanzo denied Defendant’s Defendant's request
request to
to set baj| initially;at
set baj] initiallyrat the the October I3, 2023
October 13, 2023 hearing
haring and
and in
in the
the January
January 26,
26, 2024
2024
Opinion and Order.
Order:. See Transcript,
'Transcript, 10/13/23 atat 15:19-22.
15:19-22.
See See Brief Briefinin Support Support of
ofDefendant's
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion(s),
Motion(s), 12/1/23;
12/1/23; see
see also
also Bricl
Briefin
in
Opposition Opposition to to Defendant's
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion, 12/1 1/23. Judge
12/11/23. Judge Valerie
Valerie Costanzo’s
Costanzo's
Opinion Opinion and and Order Order on
on this
this matter
matter was
was filed
filed on
on January
January 26,
26, 2024.
2024.
“When "When aa defendant defendant isis deemed
deemed unavailable
unavailable lor
for trial,
trial, the
the time
time isis excludable
excludable from
from the
the Rule
Ruic
]600] calculation...” [600] calculation..." Commomvealih Commonwealth v.• Hill,
Hill, 558
558 Pa.
Pa. 238,
238, 254,
254, 736
736 A.2d
A.2d 578,
578, 587
587 (1999).
(1999). “[A]
"[A]
defendant defendant isis ...... unavailable unavailable for
for trial
trial ififaa delay
delay in
in the
the commencement
commencement of
oftrial
trial isis caused
caused by
by the
the
filing filing of ofthe the pretrial
pretrial motion.”
motion." Id.
Id.
The The record record shows
shows that
that in
in considering
considering Defendant’s
Defendant's Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion filed
liled on
on July
July 27,
27, 2023,
2023,
the the court court conducted conducted an
an evidentiary
evidentiary hearing.
hearing. The
The Court
Court ordered
ordered both
both parties
parties to
to submit
submit briefs
briefs
thirty days thirty days after after the
the filing
filing of
of the official transcript.
the official transcript. The The Court
Court subsequently
subsequently filed
filed an
an Opinion
Opinion and
and
Order Order regarding regarding Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion on
on January
January 26,
26, 2024.
2024. ItIt is
is clear
clear that,
that, due
due
to to Defendant Defendant filing filing the
the Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion,
Motion, the
the commencement
commencement of
ofhis
his trial
trial was
was delayed.
delayed.
In In order order to
to determine
determine whether
whether the
the delay
delay caused
caused by
by Defendant
Defendant filing
filing the
the Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-
Pre-
Trial Trial Motion Motion should should be
be excluded
excluded for
for the
the Rule
Rule 600
600 calculation,
calculation, the
the Court
Court must
must consider
consider whether
whether
the the Commonwealth Commonwealth exercised exercised due
due diligence
diligence in
in opposing
opposing the
the motion.
motion. See
See Hill,
Hill, 736
736 A.2d
A.2d at
at 587.
587.
A A review review of of the the record
record reveals
reveals that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth exercised
exercised due
due diligence
diligence in
in opposing
opposing
Defendant’s Defendants motion.
motion. The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth did
did not
not seek
seek to
to continue
continue the
the hearing
hearing after
after itit was
was
scheduled scheduled by by the
the Court.
Court. The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth was
was present
present and
and presented
presented several
several witnesses
witnesses to
to
testify testify at at the the October
October 13,
13, 2023
2023 hearing.
hearing. The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth timely
timely submitted
submitted its
its brief
brief pursuant
pursuant
to to the the Court’s Court's October October 13,
13, 2023
2023 order.
order. See 10/13/23
10/13/23 Order;
Order; see also
also Brief
Brief in
in Opposition
Opposition to
to
Defendant's Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion,
Motion, 12/1 1/23.
12/11/23.
Therefore, Therefore, the the period
period of
of time
time from
from July
July 27,
27, 2023
2023 to
to January
January 26,
26, 2024,
2024, one-hundred
one-hundred
eighty-three eighty-three (183)
(183) days,
days, is
is excludable from ;.the
excludable from the Rula u $00 Rle calculation. The 600 calculation. The adjusted adjusted mechanical
mechanical
run date run date pursuant pursuant to to Rule
Rule 600(B)(1),
600(B3)(1 ), when
when factoring
factoring the
the delays
delays attributed
attributed to
to Defendant
Defendant as
as set
set
forth above, forth above, is is April
April 20, 2024.
20, 2024.
ORDER ORDER
And now, And now, this this 14th
14th day
day of
of March,
March, 2024,
2024, upon
upon consideration
consideration of
of Defendant’s
Defendant's Motion
Motion
Pursuant Pursuant to to Rule Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(D)(2) and (E), and
and (E), and following
following aa hearing thereon, itit is hearing thereon, is hereby hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and and DECREED
DECREED that Defendant’s motion that Defendant's motion is is DENIED.
DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
4
�t /
J.
JESE PET GE
,-
¢
TO: DA, COPIES TO: DA, DEFENDANT, -
PUBLIC DEFENDER
DEFENDANT, PUBLIC
IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON
COMMON PLEAS
PLEAS OF
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEAL TH OF OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, ))
)) ))
vs. vs. )) No. 746-2023 No. 746-2023
)
JASON JASON M.
M. WOODALL, WOODALL, ))
))
Defendant. Defendant. ))
MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM AND
AND ORDER
ORDER
This This matter matter comes
comes before
before the
the Court
Court upon
upon Defendant, Jason Woodall’s Defendant, Jason Woodall's Pro Pro Se
Se Motion(s)-
Motion(s)-
In-Limine In-Limine which which was
was filed
filed on
on March
March 7,
7, 2024.
2024. This
This Court
Court heard
heard argument
argument on
on the
the Defendant’s
Defendant's
Motion(s)-In-Limine Motion(s)-In-Limine on on March
March 12,
12, 2024.
2024.
A A review review of
of the
the record
record demonstrates
demonstrates that
that the
the Defendant,
Defendant, through
through counsel,
counsel, filed
filed an
an
Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion Motion on
on July
July 27,
27, 2023,
2023, which
which included
included aa Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to
Pa.R.Crim. Pa.R.Crim. Rule Rule 600,
600, Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to 18
18 Pa.C.S.§l 10, Motion
Pa.C.S.$110, Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss
Pursuant Pursuant to to 42 42 Pa.C.S.§5552(a),
Pa.C.S.§5552(a), Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss;
Dismiss: Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter
Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, Motion Motion to
to Reveal
Reveal Confidential
Confidential Informant
Informant Identity,
Identity, Motion
Motion to
to Set
Set Bail
Bail and
and Motion
Motion to
to
Compel Compel Discovery.
Discovery.
A A hearing hearing was
was held
held before
before Judge
Judge Valarie
Valarie Costanzo
Costanzo regarding
regarding to
to Defendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus
Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion Motion on
on October
October 13,
13, 2023.
2023. Present
Present at
at the
the hearing
hearing were
were Assistant
Assistant District
District Attorney
Attorney
Rachel Rachel Wheeler, Wheeler, representing representing the
the Commonwealth,
Commonwealth, and
and Adam
Adam Yarussi,
Y arussi, Esquire,
Esquire, representing
representing the
the
Defendant. Defendant. AtAt the the close
close of
of the
the hearing,
hearing, the
the Court
Court ordered
ordered both
both parties
parties to
to submit
submit briefs
briefs thirty
thirty (30)
(30)
, . Vd 4.0303 NOJDX'iMS
3015'[Sy;E vnV
days days after after the the filing
filing of
of the
the official
official trans^riptriiThe^ official transcript of trans@jjt; ff~~fficilanscript of the the Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial
Hearing Hearing was was filed filed on
on November
November 9,
9, 20^)
201 ^e^d^nt
:2efhdlnt all' O Commonwealth timely th@Commonwealth timely submitted submitted
,.
their theirbriefs.
briefs. Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motionwas
was denied
denied in
in its
its entirety
entirety by
by way
way of
ofan
an
Opinion Opinion and and Order Order entered
enteredby
by Judge
Judge Costanzo
Costanzo on
onJanuary
January 26,
26, 2024.
2024.
Defendant, Defendant, in inthe
the instant
instantmotion,
motion, makes
makes numerous
numerous arguments,
arguments, many
many of
ofwhich
which are
are not
not
appropriate appropriate issues issues to
to be
be raised
raised in
in aa motion
motion in
in limine.
limine. Defendant
Defendant also
also attempts
attempts to
to reargue
reargue issues
issues
that that have have been been resolved
resolved by
by written
written opinion
opinion and
and court
court order.
order.
A A motion motion in
in limine
limine isis aa procedure
procedure for
for obtaining
obtaining aa ruling
ruling on
on the
the admissibility
admissibility of
ofevidence
evidence
prior priorto to or or during during trial,
trial, but
but before
before the
the evidence
evidence has
has been
been offered.
offered. See
See Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Johnson, Johnson,
399 Pa.Super. 399 Pa.Super. 266 266 (1990).
(1990). “The
"The purpose
purpose of
ofaa motion in limine
motion in limine isis two two fold:
fold: 1)
1) to
to provide
provide the
the trial
trial
court court with with aa pre-trial pre-trial opportunity
opportunity to
to weigh
weigh carefully
carefully and
and consider
consider potentially
potentially prejudicial
prejudicial and
and
harmful evidence; harmful evidence; and and 2)
2) to
to preclude
preclude evidence
evidence from ever reaching from ever reaching aajury jury that
that may
may prove
prove to
to be
be so
so
prejudicial prejudicial that that no
no instruction
instruction could
could cure
cure the
the harm
harm to
to the
the defendant,
defendant, thus
thus reducing
reducing the
the possibility
possibility
that prejudicial that .prejudicial error error could
could occur
occur at
at trial which would
trial which would force
force the
the trial
trial court
court to
to either
either declare
declare aa
mistrial mistrial in in the the middle
middle of
of the
the case
case or
or grant
grant aa new
new trial
trial at
at its
its conclusion.”
conclusion." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.
Metzer, Metzer, 634 634 A.2d A.2d 228
228 (Pa.Super.
(Pa.Super. 1993).
1993).
Defendant, Defendant, in in his
his Motion(s)-In-Limine,
Motion(s)-In-Limine, seeks seeks to
to have
have the
the Court
Court dismiss
dismiss the
the “simple
"simple
possession” possession" charges charges pursuant
pursuant to
to 42
42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §5552(a).
§5552(a). This
This matter
matter has
has already
already been
been ruled
ruled on
on by
by
the the Court.
Court. Defendant, Defendant, through
through counsel,
counsel, raised
raised this
this issue
issue in
in his
his Brief
Brief In
In Support
Support of
of Defendant’s
Defendant's
Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s)
Motion(s) filed
filed on
on December
December 1,
1, 2023.
2023. Judge
Judge Costanzo,
Costanzo, in
in her
her Opinion
Opinion and
and
Order dated Order dated January January 26,
26, 2024,
2024, ruled
ruled that
that the Defendant is
the Defendant is estopped estopped from
from raising
raising this
this issue
issue at
at this
this
juncture, as juncture, as he he failed
failed to
to properly
properly raise
raise the issue in
the issue in his
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion filed
filed on
on July
July 27,
27,
2023. 2023.'1
09
IcflOO JO '
1The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Amend the Crim^Ql jgft^atiAiTa^recUiVid leave of Court to do so on ' The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Amend the Crim#jg@! @rd}datlrakkl}a 1eave of Court to do so on December December 15, 15, 2023.
2023. The
The order
order signed
signed by
by Judge
Judge Costanzo
Costanzo was
was filed on December
filed on December 20,
20, 2023.
2023.
Defendant Defendant argues argues he
he isis not
not aa flight
flight risk
risk and
and should
should not
not have
have been
been deemed
deemed as
as one.
one. ItIt
appears appears the the Defendant Defendant disputes
disputes the
the Court’s
Court's prior
prior rulings
rulings relating
relating to
to Defendant’s
Defendant's motions
motions to
to set
set
bail. bail. By By way way of of background,
background, Defendant’s
Defendant's bail
bail was
was denied
denied by
by Magisterial
Magisterial District
District Judge
Judge Joshua
Joshua
Kanalis on Kanalis on April April 14,
14, 2023.
2023. Defendant
Defendant filed motion to filed aa motion to set
set bail
bail and
and aa hearing
hearing was
was held
held thereon
thereon
on on June June 20, 20, 2023.
2023. Following
Following the
the hearing,
hearing, Judge
Judge Costanzo
Costanzo denied
denied Defendant’s
Defendant's initial
initial motion
motion to
to
set bail. set bail. Defendant, Defendant, through
through counsel,
counsel, filed
filed aa Second Request for Second Request for Motion Motion to
to Set
Set Bail
Bail on
on July
July 27,
27,
2023. 2023. Judge Judge Costanzo, Costanzo, by
by way
way of Opinion and
of Opinion and Order
Order dated
dated January
January 26,
26, 2024,
2024, denied the bail
denied the bail
modification modification request, request, after
after an
an extensive
extensive Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Hearing
Hearing on
on October
October 13,
13, 2023.
2023.
Defendant Defendant attempts attempts to
to again
again raise
raise the
the issue
issue of
of subject
subject matter
matterjurisdiction.
jurisdiction. Defendant’s Defendant's
Motion Motion to to Dismiss:
Dismiss: Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction was
was denied
denied by
by
Judge Costanzo, Judge Costanzo, after after aa hearing
hearing on
on October
October 13,
13, 2023, by way
2023, by way of
of an
an Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order entered
entered on
on
January January 26, 26, 2024.
2024.
Defendant Defendant argues argues that
that he
he has
has aa right
right to
to know
know the
the identity
identity of
of the
the confidential
confidential informant
informant in
in
this this matter.
matter. Defendant’s Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Reveal
Reveal Confidential
Confidential Informant
Informant Identity
Identity was
was denied
denied by
by Judge
Judge
Costanzo, after Costanzo, after aa hearing hearing on
on October
October 13,
13, 2023, by way
2023, by way of
of an
an Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order entered
entered on
on
January January 26, 26, 2024.
2024.
Defendant Defendant argues argues that
that he
he has
has not
not received
received discovery
discovery in
in this
this matter.
matter. Defendant,
Defendant, in
in the
the
instant instant motion, motion, specifically specifically requests
requests text
text and
and Facebook
Facebook messages
messages between
between the
the CI
CI and
and Defendant.
Defendant.
This This issue issue was was raised
raised in
in Defendant’s
Defendant's prior
prior Motion
Motion to
to Compel
Compel Discovery,
Discovery, addressed
addressed at
at the
the
October 13, October 13, 2023 2023 hearing
hearing and
and ruled
ruled on
on by Judge Costanzo
by Judge Costanzo in
in her
her Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order entered
entered on
on
January January 26, 26, 2024.
2024.
Throughout Throughout Defendant’s entire mption, he {rgk~al~ck of Defendant's entire of due due diligence
diligence on
on part
part of
of the
the
4 7y;
, Gil ·' •• .--·- 1@@
officers officers involved involved with
with his
his case
case and
and Assistant
Assistant District
District Attqmey.Rachel
Attomey,..Rachel Wheeler
Wheeler in
in bringing
bringing
0:2 H I- i@0?
Defendant to Defendant to trial. Defendant’s Motion trial. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant to
to Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600,
Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600, relating relating to
to
the the period of time period of time that that it
it took
took to
to execute the arrest
execute the arrest warrant on Defendant, warrant on Defendant, was was denied
denied by
by Judge
Judge
Costanzo Costanzo by by way way of
of Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order dated
dated January
January 26,
26, 2024.
2024.22
Defendant Defendant argues argues that
that the
the chain
chain of
of custody
custody evidence
evidence is
is deficient and should
deficient and should not
not be
be
admissible. “While admissible. "While the the Commonwealth
Commonwealth bears
bears the
the burden
burden of
of demonstrating
demonstrating some
some reasonable
reasonable
connection between connection between the the proffered
proffered exhibits
exhibits and
and the
the true
true evidence,
evidence, it
it need
need not
not establish
establish the
the sanctity
sanctity
of its of its exhibits exhibits beyond beyond aa moral
moral certainty.
certainty. The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth need
need not produce every
not produce every individual individual
who came who came into into contact contact with
with an
an item of evidence,
item of evidence, nor
nor must
must it
it ..eeliminate every
every hypothetical
hypothetical
possibility of tampering. possibility of tampering. A A complete
complete chain of custody chain of custody is
is not
not required
required so
so long
long as
as the
the
Commonwealth's evidence, Commonwealth's evidence, direct direct and
and circumstantial,
circumstantial, establishes establishes aa reasonable reasonable inference
inference that
that the
the
identity and condition identity and condition of of the
the exhibits
exhibits have remained the have remained the same
same from
from the
the time
time they
they were first
were first
received until received until the the time
time of
of trial.
trial. Any
Any gaps in testimony
gaps in testimony regarding regarding the
the chain
chain of
of custody
custody go
go to
to the
the
weight to weight to be be given
given the
the testimony,
testimony, not
not to
to its
its admissibility.”
admissibility." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.
v. Cugnini,
Cugnini, 307
307
Pa.Super. 113 Pa.Super. 113 (1982)
(1982) (internal
(internal citations omitted) (emphasis citations omitted) (emphasis added).
added).
Defendant Defendant argues argues that
that the Commonwealth’s witnesses, the Commonwealth's witnesses, specifically specifically law
law enforcement
enforcement
officers involved officers involved in in the
the investigation,
investigation, are
are not
not credible
credible witnesses
witnesses and
and evidence,
evidence, such
such as
as the
the control
control
logs, are logs, are not not authentic.
authentic. It
It is
is well established under well established Pennsylvania law under Pennsylvania law that that “[t]he
"[t]he weight
weight of
of the
the
evidence is evidence is exclusively for the exclusively for the finder of fact, finder of fact, who
who is
is free to believe
free to all, none believe all, none or
or some
some of
of the
the
evidence evidence and and to to determine
determine the
the credibility
credibility of
of witnesses.”
witnesses." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Fuentes,
Fuentes, 2022 PA
2022 PA
Super 43, 272 A.3d Super 43,272 A.3d 511,516 511,516 (Pa.
(Pa. Super. Ct. 2022),
Super. Ct. see also 2022), see also Commonwealth Commonwealth v.
v. Ghrist,
Ghrist, 873
873 WDA
WDA
2015, 2016 2015, 2016 WL WL 5173526,
5173526, at
at 66 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. July
July 13,
13, 2016).
2016).
Defendant Defendant next next appears to petikldr£for&h@ft H&~las corpus appears to corpus by by challenging
challenging the
the pretrial
·.
.
<;n.4 D lki· .si y};
Kl i
pretrial
'pendant mlea a 2Defendant filed a Pro motion was motion se Moon Pesta.9A.iK Pro Se Motion Pursuant tclSule 6^13)} (D^^ani^) on February 23, 2024. after aa hearing,
denied, after
was denied, hearing, by by way
way of
}7lsi.'la«
of Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order dated
dated March
Defendant’s
resrsssy 23, 2024. petnadaaes March 14,
14, 2024.
2024.
untri q fl
@;4
1 U d h .' ..ii • finding that finding that the the Commonwealth
Commonwealth has
has sufficient
sufficient evidence
evidence to
to establish
establish aa prima
prima facie
facie case.
case.
Defendant also argues Defendant also argues that that the
the “4
"4 comers” of the
comers" of the affidavit
affidavit of
of probable cause filed
probable cause filed with with the
the
criminal complaint criminal complaint lacked probable cause lacked probable cause and and is
is vague.
vague.33 It
It is
is well
well established
established under
under
Pennsylvania law that Pennsylvania law that the the Commonwealth may present Commonwealth may present additional additional evidence
evidence to
to establish
establish that
that the
the
defendant has defendant has committed committed the
the elements
elements of
of the
the offenses
offenses charged.
charged. See
See Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Dantzler,
Dantzler,
135 A.3d 135 A.3d 1109 1109 (Pa.Super.
(Pa.Super. 2016);
2016); Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Karlson,
Karlson, 449
449 Pa.
Pa. Super.
Super. 378 (1996). At
378 (1996). At the
the
court proceeding court proceeding on on March
March 12,
12, 2024,
2024, the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth submitted
submitted the
the transcript
transcript of
of the
the October
October
13, 2023 13, 2023 Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Hearing
Hearing as
as additional
additional proof
proof that
that aa prima
prima facie
facie case
case exists.
exists. See
See Exhibit
Exhibit
7, March 7, March 12, 12, 2024 2024 hearing.
hearing. The
The evidence
evidence presented
presented at
at the
the hearing
hearing on
on October
October 13,
13, 2024
2024
establishes aa prima establishes prima facie case against facie case against the Defendant.
the Defendant.
Defendant argues Defendant argues that that he was transported
he was transported illegally from Mercer illegally from Mercer County County to
to Washington
Washington
County County for for purposes purposes of
of his
his preliminary
preliminary arraignment.
arraignment. Defendant
Defendant integrates
integrates aa subject
subject matter
matter
jurisdiction jurisdiction argument argument at
at the
the same
same time.
time. As
As set
set forth
forth above,
above, Defendant’s
Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss:
Dismiss:
Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction was
was denied
denied by
by Judge
Judge Costanzo
Costanzo by
by way
way
of an of an Opinion Opinion and and Order
Order entered
entered on
on January
January 26,
26, 2024.
2024. Furthermore,
Furthermore, Defendant’s
Defendant's argument
argument is
is
unclear as the unclear as the Defendant Defendant agreed,
agreed, on
on the record at
the record at the
the proceeding
proceeding on
on March
March 12,
12, 2024,
2024, that
that aa
detainer had detainer had been been placed
placed on
on him relating to
him relating to the
the charges filed in
charges filed Washington County.
in Washington County. There There is
is no
no
evidence evidence in in the the record
record to
to demonstrate
demonstrate that
that the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth utilized
utilized improper
improper procedures
procedures to
to
return Defendant return Defendant to to Washington
Washington County
County for
for his
his preliminary
preliminary arraignment.
arraignment.
Vri 03
_ ■ S1W3 JO JJJU 3 Defendant's reliance • Defendant’s reliance on on Commonwealth
Commonwealth y,4a Ma/mel,,20 IS Pa^uner.-332, to ? e.29018 y Pa,$pp;32, misplaced. The is misplaced.
argument, is
his argument,
support his to support The Manuel case Manuel case relates relates to
to the
the constitutionality wra^araSwsnramarrd constitutionality haea# me tietermination of wakrafHd'l''determination of whether whether probable cause
probable cause
existed to existed to support support the
the issuance
issuance of
of aa search
search warrant.
warrant.
ORDER ORDER
And And now, now, this
this 1
1"st day
day of
of April, 2024, upon
April, 2024, upon consideration consideration of Defendant’s Pro of Defendant's Pro Se
Se
Motion(s)-In-Limine Motion(s)-In-Limine which which was
was filed
filed on
on March
March 7, 2024, and
7, 2024, for the
and for the reasons
reasons set forth above,
set forth it is
above, it is
hereby hereby ORDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED ADJUDGED and
and DECREED
DECREED that
that Defendant’s
Defendant's Motion(s)-In-Limine Motion(s)-In-Limine is
is
DENIED DENIED in in its its entirety.
entirety.
BY THE COURT:
Com. v. Woodall, J. (Com. v. Woodall, J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.