Com. v. Sambana, J.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 817 EDA 2018

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; December 2, 2019; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jose Sambana appeals his March 2, 2018 sentencing by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after being convicted in a bench trial for possession of heroin and fentanyl with intent to deliver (PWID) and knowing and intentional possession of controlled substances (K&I). His appeal follows an arrest on January 11, 2017, where he was charged with PWID, K&I, and driving with a suspended license; the latter charge was dismissed for lack of evidence at a preliminary hearing.

Sambana filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during searches of his person and vehicle, which included 39 packets of heroin and fentanyl and cash. The motion was denied after a hearing on January 10, 2018, leading Sambana to waive his right to a jury trial. He was found guilty of PWID and K&I, resulting in a sentence of two to seven years for the PWID conviction.

On appeal, Sambana raises two primary issues regarding the denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective search or exceeded the search's permissible scope, and that they also lacked probable cause and a warrant to search under the vehicle's console and a bag of Jolly Ranchers found there. The appellate court reviews the suppression motion denial under a standard that respects the factual findings of the suppression court, affirming those findings as long as they are supported by the record and legal conclusions are deemed correct. The court ultimately disagrees with Sambana’s claims.

The appellate court reviews claims of legal error from a suppression court, where its legal conclusions are not binding. The appellate court has conducted a thorough review of the record and the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, adopting its factual findings and legal conclusions. The trial court found that officers had reasonable suspicion for a protective sweep of Appellant Jose Sambana’s vehicle based on observations of heavily tinted windows, Appellant's movements inside the vehicle, and his noncompliance with commands. The court determined that the area beneath the center console was within the scope of a permissible protective sweep due to the pried open cup holder tray, which could conceal a weapon. Additionally, the court established probable cause concerning a bag of Jolly Ranchers found in a non-storage area of the vehicle, suggesting it might contain evidence of a crime. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ordering the attachment of the June 13, 2018, opinion to future filings related to the appeal. Sambana had been convicted of possession with intent to deliver and possession of controlled substances, receiving a sentence of two to seven years. His appeal raised issues regarding the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, the qualification of an expert witness, procedural decisions made during the suppression hearing, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction. The court found these claims to lack merit, affirming the judgment of sentence.

On July 11, 2017, Philadelphia police officers Debarberie and Saxton conducted a traffic stop on a white GMC Yukon after observing it make an abrupt, un-signaled left turn. Approaching the vehicle, the officers noted the driver, later identified as the defendant, behaving suspiciously and not complying with requests to lower the window. Concerned for safety, Officer Debarberie opened the passenger door, followed by Officer Saxton opening the driver's door, where they observed the defendant reaching into the center console. Upon being ordered to stop, the defendant complied but claimed he did not have a driver's license and continued to reach into the console.

As the defendant was removed from the vehicle, he declared, "I don't sell drugs." Officer Debarberie noticed the cup holder tray was manipulated, allowing access to a hidden space. Upon inspection, she found a bag containing thirty-nine packets of heroin and fentanyl, along with $125 in cash in the vehicle and $343 on the defendant. Officer Trappler, a narcotics expert, testified that the packaging and cash indicated the drugs were intended for delivery.

The defendant later challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained during this encounter, asserting that the trial court erred in its ruling. The standard for reviewing such a denial is whether the suppression court's factual findings and legal conclusions are supported by the evidence, with the reviewing court bound by the suppression court's factual findings unless legal errors are identified.

The defendant contends that the police lacked reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous when they opened his car doors and removed him after stopping for a minor traffic violation. This argument is rejected. Law enforcement is permitted to ask a driver to exit the vehicle during a lawful stop for a traffic violation. Officers may also conduct a weapons search if they have a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and might access a weapon. The assessment of the reasonableness of this belief considers the totality of circumstances, including the location of the stop, the time, the suspect's behavior, and movements within the vehicle.

During the suppression hearing, evidence showed that the officers had a reasonable belief that the defendant was dangerous. Officer Debarberie testified that after stopping the defendant for failing to use a turn signal, she could not see inside the car due to tinted windows but observed the defendant moving and reaching toward the center console. Additionally, the defendant did not comply with multiple requests to lower his window, which raised safety concerns for the officers. Given these circumstances, the officers had sufficient justification to enter the vehicle to search for weapons.

The defendant also claimed that the officers lacked probable cause to disassemble the vehicle's console after noticing a gap and to search a non-translucent candy bag containing heroin. This claim is also dismissed. Officers may search any area in the vehicle where a weapon could be hidden during a protective sweep. Officer Debarberie observed the cup holder tray in the center console had been pried up, indicating a concealed space, which warranted a search for weapons.

While the search of the candy bag was not justified as part of the protective sweep, it was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as officers may search a vehicle and any containers inside if they have probable cause to believe there is contraband.

Officer Debarberie had probable cause to search a candy bag found in an inaccessible area of a vehicle during a protective search, leading to lawful evidence seizure without a warrant. The defendant's argument that the currency discovered was "fruit of the poisonous tree" failed, as the initial search was lawful, thus there were no illegal fruits to suppress. Additionally, the court properly qualified Officer Debarberie as an expert in identifying drug concealment in vehicle console cup holders, based on her extensive training and a relevant week-long conference. The criteria under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702 were met, and her testimony was deemed beneficial for understanding the evidence. The court's discretion in determining her qualifications was upheld, and the defendant's claims regarding improper reopening of the suppression motion were also dismissed as without merit. Overall, the denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed, with no basis for relief.

A court may permit either party to reopen a case to present additional testimony before making a decision, particularly when the issue involves the admissibility of evidence rather than guilt. The court can also reopen the record sua sponte to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and its decision will only be overturned for abuse of discretion. In this case, the court determined that the record was unclear regarding Officer Debarberie's reasons for inspecting a candy bag found in the defendant's vehicle. Consequently, the court allowed the Commonwealth to recall the officer for further questioning, deeming it necessary for justice. As this was a pre-trial suppression hearing, it did not disrupt proceedings or prejudice the defendant.

The court also addressed the defendant's claim of insufficient evidence for a conviction of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) heroin/fentanyl. The court emphasized that it must assess evidence in favor of the Commonwealth, allowing for circumstantial evidence to meet the burden of proof. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant possessed a controlled substance with intent to deliver, which can be inferred from various factors, including drug packaging and quantities. 

In this instance, evidence included 39 packets of heroin and fentanyl found in a hidden candy bag, cash recovered from the vehicle and the defendant, and expert testimony from Officer James Trappler, who supported the conclusion of intent to deliver based on the circumstances. Although the defense presented a contrary expert opinion, the court, as the fact-finder, was entitled to favor the Commonwealth's expert. Thus, the court rejected the sufficiency of evidence claims and affirmed the judgment of sentence.