Com. v. Burgess, B.
366 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- On Aug. 20, 2014 Officer Balchun stopped Burgess after observing a right turn without a signal and smelling marijuana from the vehicle.
- During the stop Burgess admitted he had marijuana and handed the officer a small bag; he then fled in the vehicle, tossed items from the car, and was later apprehended.
- Police recovered 250 packaged heroin packets where Burgess had thrown items; Burgess tested positive for marijuana and had a suspended license.
- Burgess was convicted after a jury of 27 of 29 counts (including possession with intent to deliver heroin, fleeing, DUI) and sentenced to an aggregate 7½ to 15 years.
- Burgess moved to suppress statements and evidence, raised Miranda and probable-cause challenges, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, and challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence; the trial court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed in part on the trial court’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Burgess) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop | Officer observed signal violation and smelled marijuana—stop lawful | Officer argues no visible smoke and stop lacked probable cause | Stop lawful: officer’s credible observation of failure to signal provided probable cause to stop |
| Admissibility of statements (Miranda) | Single question during investigatory detention is permissible; Miranda not required | Statements were the product of custodial interrogation and should be suppressed | Held statements admissible: detention was investigatory (not custodial) and the question sought to confirm/dispel suspicion |
| Suppression of drugs (fruits of statement) | Drugs admissible: Burgess voluntarily handed marijuana; odor alone provided probable cause to search; heroin abandoned during flight | Drugs should be suppressed as fruit of inadmissible statements/search | Held evidence admissible: probable cause from marijuana odor (and voluntary surrender/abandonment) justified seizure/search |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (Commonwealth opposes raising on direct appeal) | Trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine officer | Claim deferred: not appropriate on direct appeal; trial court rightly declined to exercise discretion to reach it |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Sentence within guideline ranges and imposed after PSI; lawful exercise of discretion | Sentence excessive; court failed to consider history/character | No substantial question raised; sentence within standard range and not excessive — appellate relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (officer may ask questions to confirm/dispell suspicion during investigatory detention)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 936 A.2d 76 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Miranda not required during investigatory detention)
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (odor of marijuana can provide probable cause to search a vehicle)
- Commonwealth v. Stoner, 344 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1975) (odor of marijuana provides probable cause to search)
- Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 366 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 1976) (abandonment doctrine and voluntariness in police seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when discretionary sentencing claims present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (PSI generally satisfies trial court’s obligation to consider defendant’s character and mitigating factors)