Com. v. Dixson, S., Com. v. Dixson, S. No. 234 WDA 2015

Appellant Shilee Dixson was convicted after a nonjury trial of second-degree murder, robbery inflicting serious bodily injury, criminal conspiracy, and possession of firearm by a minor; sentences imposed accordingly.
The victim, Malachi Urbini, was shot and killed during a May 8, 2011 robbery in an alley in McKees Rocks, resulting in death when a bullet pierced the heart.
Dixson gave a post-arrest confession; he moved to suppress on grounds that at the time of confession he was a minor, could not speak with a parent or interested adult, and did not knowingly and intelligently waive Miranda rights.
A suppression hearing (Sept. 9–10, 2014) featured detective testimony about arrest, custodial interrogation, a waiver form signed at 12:00 p.m., and a nine-minute recorded statement at 2:06 p.m.; Dixson was briefly left alone in an interrogation room and shackled to the floor.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the waiver of Miranda rights voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; Dixson was tried September 29–30, 2014 and convicted as noted above.
Dixson timely appealed; the trial court’s 1925(a) opinion and appellate briefing framed two suppression issues: Miranda waiver and cell-phone data consent; the appellate standard is limited to whether factual findings are supported and legal conclusions are correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Miranda waiver validly voluntary and intelligent?	Dixson contends waiver was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent.	Commonwealth contends waiver was voluntary and intelligent under totality of circumstances.	Waiver valid; confession admissible.
Did the court err in denying suppression of cell-phone data?	Dixson argues the phone data should have been suppressed.	Commonwealth contends no error; evidence admissible.	Issue abandoned/waived on appeal.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 ((1966)) (requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
In re K.Q.M., 873 A.2d 752 ((Pa. Super. 2005)) (Miranda applicability to juveniles; waiver considerations)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 ((1980)) (custodial interrogation triggers Miranda safeguards)
Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231 ((Pa. Super. 2015)) (two-dimensional test for juvenile Miranda waiver)
Commonwealth v. Crompton, 682 A.2d 286 ((Pa. 1996)) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 598 A.2d 539 ((Pa. 1991)) (scope of suppression review; factual findings)
In re V.C., 66 A.3d 341 ((Pa. Super. 2013)) (juvenile waiver considerations; totality of circumstances)