Com. v. Fleegle, D.
Com. v. Fleegle, D. No. 434 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- At ~12:50 a.m. on June 23, 2014, Officer Zelek ran the registration of a vehicle registered to Desiree Fleegle; he followed the vehicle into a Sheetz parking lot.
- A female driver (Fleegle) began pumping gas; Zelek ran her name through J-NET and received a result showing a DUI-related license suspension.
- Zelek approached, asked for identification; Fleegle said, “You know I don’t have a license,” and a cup with a dark liquid smelling of alcohol was observed in the vehicle.
- Fleegle was charged with driving without a license, driving while operating privilege suspended, and restrictions on alcoholic beverages; she was convicted in magistrate court and pursued a summary appeal.
- The trial court denied Fleegle’s suppression motion and sentenced her to 60–90 days’ incarceration plus fines; she appealed pro se, with multiple briefing delays and an ultimately untimely brief.
Issues
| Issue | Fleegle's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police-citizen interaction was an unlawful investigatory detention | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause to detain; encounter escalated improperly | Officer’s approach was a mere encounter; Fleegle’s admission she had no license ended her freedom to leave | Interaction was a mere encounter until Fleegle’s admission; suppression denial affirmed |
| Admissibility of observed beverage (alleged alcoholic drink) | Evidence obtained during unlawful detention should be suppressed | Evidence lawfully observed during a mere encounter and subsequent admission was admissible | Beverage properly admitted; no suppression relief |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at summary appeal hearing | Counsel was ineffective in representation | Claim not properly raised on direct appeal; should be raised collateral review | Ineffective assistance claim not addressed on direct appeal (procedurally deferred) |
| Preservation of additional appellate issues (Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)) | Raised various additional claims in pro se brief | Many issues were not preserved in Rule 1925(b) statement | Unpreserved issues waived and not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sohnleitner, 884 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 2005) (dismissal for procedural defaults is within the court’s discretion)
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate briefs must conform to Pa.R.A.P. requirements or risk quash/dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (pro se filings are liberally construed but offer no special advantage)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (self-represented litigants bear consequences of lack of legal training)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims generally reserved for collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression: factual findings reviewed for record support; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Fleet, 114 A.3d 840 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishes mere encounter, investigative detention, and arrest standards)
- Commonwealth v. Au, 42 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2012) (request for identification alone does not convert a mere encounter into an investigative detention)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)