Com. v. Fowler, J.
Com. v. Fowler, J. No. 1157 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Appellant James Fowler sold cocaine to a confidential informant, Michelle King, on two occasions in spring 2015; the second sale was recorded on King’s hidden body camera.
- Officers arrested Fowler shortly after the second sale and recovered buy money from him; a subsequent search of his residence yielded a scale, baggies, a ledger, paraphernalia, and over 100 grams of cocaine.
- Fowler admitted the two sales and possession of most items but claimed entrapment and that much of the cocaine was planted; King testified Fowler sold to her many times and denied entrapment.
- Fowler moved to suppress evidence challenging the search warrant and probable cause; the suppression court denied the motion. Fowler proceeded to a jury trial and was convicted on all counts.
- Fowler was sentenced to an aggregate term of 9½ to 19 years imprisonment, timely appealed, and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; the trial court issued a responsive opinion.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Fowler waived the issues he raised on appeal by failing to preserve or adequately develop them at trial, in his 1925(b) statement, or in his appellate brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / entrapment | Commonwealth: evidence supports convictions; body-cam and witness testimony show sales and possession | Fowler: King entrapped him; her conduct compelled sales and suffices to overturn or require acquittal | Waived — Fowler failed to preserve an entrapment challenge in his 1925(b) statement and did not develop a sufficiency argument in his brief |
| Motion to suppress (warrant validity) | Commonwealth: warrant supported by probable cause based on informant-controlled buys and corroboration | Fowler: probable cause derived from entrapment; suppression warranted and exclusionary rule should apply to entrapment-based informant evidence | Waived — Fowler did not raise entrapment before the suppression court or in a sufficiently specific manner in 1925(b) or brief |
| Admission of prior drug-use evidence (Rule 404(b) type concern) | Commonwealth: responsive evidence and impeachment/rebuttal of defendant’s theory of personal use | Fowler: prior-use evidence improperly showed propensity to sell drugs | Waived — Fowler introduced or elicited much of the challenged evidence and failed to cite/identify record or object at trial |
| Preservation requirements generally | N/A | Fowler argues on appeal on several grounds | Held: appellate review limited — issues not raised at trial, not detailed in 1925(b), or not developed in brief are waived; Pa.R.A.P. and case law govern preservation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 1983) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (issues omitted from a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2006) (vague 1925(b) statement is the functional equivalent of no statement)
- Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate arguments not developed per Pa.R.A.P. rules may be waived)
- Harkins v. Calumet Realty Co., 614 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. 1992) (issues raised in questions but not developed in argument are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 718 A.2d 804 (Pa. Super. 1998) (specific challenges to a warrant must be presented to suppression court to preserve them)
- Commonwealth v. Menginie, 458 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 1983) (failure to apprise suppression court of specific affidavit errors waives warrant challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Heaton, 472 A.2d 1068 (Pa. 1984) (a party cannot claim error in admission of evidence it introduced)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 823 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate argument relying on the record must cite relevant portions to preserve and develop the claim)