Com. v. Hill-Gamble, C., 678 MDA 2016

Background

On August 22, 2014 police stopped a vehicle for expired registration; occupants fled when the car stopped. Officers later recovered drug-related contraband and a Galaxy S5 cellphone from the vehicle.
Police linked the Galaxy S5’s registered phone number to a different phone (Galaxy S3) after the number was transferred on August 23, 2014; the Galaxy S3 was recovered on Appellant’s person after his arrest.
Officer Corby, based on proximity of the S5 to contraband and his experience that drug dealers use phones to arrange deals, sought and conducted a search of the Galaxy S3 for evidence of criminal activity.
Appellant (Calvin Hill-Gamble) was tried and convicted by a jury on multiple counts: firearms offenses, persons not to possess firearms, receiving stolen property, possessing instruments of crime, PWID, possession, and paraphernalia.
Appellant moved to suppress the cellphone search, raised a weight-of-the-evidence claim, and challenged the aggregate sentence of four consecutive terms (10–20 years); the trial court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Hill-Gamble’s Argument	Commonwealth’s Argument	Held
Was the warrantless search of Hill-Gamble’s Galaxy S3 cellphone lawful?	Search violated 4th Amendment; phone contents and records should have been suppressed.	Probable cause existed: S5 found near contraband, same phone number transferred to S3, officer experience supported belief phone would contain evidence.	Affirmed — probable cause existed; search lawful.
Was Hill-Gamble properly identified as a fleeing occupant and thus linked to the car and contraband?	He denied being a fleeing passenger; testified he had been dropped off before stop.	Identification supported by officer observations, witness testimony placing him at scene, phones connecting him to contraband.	Affirmed — jury credibility findings reasonable; verdict not against weight of evidence.
Were the guilty verdicts against the weight of the evidence?	Verdicts shocked the conscience given alleged identification issues and alternative explanations.	Evidence (witnesses, phone links, contraband proximity) supported convictions.	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial on weight grounds.
Was the aggregate sentence of 10–20 years excessive and an abuse of discretion?	Four consecutive terms producing 10–20 years was excessive given rehabilitative indicators.	Court reasonably balanced Appellant’s articulate compliance with supervision against repeated criminal conduct and history.	Affirmed — sentencing within discretion given nature of offenses and criminal history.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression denial and scope of appellate review of factual findings)
Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims)