Com. v. Long, E.
Com. v. Long, E. No. 3255 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- At 5:00 a.m. on Oct. 6, 2013, Officers observed Edward Long on a dead-end block walking from a parked Dodge Ram toward a running white Ford F-250 belonging to Walsh Construction; the truck had been reported stolen.
- When Long saw the patrol car he turned and walked away; officers stopped and contacted him.
- Long told officers he had a knife; during a frisk an officer removed the knife and a Walsh Group/Construction gas card from Long’s pocket; officer smelled alcohol on Long’s breath and an open beer can was in the truck.
- Long was arrested; latent prints from the truck/beer can were not identifiable; Long stipulated the truck was stolen and he had no permission to use it.
- Long was convicted after a nonjury trial of receiving stolen property and unauthorized use of an automobile; he was sentenced to 2–4 years’ imprisonment plus three years’ probation (later credited for time served).
- On appeal Long raised Rule 600 (speedy trial), suppression (stop/frisk/plain-feel), sufficiency/weight of evidence, and discretionary-sentencing challenges; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Long's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 600 (speedy trial) — whether Commonwealth exercised due diligence in scheduling trial | Commonwealth relied on officer illness causing multiple continuances; delays were not misconduct | Officer Branyan’s unspecified medical condition didn’t establish unavailability; dismissal required | Waived alternative theory on appeal; trial court did not abuse discretion — no Rule 600 relief |
| Suppression — whether stop/frisk and seizure of gas card were lawful (reasonable suspicion; Terry frisk/plain-feel) | Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain (time, location, theft alerts, behavior, running truck); Long admitted a knife so frisk for weapons was justified; inevitable discovery would admit gas card | Stop and frisk exceeded limits; plain-feel did not justify seizing a gas card | Stop and frisk supported by reasonable suspicion and admission of knife; plain-feel questionable but gas card admissible under inevitable discovery doctrine |
| Sufficiency — evidence to sustain convictions for unauthorized use and receiving stolen property | Circumstantial evidence (truck marked Walsh, Long not employee, flight on seeing police, proximity to truck, open beer) supports knowledge/possession | Long was >30 feet away, no fingerprints, gas card name differed, alcohol could have other sources — insufficient | Evidence (stipulation that truck was stolen, flight, proximity, open beer, gas card) sufficient to infer possession and guilty knowledge |
| Sentencing — discretionary aspects: court relied on impermissible factors; mitigators treated as aggravators | Court properly considered criminal history, PSI, recidivism, rehabilitation needs; prior arrests/convictions may be weighed | Court relied on trial exercise, poverty, prior arrests and treated disability/addiction as aggravating | Preserved; raises substantial question but court did not abuse discretion — sentencing justified by defendant’s extensive record and failure to rehabilitate |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review and framework for Rule 600 analysis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (authority for investigative stops and Frisks)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Carson, 592 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Super. 1991) (knowledge of theft may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including flight)
- Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discussion of inevitable discovery in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Stallone, 87 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Commonwealth’s duty to exercise reasonable efforts to proceed to trial)