Com. v. Smith, C.
321 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2017Background
- Police at a FedEx facility discovered a package containing ~15.25 lbs of marijuana and resealed it; FedEx employee had opened it and alerted law enforcement.
- Agents performed a controlled delivery to the package’s addressed residence; an undercover officer placed the parcel on the porch.
- Appellant Carlton Roy Smith (not the addressee) was observed taking the package, placing it in his car trunk, and was immediately arrested.
- After receiving Miranda warnings, Smith gave a signed statement admitting knowledge of the marijuana; he later testified at trial he thought the package contained cosmetics.
- Jury convicted Smith of PWID, criminal conspiracy, criminal use of a communication facility, and possession of drug paraphernalia; he was sentenced chiefly to 4–8 years.
- Smith filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel filed a Finley/Turner no-merit letter and moved to withdraw. The PCRA court dismissed the petition; Smith appealed but filed his Rule 1925(b) statement 89 days late. The Superior Court affirmed, deeming issues waived and, alternatively, without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of search/seizure of FedEx package and vehicle search | FedEx improperly opened/contaminated package; law enforcement abused discretion and conducted illegal search of package/vehicle | FedEx is a private actor (not government); Smith had no legitimate expectation of privacy in a package not addressed to him; officers observed him take package and had probable cause to arrest/search vehicle | Court held searches lawful: FedEx not a state actor; no expectation of privacy; vehicle search permissible given probable cause from controlled delivery and observations |
| Alleged illegal "controlled buy" | Smith says law enforcement conducted an illegal controlled buy (outrageous conduct) | Record shows a controlled delivery, not a buy; delivery to intended address and lawful surveillance; conduct not shocking or outrageous | Court found no illegal buy or outrageous government conduct; claim meritless |
| Voluntariness of post-arrest statement / Miranda claim | Smith contends statement was coerced and interrogation violated Fifth/Sixth/Fourteenth Amendments | Suppression hearing and trial record show Miranda warnings were given, Smith waived counsel, signed statement after ~20 minutes; issue litigated on direct appeal | Previously litigated on direct appeal; PCRA relief denied as claim was previously litigated and without merit |
| Procedural: untimely Rule 1925(b) and waiver of issues / ineffective assistance claim | Smith raised multiple trial/pretrial errors and, in his brief, framed them as ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Smith filed his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement 89 days late with no proof of timely mailing; rule is different for pro se appellants (no per se ineffective assistance for self) and ineffective-assistance claims were not raised in timely statement | Superior Court deemed the issues waived for appellate review due to untimely Rule 1925(b) filing by pro se appellant; alternatively, adopted PCRA court’s merits analysis and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania adoption of Strickland standard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 817 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2002) (private-party searches do not trigger Fourth Amendment protections)