Com. v. Wright, P.
180 EDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2021Background
- April 23, 2019: police executed a search warrant at Wright’s apartment after a confidential informant had made multiple controlled buys and reported Wright was packaging a large new supply of cocaine for resale.
- A drug dog alerted on the apartment; officers found 46 small baggies and packaging in a mailbox outside Wright’s door and bulk cocaine, packaging materials, a scale, and a cutting agent in a trashcan on the front porch next to his entrance; Wright’s water bill with his name/address was in the trashcan.
- Officers also recovered $12,245 in currency from an air fryer and additional cash on Wright; Wright was on electronic home monitoring at the time.
- Wright was convicted by jury of two counts of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia; the trial court denied his suppression motion.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive standard-range terms resulting in an aggregate 14.25 to 40 years’ imprisonment; Wright appealed raising suppression, a discovery-sanctions claim, merger/double jeopardy, and discretionary-sentencing issues.
- The Superior Court held the suppression ruling and discovery claim were not reversible (the discovery claim was waived), but concluded the PWID counts and paraphernalia counts should have merged and vacated the judgment of sentence, remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of search: whether mailbox and porch trashcan were beyond warrant | Warrant described the porch and mailboxes; dog alerts and proximity supported search of containers | Mailbox and trashcan were outside the scope and not shown to be under Wright’s sole control | Warrants description included the open front porch and mailboxes; search of trashcan and mailbox and opening containers was within scope; suppression denied |
| Discovery sanctions for undisclosed inculpatory testimony (trashcan proprietorship) | Officer Murphy testified a resident identified the trashcan as Wright’s without prior disclosure; sanction required under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 | Issue not preserved—defense did not raise contemporaneously at trial nor include in Rule 1925(b) statement | Claim waived for appellate review due to failure to preserve; no relief granted |
| Double jeopardy / merger and legality of sentence | Second PWID and paraphernalia counts arose from the same act (packaging one new supply) and therefore should merge for sentencing | Commonwealth argued counts did not merge (cited precedent distinguishing separate acts/locations) but conceded argument was compelling | Court concluded second count of each crime should have merged into the first; sentence was illegal, judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (warrant particularity and scope defined by object/place)
- Commonwealth v. Turpin, 216 A.3d 1055 (Pa. standard on particularity; receptacles/containers within scope when object may be found there)
- Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208 A.3d 497 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 125 A.3d 1272 (merger requires single criminal act and elements overlap test)
- Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759 (same-facts and greater/lesser-included analysis for merger)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 238 A.3d 399 (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 958 A.2d 522 (consecutive sentences upheld where offenses were separate acts/locations)
- Commonwealth v. Motley, 177 A.3d 960 (remand required when appellate disposition upsets sentencing scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 960 A.2d 160 (illegal-sentence claims are not waived on appeal)