Commonwealth v. Colon
31 A.3d 309
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant convicted by jury of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia; suppression motion seeking to suppress physical evidence denied; search conducted May 1, 2009 at Amy Bachman’s Cool Creek apartment and related vehicle search yielded contraband; Agent Lapp testified regarding observations near a bar, residence allegations, and surveillance leading to the search; Appellant argued insufficient reasonable suspicion and improper trial judge conduct; Court affirms conviction and addresses waiver of certain claims under Hammer/Grant framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression court correct in denying the suppression motion? | Lapp’s ongoing reports and observed activity created suspicion | Evidence derived from searches was illegally obtained due to lack of reasonable suspicion | Denial of suppression affirmed (reasonable suspicion found) |
| Was there reasonable suspicion to search Appellant’s person and vehicle on May 1, 2009? | Totality of circumstances supported suspicion under parole-search framework | Suspicion was insufficient to justify searches | Yes; searches upheld under 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6153(d)(1)-(2) and totality of circumstances |
| Are Appellant’s challenges to trial judge remarks and defense witness questioning waived, and can ineffective assistance be raised on direct appeal? | Waiver should be excused under Hammer to address substantive issue | Grant overruled Hammer; waiver applies; ineffective-assistance claims belong in PCRA | Claims waived; any IAC issue may be raised in PCRA (not on direct appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hunter, 963 A.2d 545 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parole search permitted with reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Shabazz, 18 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2011) (totality of circumstances governs reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 16 A.3d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2011) (de minimis prejudice in suppression findings)
- Commonwealth v. Hammer, 508 Pa. 88, 494 A.2d 1054 (1985) (waiver can be overlooked when objection would be meaningless; non-retroactive under modern doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (overruled Hammer; waiver generally required on direct appeal for claims like IAC)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 25 A.3d 371 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc; affirms Grant limitation on direct review for IAC claims)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 24 A.3d 1037 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for reviewing suppression findings; factual record binding)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 914 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. 2006) (parole search where reasonable suspicion that residence contains contraband)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 606 Pa. 198, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (anonymous tips corroborated by police may support reasonable suspicion)