Commonwealth v. Yorgey
188 A.3d 1190
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Police responded to a 911 domestic-dispute call at Appellant Christian Yorgey’s apartment; Yorgey was on the stairs as officers arrived.
- Officers say Ms. Yorgey invited Corporal Slattery into the apartment; once inside, Officer Cutting observed a gold marijuana grinder in plain view next to the sofa and Ms. Yorgey identified it as Yorgey’s.
- Slattery returned downstairs, patted Yorgey down, arrested him for constructive possession of the grinder, and found a “one‑hitter” on his person during a search incident to arrest.
- Yorgey then sought his cell phone from his truck; officers detected a strong marijuana odor, and with Yorgey’s permission recovered marijuana and a lit bowl from the truck.
- At suppression, the court credited the officers’ testimony over Ms. Yorgey’s denial of consent, denied the suppression motion, and the jury convicted Yorgey of drug paraphernalia and two small‑amount marijuana offenses.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders, examined the record for non‑frivolous issues, granted withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valid entry/consent & plain‑view seizure leading to constructive possession | Commonwealth: Officers had consent to enter; grinder was in plain view and Ms. Yorgey identified it as Appellant’s, providing probable cause for constructive possession | Yorgey: His wife denied consenting to entry; suppression court erred in accepting officers’ version and in finding probable cause for constructive possession | Trial court’s credibility findings credited officers; plain‑view seizure and constructive possession finding supported probable cause; suppression denial affirmed |
| Search incident to arrest and subsequent vehicle search | Commonwealth: Arrest for grinder justified search incident to arrest (yielding one‑hitter), and Appellant consented to officers checking truck after odor noticed | Yorgey: Evidence obtained from person and truck should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful entry/arrest and no exigency justified searches | Search incident to lawful arrest was valid; Yorgey consented to truck search after odor; evidence admissible |
| Anders compliance and scope of appellate review | Appellate counsel: Anders brief properly summarized record and argued suppression issue; withdrawal appropriate | Appellant (pro se filings): raised trial counsel ineffectiveness; broader review may be required to ensure no non‑frivolous issues were missed | Court found Anders requirements satisfied, conducted full examination of record for non‑frivolous issues, discerned none, granted counsel’s petition to withdraw, and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure and court duties when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders obligations in Pennsylvania; reviewing court must ensure complete frivolity)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (review entire record for potentially non‑frivolous issues under Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Petroll, 738 A.2d 993 (Pa. 1999) (plain‑view seizure principles)
- Commonwealth v. Camacho, 625 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Super. 1993) (deference to suppression court credibility determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussing scope of appellate review under Anders)