J-S89039-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

KAREEM FITCHETT

 Appellant No. 3307 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 1, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015723-2013

BEFORE: SHOGAN, MOULTON, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED April 25, 2017

Appellant, Kareem Fitchett, appeals from his judgment of sentence of 

five to ten years’ imprisonment for carrying a firearm as a convicted felon,1

carrying a firearm without a license2and carrying a firearm in public in 

Philadelphia.3 Appellant argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred by 

denying his motion to suppress the gun that police officers found in his bag 

during a search incident to arrest. We affirm.

At 2:00 p.m. on November 5, 2013, Captain Drew Techner was 

patrolling the area of 23rd and Jefferson Streets in Philadelphia when he saw 

a Chrysler 300 stopped in the middle of the street. The vehicle was directly 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106.

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.
J-S89039-16

- 2 -

in front of the officer’s car, blocking traffic and preventing the officer from 

passing in his vehicle. Captain Techner saw Appellant in the rear passenger 

seat handing an object to the driver. The officer approached the driver to 

initiate a traffic stop and found that he was operating a cab. 

Moments later, Officer Neika Bell arrived as back-up and approached 

Appellant, who was still sitting in the rear passenger seat with a black bag 

next to him. Officer Bell asked Appellant for his identification, and Appellant 

told her his name and date of birth. The officer ran this information in the 

N.C.I.C./P.C.I.C. database and learned that Appellant was on bench warrant 

status. 

Officer Bell asked Appellant to step out of the vehicle. Appellant 

stepped out carrying the black bag, and he was patted down and arrested. 

Minutes later, Officer Joseph Maltz arrived on the scene to transport 

Appellant and found him standing with the black bag on the ground 

immediately next to him. Officer Maltz asked Appellant whether he was the 

owner of the black bag, and Appellant made a gesture indicating that the 

bag was his. Captain Techner confirmed that it was the same black bag that 

he saw Appellant carrying when stepping out of the vehicle at the time of 

arrest. Officer Maltz looked in the bag and recovered a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun.

Appellant was charged with the aforementioned offenses. On March 

25, 2015, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress the gun 
J-S89039-16

- 3 -

seized during his arrest4and then found Appellant guilty of all charges 

during a non-jury trial. On June 1, 2015, the court imposed sentence. 

Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions challenging, inter alia, the 

weight of the evidence. The trial court denied these motions, and Appellant 

filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied 

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant raises three issues in this appeal:

A. Did the suppression court err by denying Appellant’s 

motion to suppress?

B. Was the evidence insufficient to support the weapons 

charges?

C. Were the verdicts against the weight of the evidence?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Appellant first challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. When 

this Court addresses a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion,

[we are] limited to determining whether the suppression 

court’s factual findings are supported by the record and 

whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are 

correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the 

suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of 

the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the 

defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the 

context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression 

court’s factual findings are supported by the record, [the 

appellate court is] bound by [those] findings and may 

reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. 

Where ... the appeal of the determination of the 

 

4 The court entered findings of fact identical in substance to the evidence 

discussed above.
J-S89039-16

- 4 -

suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the 

suppression court’s legal conclusions are not binding on an 

appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the 

suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. 

Thus, the conclusions of the courts below are subject to [ ] 

plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526–27 (Pa. Super. 2015)

(citation omitted). When reviewing the suppression court’s rulings, we 

consider only the suppression record. In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1085 (Pa. 

2013) (“it is inappropriate to consider trial evidence as a matter of course, 

because it is simply not part of the suppression record, absent a finding that 

such evidence was unavailable during the suppression hearing”).

“The Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article I, 

Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect individuals from 

unreasonable searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v. Walls, 53 A.3d 

889, 892 (Pa. Super. 2012). In Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, there are 

three categories of interactions between citizens and the police:

The first [category] is a “mere encounter” (or request for 

information) which need not be supported by any level of 

suspicions, but carries no official compulsion to stop or 

respond. The second, an “investigative detention,” must 

be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a 

suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not 

involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the 

functional equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an arrest or 

“custodial detention” must be supported by probable 

cause.

Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 36 A.3d 1104, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citation omitted). Reasonable suspicion
J-S89039-16

- 5 -

is a less stringent standard than probable cause necessary 

to effectuate a warrantless arrest, and depends on the 

information possessed by police and its degree of reliability 

in the totality of the circumstances. In order to justify the 

seizure, a police officer must be able to point to specific 

and articulable facts leading him to suspect criminal 

activity is afoot. In assessing the totality of the 

circumstances, courts must also afford due weight to the 

specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in 

light of the officer’s experience and acknowledge that 

innocent facts, when considered collectively, may permit 

the investigative detention.

Commonwealth v. Clemens, 66 A.3d 373, 379 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted).

“[A] police officer may stop a vehicle based on the reasonable belief 

that a provision of the Motor Vehicle Code has been or is being violated.” 

Commonwealth v. Rosa, 734 A.2d 412, 414 (Pa. Super. 1999); 75 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6308(b). During a traffic stop for a suspected violation of the Motor 

Vehicle Code, the officer may constitutionally request identification from a 

vehicle passenger. See Commonwealth v. Reed, 19 A.3d 1163, 1167-68 

(Pa. Super. 2011); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 862 A.2d 659, 664 (Pa. 

Super. 2004) (“police can require both the driver and the passengers in the 

vehicle to identify themselves during a routine traffic stop regardless of 

whether there is reasonable suspicion that the passengers are engaged in 

criminal activity”) (emphasis in original); see also Commonwealth v. Au, 

42 A.3d 1002, 1007 (Pa. 2012) (“a request for identification is not to be 

regarded as escalatory in terms of the coercive aspects of a police-citizen 

encounter”). 
J-S89039-16

- 6 -

The Motor Vehicle Code provides:

Outside a business or residence district, no person shall 

stop, park or stand any vehicle, whether attended or 

unattended, upon the roadway when it is practicable to 

stop, park or stand the vehicle off the roadway. In the 

event it is necessary to stop, park or stand the vehicle on 

the roadway or any part of the roadway, an unobstructed 

width of the highway opposite the vehicle shall be left for 

the free passage of other vehicles and the vehicle shall be 

visible from a distance of 500 feet in each direction upon 

the highway.

75 Pa.C.S. § 3351(a). In this case, Captain Techner observed a car stopped 

in the middle of the road for several minutes, obstructing traffic and 

preventing his police vehicle from continuing along the road. Because this 

constituted a violation of section 3351(a), Captain Techner had the authority 

to initiate a traffic stop under 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b), and the back-up officer, 

Officer Bell, had the authority to request Appellant’s identification during the 

course of the stop. Reed, 19 A.3d at 1168; Campbell, 862 A.2d at 664.

Using Appellant’s identification, Officer Bell ran an N.C.I.C. search and 

learned that an open bench warrant existed for his arrest. This furnished 

her with probable cause to arrest Appellant. See Commonwealth v. 

Cotton, 740 A.2d 258, 264-65 (Pa. Super. 1999) (“the information 

contained in a N.C.I.C. report is so inherently reliable that such information 

is, in and of itself, sufficient to form the basis of a finding of probable cause

for a police officer who receives such information from an N.C.I.C. report to 

make an on the spot arrest”). 
J-S89039-16

- 7 -

Because probable cause existed to arrest Appellant, the police officers 

had the authority to take him into custody and perform a search incident to 

his arrest. The scope of a search incident to arrest encompasses the 

defendant’s person and the area within his immediate control, including 

containers within this area. See Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 

792, 799 (Pa. Super. 2016)); Commonwealth v. Guzman, 612 A.2d 524, 

527 (Pa. Super. 1992), abrogated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. 

Bell, 645 A.2d 211 (Pa. Super. 1994). Accordingly, Officer Maltz had the 

authority to search the bag immediately next to Appellant at the scene of 

the arrest and confiscate the gun inside the bag. Id. 

For these reasons, the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to 

suppress the gun seized during his arrest.

In his second argument, Appellant contends that the evidence was 

insufficient to support his convictions for firearms violations because the 

Commonwealth failed to prove the element of possession. We disagree. 

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted 

at trial the in the light most favorable to the verdict 

winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the factfinder to find every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not 

weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the 

fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and 

circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts 

regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the factfinder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that 

as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn 

from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth 
J-S89039-16

- 8 -

may sustain its burden of proving every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above 

test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence 

actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder of 

fact [,] while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and 

the weight of the evidence produced is free to believe all, 

part or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 542-43 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 138 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2016).

The trial court found Appellant guilty under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105, 6106 

and 6108. Section 6105 provides that a person who has been convicted of 

any of several enumerated felonies “shall not possess, use, control, sell, 

transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell, 

transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 

6105 (a)(1). Section 6106 provides in relevant party that a defendant is 

guilty of carrying a firearm without a license if he “carries a firearm in any 

vehicle . . . concealed on or about his person . . . without a valid and lawfully 

issued [firearms] license.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1). Section 6108 prohibits 

an unlicensed defendant from, inter alia, “carry[ing] a firearm . . . upon the 

public streets or upon any public property” in Philadelphia. 18 Pa.C.S. § 

6108. 

The Commonwealth may meet its burden of proving possession not 

only by showing that the weapon was on the defendant’s person, but also by 

establishing that the firearm was in the defendant’s “immediate physical 

control” or “within arm’s reach.” Commonwealth v. Hatcher, 746 A.2d 
J-S89039-16

- 9 -

1142, 1145 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth 

v. Smith, 392 A.2d 727, 729 (Pa. Super. 1978) (evidence that appellant 

was standing with his left foot on bag that contained loaded pistol and 

heroin, and that he bent down near his foot and then resumed standing 

position, demonstrated requisite power and intent to control contraband and 

was sufficient to prove possession of controlled substance).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence 

establishes that defendant was in possession of the gun. Officer Bell 

testified that she saw Appellant with the black bag next to him in the rear 

passenger seat of the taxi cab. N.T., 3/25/15, at 33, 37-38. Both Captain 

Techner and Officer Bell testified that Appellant was carrying the bag when 

he stepped out of the vehicle upon learning that he was on warrant status. 

Id. at 7-8, 17, 33, 37-38. Moments later, Officer Maltz arrived on the scene 

to transport Appellant and saw him standing outside with the bag on the 

ground directly beside him. Id. at 21, 24, 61. When the officer asked 

Appellant if the bag belonged to him, he indicated that it was. Id. at 21, 25-

26, 59, 63-64. Captain Techner confirmed that it was the same black bag 

that he saw Appellant carrying at the time of his arrest. Id. at 7-8. Officer 

Maltz looked in the bag and recovered a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun. 

Id. at 21. In addition, at trial, the Commonwealth presented Appellant’s 

criminal extract, which included two prior convictions for violation of the 

Uniform Firearms Act. This evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the 
J-S89039-16

- 10 -

gun in the bag was within Appellant’s immediate physical control, thus 

establishing the element of possession. 

Appellant insists that that the evidence failed to demonstrate that 

“[he] knew that a gun was present in the bag attributed to him or that he 

acknowledged possession of that particular bag.” Brief for Appellant at 29. 

Notably, Appellant does not claim that the bag belonged to the driver of the 

cab, yet he insists that the bag—which he was carrying when he exited the 

cab—did not belong to him and that he did not know what was in the bag. 

This is nothing more than Appellant’s attempt to construe the evidence in 

the light most favorable to himself rather than the Commonwealth. 

Construed in the proper light, as we have done above, the evidence 

establishes the element of possession beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject 

Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

In his final argument, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence, 

claiming that the evidence shocked the conscience because it was 

contradictory and unreliable. We disagree.

Our Supreme Court has held that

[a] motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict was 

against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the 

discretion of the trial court. An appellate court, therefore, 

reviews the exercise of discretion, not the underlying 

question whether the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. The factfinder is free to believe all, part, or 

none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of 

the witnesses. The trial court will award a new trial only 

when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to 

shock one’s sense of justice. In determining whether this 
J-S89039-16

- 11 -

standard has been met, appellate review is limited to 

whether the trial judge’s discretion was properly exercised, 

and relief will only be granted where the facts and 

inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of 

discretion. Thus, the trial court’s denial of a motion for a 

new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is the 

least assailable of its rulings.

Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602, 609 (Pa. 2011) (citations 

omitted).

Based on the evidence summarized above, the trial court rejected 

Appellant’s post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence. 

The court acted within its discretion by concluding that this evidence was 

“not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Id. 

In effect, Appellant asks this Court to re-weigh the evidence relating to 

his possession of the bag containing the gun. This we cannot do. See id. 

(“Appellant’s argument is nothing more than a veiled attempt to have this 

Court re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the 

jury, which is wholly improper”). In any event, Appellant overlooks that 

both Captain Techner and Officer Bell testified that Appellant was carrying 

the bag upon exiting the vehicle, and that Officer Maltz (1) recovered the 

gun from the bag that was immediately next to Appellant (2) after Appellant 

indicated that he owned the bag. No relief is due.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S89039-16

- 12 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/25/2017