J-S51019-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DEXTER WILLIAMS,

Appellant No. 2439 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 19, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005312-2015

BEFORE: BOWES and SHOGAN, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2017

Appellant, Dexter Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence1

entered on July 19, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia 

County following his conviction at a bench trial of possession of marijuana2

and violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, carrying a firearm though 

____________________________________________

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 Although Appellant identifies his appeal as lying from the order finding him 

guilty, the appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence. Therefore,

we will treat this appeal as having been properly taken from the judgment of 

sentence. See Commonwealth v. O'Neill, 578 A.2d 1334, 1335 (Pa.

Super. 1990) (“In criminal cases, appeals lie from judgment of sentence 

rather than from the verdict of guilt.”).

2

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31).
J-S51019-17

- 2 -

ineligible, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm on a 

public street in Philadelphia.3 We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts as follows:

On May 8, 2015, at approximately 11:40 a.m., 

Philadelphia Highway Patrol Officer Joseph Moore received 

information from his supervisor in regards to a shooting in the 

area of 3400 I Street in North Philadelphia. Notes of Testimony 

(“N.T.”), 2/22/2016, at 7. The call did not provide any flash 

information as to the description of the suspect. Id. at 20. In 

an unmarked police vehicle, Officer Moore and Officer Williams 

drove northbound on 3400 H Street when Officer Moore 

observed the Appellant walking north on the east side of H 

Street. Id. at 7-8. The Appellant appeared to be walking 

swiftly, while grabbing and adjusting his waistband in a distinct 

manner. Id at 8. Behind Officer Moore’s vehicle was a marked 

highway patrol vehicle, in which Officer Holmes was present in 

full uniform. As he walked, the Appellant began to look over his 

shoulder toward the marked police vehicle. Id. The Appellant 

then stopped walking, made a U-turn and started walking 

southbound toward the police vehicle. Id. The Appellant 

continued walking southbound for a few steps until he proceeded 

to walk onto the porch of 3429 H Street. While walking up the 

porch the Appellant continued to tug and adjust his waistband. 

Id. at 9.

Due to the Appellant’s movements, Officer Moore, Officer 

Williams and Officer Holmes exited their respective vehicles to 

further investigate. Id. at 10. Officer Moore then told the 

Appellant to stop and show his hands. Id. at 16. [Appellant] 

said something to the effect of, “I didn’t do anything.” Id. 

Officer Moore observed a juice container in the Appellant’s hand 

and a “small black object” in the other. Id. The Appellant 

opened the screen door of the porch and wedged himself 

between the screen door and the front entry door of the 

residence. Id. The Officers were unable to view the Appellant’s 

hands while he was in between the doors of the porch. The 

Officers continued to instruct the Appellant to show his hands. 

____________________________________________

3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 6108, respectively.
J-S51019-17

- 3 -

After the Appellant failed to comply with commands, the Officers 

drew their weapons and continued to instruct the Appellant to 

stop what he was doing. Id. at 11. The Appellant crouched 

down between the screen door and the front door of the 

building. Id. While the Appellant was crouched down his hands 

were out of view for a few moments.

Upon further command, the Appellant discarded a black 

firearm from his right hand. Id. The Officers recovered the 

firearm and placed the Appellant under arrest. Id. After 

searching Appellant, the Officers recovered a clear bag 

containing 12 purple-tinted jars with purple lids, each containing 

a green weed and seed substance. Id. at 12. Inside the clear 

bag was another clear bag with a loose green weed substance. 

Id. The Officers also recovered $779 United States currency from 

the Appellant’s left pants pocket. Id.

The arrest of the Appellant at 3429 H Street was

approximately a block west from where an alleged shooting 

occurred an hour and a half earlier. Id. Officer Moore testified 

the 3400 block of H Street is in the 24th District in the East 

Division. Id. Officer Moore testified he has been a Philadelphia 

Police Officer for twenty-one years, twelve of those years on 

highway patrol. Id. Officer Moore stated the East Division is an 

area in which a high number of violent crimes occur. In 

particular, the area of H Street is an area that encounters crimes 

that are “usually very violent.” Id. at 15. He stated the 

neighborhood is known for gun violence, armed robberies, and

open-air narcotic sales. Id. at 14. Even when Officer Moore is 

not assigned to the East Division, he is advised to conduct a 

sweep of the area during his patrol. Id. He testified that he has 

made hundreds of arrests for guns during his career, several 

dozen of these in the East Division. Id. In addition, Officer 

Moore stated that in conducting gun arrests, he has recovered 

firearms from the vicinity of the person’s waistband in the 

majority of cases. Id. at 15.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/27/17, at 2–4.

Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion, which included a motion to 

suppress physical evidence, on June 15, 2015. The trial court held a 

suppression hearing on February 22, 2016, and denied the motion to 
J-S51019-17

- 4 -

suppress physical evidence on March 22, 2016. Appellant proceeded to a 

waiver trial on April 4, 2016, following which the court convicted Appellant of 

all charges, as described above. The trial court sentenced Appellant on July 

19, 2016, to an aggregate term of imprisonment of six and one-half to 

fifteen years. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 26, 2016.

On August 23, 2016, the trial court directed Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

within twenty-one days. Thus, Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was 

due on or before Tuesday, September 13, 2016. Appellant did not file his

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement until September 23, 2016. It appears the trial 

court overlooked the lateness of Appellant’s filing, and it issued an opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on January 27, 2017, in which it addressed 

the issues raised by Appellant in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, we 

need not remand. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 145 A.3d 184, 186 (Pa. 

Super. 2016), appeal denied, 165 A.3d 892 (Pa. 2017) (While untimely filed 

Rule 1925(b) statement often requires remand, “where the trial court 

addresses the issues raised . . . , we need not remand but may address the 

issues on their merits. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335, 

340 (Pa. Super. 2012).”).

Appellant raises one issue on appeal:

1. Did the suppression court/trial court err in denying

suppression where the police did not possess the necessary 

factual information to stop [A]ppellant based on the totality of 

the circumstances[?]
J-S51019-17

- 5 -

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

We note our standard of review:

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial 

court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining 

whether the factual findings are supported by the record and 

whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are 

correct.

We may consider only the evidence of the prosecution 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 

record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are 

bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in 

reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts.

Commonwealth v. McCoy, 154 A.3d 813, 815–816 (Pa. Super. 2017). We 

may consider only evidence presented at the suppression hearing. In re 

L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1085-87 (Pa. 2013). Instantly, Appellant presented no 

witnesses, and the Commonwealth presented one. Therefore, the 

Commonwealth’s evidence is uncontradicted. See Commonwealth v. 

Runyan, 160 A.3d 831, 834 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Petty, 157 A.3d 953, 955 (Pa. Super. 2017), and Commonwealth v. 

Smith, 979 A.2d 913, 917–18 (Pa. Super. 2009) (The “Commonwealth’s 

evidence is essentially uncontradicted” because the defense did not present 

any witnesses at the suppression hearing.)).

In a three–paragraph argument, Appellant asserts that the seized 

evidence should have been suppressed because police lacked “reasonable 

suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and that [A]ppellant was armed 
J-S51019-17

- 6 -

and dangerous.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. Appellant wholly fails to refer to the 

record in support of his broad statements and allegations of fact. Moreover, 

he fails to develop any meaningful analysis in support of his claims. Thus, 

we could find the argument waived. Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 

A.3d 480, 502 (Pa. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 92 (2016).

Nevertheless, we have considered Appellant’s claim, minimallydeveloped though it is. Following our review of the record, we conclude that 

the trial court adequately addressed Appellant’s issue in its opinion filed 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on January 27, 2017, and we affirm on its 

basis. We direct the parties to attach a copy of the opinion in the event of 

any future proceedings.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judge Bowes joins the Memorandum.

P.J.E. Stevens concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2017
l 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(l), 6106(a)(l), and 6108, respectively. 

2. At the moment, Police Officer Moore had no information regarding the shooter, 

his/her direction of travel or description and no information regarding the 

Appellant who was 6'6" tall, African-American and was wearing gray 

basketball shorts and a black Nike jacket. 

On appeal, Appellant avers four points of error: 

years of incarceration. A timely appeal followed. 

L On or about May 8, 2015, Police Officer Joseph Moore while on patrol in and 

about the 4300 block of H Street at approximately 12:30 a.m. responded to a 

shooting that occurred on I Street (a block away) and an hour and a half earlier. 

Appellant was sentenced on July 19, 2016, to an aggregate term of six and Yi to fifteen 

the motion following testimony and argument. 

Prior to trial, the Appellant litigated a motion to suppress on February 22, 2016. This court denied 

three separate violations of the Uniform Firearms Act following a non-jury trial on April 4, 2016.1 

Dexter Williams, hereinafter Appellant, was found guilty of possession of marijuana and 

Ehrlich, J. 11111111111111111 W II 

7894567311 

OPINION 

CP-51-CR-OOOSJ1i-2015 Comm. v. \Mliams, Dexler -- •. 

Opinion 

JAN 2 7 20111 

. . iUPERIOR COURT 

Crimma, hj)iJ~als Un :o. 2439 EDA 2016 - First Judicial District of · A 

Dexter Williams 

v. 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania CP-51-CR-0005312-2015 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION 

. ', / \ 

Circulated 10/27/2017 02:58 PM
2 

distinct manner. Id at 8. Behind Officer Moore's vehicle was a marked highway patrol vehicle, 

Appellant appeared to be walking swiftly, while grabbing and adjusting his waistband in a 

Officer Moore observed the Appellant walking north on the east side ofH Street. Id. at 7-8. The 

police vehicle, Officer Moore and Officer Williams drove northbound on 3400 H Street when 

I 

not provide any flash information as to the description of the suspect. Id. at 20. In an unmarked 

3400 I Street in North Philadelphia. Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 2/22/2016, at 7. The call did 

Joseph Moore received information from his supervisor in regards to a shooting in the area of 

On May 8, 2015; at approximately 11:40 a.m., Philadelphia Highway Patrol Officer 

As wiJl be discussed below, these claims are without merit. Accordingly, no relief is due. 

Appellant's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. 

The Evidence 

7. In conclusion, the Appellant's statement is that the trial court erred by failing 

to gr~t Appellant's Motion to Suppress evidence and arrest as a result of an 

unlawful search and seizure. 

6. Police Officer Moore indicated that he ordered the Appellant to stop because 

he turned to avoid police and had adjusted his waistband, but that prior to telling 

him to stop, the Appellant had done nothing wrong. 

5. The officers ordered the Appellant off of the porch which he had entered and at 

times 'could and could not see his hands, the officers drew their weapons as a 

result' of Appellant's non-compliance to stop and show his hands and the 

Appeilant discarded his weapon which the police recovered. 

4. The officer observed the AppeJlant adjust his waistband as he was walking up 

H Street and again as he was walking up the steps of 4329 H Street, but the 

officer did not see a bulge on a gun belt or anything on Appellant that resembled 

a weapon. 

3. Police Officer Moore also had no specific tip on particular information that the 

Appellant was involved in any criminal activity when he observed him walking 

Northbound on H Street. 
.3 

each containing a green weed and seed substance. Id. at 12. Inside the clear bag was another 

Appellant, the Officers recovered a clear bag containing 12 purple-tinted jars with purple lids, 

The Officers recovered the firearm and placed the Appellant under arrest. Id. After searching 

Upon further command, the Appellant discarded a black firearm from his right hand. Id. 

hands were out of view for a few moments. 

screen door and the front door of the building. Id. While the Appellant was crouched down his 

Appellant to stop what he was doing. Id. at 11. The Appellant crouched down between the 

I 

porch. The Officers continued to instruct the Appellant to show his hands. After the Appellant 

failed to comply with commands, the Officers drew their weapons and continued to instruct the 

Officers were unable to view the Appellant's hands while he was in between the doors of the 

wedged himself between the screen door and the front entry door of the residence. Id. The 

"small black object" in the other. Id. The Appellant opened the screen door of the porch and 

didn't do anything." Id. Officer Moore observed a juice container in the Appellant's hand and a 

I 

Due to the Appel;lant' s movements, Officer Moore, Officer Williams and Officer Holmes 

exited their respective v~hicles to further investigate. Id. at 10. Officer Moore then told the 

Appellant to stop and show his hands. Id. at 16. The defendant said something to the effect of, 

11! 

Id. at 9. 

H Street. While walking up the porch the Appellant continued to tug and adjust his waistband. 

in which Officer Holmes was present in full uniform. As he walked, the Appellant began to look 

over his shoulder toward, the marked police vehicle. Id. The Appellant then stopped walking, 

I 

made a U-tum and started walking southbound toward the police vehicle. Id. The Appellant 

continued walking southbound for a few steps until he proceeded to walk onto the porch of 3429 
4 

clear bag with a loose green weed substance. Id. The Officers also recovered $779 United States 

currency from the Appellant's left pants pocket. Id. 

The arrest of the Appellant at 3429 H Street was approximately a block west from where 

an alleged shooting occurred an hour and a half earlier. Id. Officer Moore testified the 3400 

block of H Street is in the 24th District in the East Division. Id. Officer Moore testified he has 

been a Philadelphia Police Officer for twenty-one years, twelve of those years on highway patrol. 

. Id. Officer Moore stated the East Division is an area in which a high number of violent crimes 

occur. In particular, the area of H Street is an area that encounters crimes that are "usually very 

violent." Id. at 15. He stated the neighborhood is known for gun violence, armed robberies, and 

open-air narcotic sales. Id. at 14. Even when Officer Moore is not assigned to the East Division, 

he is advised to conduct a sweep of the area during his patrol. Id. He testified that he has made 

hundreds of arrests for guns during his career, several dozen of these in the East Division. Id. In 

addition, Officer Moore stated that in conducting gun arrests, he has recovered firearms from the 

vicinity of the person's waistband in the majority of cases. Id. at 15. 

Discussion 

Appellant asserts that the initial stop and search by police was unlawful, and all evidence 

should have been suppressed. 

In addressing pedestrian stops by police officers, the Supreme Court of the United Sates 

determined that "there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for 

weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing 

with an armed and dangerous individual." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. I, 27 (l 968). "When conducting 

a Terry analysis, it is incumbent on the suppression court to inquire, based on all of the 

circumstances known to the officer ex ante, whether an objective basis for the seizure was present." 

. ' 
5 

Wardlow 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000)). 

suspicion. Commonwealth v. Washington, 51 A.3d 895, 898 (PA Super. 2012) (citing lllinois v. 

reasonable suspicion. In Illinois v, Wardlow, the United States Supreme Courtstated "unprovoked 

flight upon noticing the police" in a high crime area is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable 

Evasive behavior is just one of the many factors law enforcement can draw upon to form 

California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1688-90 (201~). 

basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." Id. (citing Navarette v. 

Brief investigative stops are permitted when law enforcement has "a particularized and objective 

Carter at *2-3 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal citations omitted). 

analysis: 

Pennsylvania law recognizes three levels of police encounters for search and seizure 

673, 676 (Pa. 1999) (citations omitted). 

The first of these is a "mere encounter" ( or request for information) which need not' be 

supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or respond. 

The second, an "investigative detention" must be supported by reasonable suspicion; it 

subjects a suspect to a stop and period of detention, but does not involve such coercive 

conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest. Finally, an arrest or "custodial 

detention" must be supported by probable cause. 

considered collectively, may permit the investigative detention. Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d 

from the facts in light of the officer's experience and acknowledge that innocent facts, when 

circumstances, courts must also afford due weight to the specific, reasonable inferences drawn 

Commonwealth v. Dixon, 997 A.2d 368, 380 (Pa. Super. 2010). In assessing the totality of the 

circumstances in order to determine whether the officers had reasonable suspicion for a stop. 

criminal activity is afoot. Terry, at 21. Courts are required to look at the totality of the 

police officer must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" leading him to suspect 

Commonwealth v. Carter, I 05 A.3d 765, 769 (Pa. Super. 2014). In order to justify the seizure, a 

• I 
6 

founded shooting occurred and within thirty minutes of his supervisor's caU. No other pedestrians 

the surrounding circumstances. Officer Moore spotted the Appellant a block away from where a 

Officer Moore believed the Appellant had a firearm on his person based on his actions and 

is a street in which "very violent" crimes occur. 

violence, armed robberies and open-air narcotic sales. Officer Moore stated H Street, in particular, 

advised to conduct a sweep of the area during his patrol. The neighborhood is known for gun 

dozen in the East Division. Even when Officer Moore is not assigned to the East Division, he is 

' 

i 

crimes occur. He testified that he has made hundreds of arrests for guns during his career, several 

East Division. Officer Moore stated the East Division is an area in which a high number of violent 

on highway patrol. Officer Moore testified the 3400 block of H Street is in the 24th District in the 

totality of the circumstances analysis. In this case, Appellant's actions appeared evasive as soon 

as he saw Officer Ho1m1s' vehicle over his shoulder. 

stated, after a suspect learns of police presence, one's evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in the 

stated the Appellant appeared evasive after noticing Officer Holmes' marked police vehicle. As 

made eye contact with the officers and continued to tug and adjust his waistband. Officer Moore 

police vehicles. The police officers stopped and exited their vehicles. Again, the Appellant turned, 

Officer Moore has been a Philadelphia Po1ice Officer for twenty-one years, twelve years 

After the Appellant looked over his shoulder, in the direction of Officer Moore's marked patrol 

vehicle, he stopped walking. He then made a U-turn and started walking southbound, toward the 

Appellant was seen walking swiftly while grabbing and adjusting his waistband with both hands. 

Officer Moore observed Appellant on 3400 H Street, one block west of 3400 I Street. The 

shooting on the 3400 block of I Street. About thirty minutes after receiving the information, 

In the instant case, Officer Moore received information from his supervisor of an alleged 
7 

. ' 

were observed in the area. Officer Moore testified that after observing the Appellant his first 

instinct was the Appellant could have a gun in his waistband. Based on Officer Moore's 

experience, the waistband is a coinmon area of the body in which individuals carry and conceal 

firearms. After the totality of the circumstances evolved, Officer Moore testified he was certain 

the Appellant was carrying a gun due to the tugging and adjusting of the waistband. In addition, 

Appellant was observed in a high crime area late at night. 

Officer Moore drew upon his experience, as well as his knowledge of the area, training, 

experience and observations that night, to conclude that Appellant may be involved in criminal 

activity. The court found Officer Moore's observations were sufficiently specific and reliable for 

him to form reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion was heightened into probable cause 

when Officer Moore witnessed the Appellant discard a firearm from his person. 

Given the totality of the circumstances, Officer Moore's investigatory detention of 

Appellant was supported by reasonable suspicion. 
8 

J. 

for relief. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. 

. . 

harmful, prejudicial, or reversible error and nothing to justify the granting of Appellant's request 

In summary, this court has carefully reviewed the entire record and finds no 

Conclusion