J-S11028-24 

 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 v. 

JONATHAN R. LAMBERT 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 1673 EDA 2023 

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 12, 2023 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-15-CR-000315-2018 

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JULY 19, 2024

 Jonathan R. Lambert appeals from the order denying his Post Conviction 

Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Lambert argues 

his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue at the suppression hearing 

that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which 

Lambert was a passenger. We affirm. 

 The trial court briefly summarized the underlying facts as follows. 

The facts of this matter in a nutshell are that [Lambert] 

participated in a conspiracy to commit Burglary and other related 

offenses in Coatesville, Chester County, Pennsylvania over the 

course of six (6) days from November 18, 2017[,] through 

November 23, 2017. [Lambert]’s participation was revealed in two 

(2) recorded phone calls he received from his brother, Douglas 

Lambert [(“Douglas”)], who was in prison when he made these 

and other recorded calls to the members of the conspiracy, 

surveillance conducted by the Coatesville Police Department upon 

their receipt of the records of these calls, and [Lambert]’s 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-S11028-24 

- 2 - 

presence with two (2) of the co-conspirators during a traffic stop 

at approximately 11:30 p.m. on the night of November 23, 2017, 

Thanksgiving night, during which stop various tools, including ski 

masks, wire bolt cutters, night-vision goggles, machetes, and 

other implements utilized in burglaries were found in the car. 

[Lambert] was taken into custody. No burglary was ever 

consummated. 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/27/20, at 1-2. The Commonwealth charged 

Lambert with conspiracy to commit burglary and related charges. His case was 

joined with those of his three co-defendants, Douglas, William Roussos, and 

Lee Fitzgerald Wilson. 

 Lambert and Roussos both moved to suppress. Lambert’s motion 

contended that “[t]he evidence was obtained because of the unlawful arrest 

made without probable cause to search or to make a legal arrest,” and police 

had searched the vehicle without a warrant and the search “did not fall under 

an established exception.” Motion to Suppress, 5/4/2018, at 3-4. 

At the beginning of the suppression hearing, the court denied Lambert’s 

motion as a matter of law. The court found Lambert lacked standing to 

challenge the search of Roussos’s vehicle because Roussos had consented to 

the search after the vehicle was stopped. See N.T., 10/29/18, at 13; Trial Ct. 

Op. at 39-40. The order denying the motion to suppress found that the police 

had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. See Order, filed 2/28/19, at 3-

5 n.1.1

____________________________________________ 

1

 However, the court later stated in its opinion that the part of the order finding 

reasonable suspicion was a “nullity” because the court had dismissed 

Lambert’s motion as a matter of law at the commencement of the suppression 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S11028-24 

- 3 - 

The hearing proceeded on Roussos’s motion. Roussos and the 

Commonwealth stipulated that the court could primarily rely on the testimony 

at the preliminary hearing. The court summarized the preliminary hearing 

testimony, relaying the facts leading up to the traffic stop, as follows. 

At the Preliminary Hearing, the Affiant, Detective Jonathan 

Shave of the Coatesville City Police Department, testified that on 

November 20, 2017[,] he received a phone call from Parkesburg 

Detective Ryan Murtaugh who explained to Detective Shave that 

he was handling an investigation and had obtained certain 

recorded prison phone calls which, it may be inferred, might be of 

interest to Detective Shave. Detective Shave obtained the 

recording from Detective Murtagh on November 20, 2017. When 

Detective Shave listened to the recordings, he recognized the 

voice of one Douglas Lambert speaking to another unidentified 

individual. Detective Shave knew Douglas Lambert’s voice from 

prior investigations involving him. Detective Shave was able to 

identify that the phone calls originated from the prison where 

Douglas Lambert was incarcerated at the time. 

The first phone call Detective Shave received occurred on 

November 18, 2017. The phone call was between Douglas 

Lambert and another person whom Detective Shave was later able 

to identify via the number called as William Roussos. Through an 

investigation with the prison, Detective Shave learned that 

Douglas Lambert and William Roussos had been prison cellmates. 

As noted above, the call originated from Douglas Lambert at the 

prison to Mr. Roussos’[s] phone. 

In this first phone call, Detective Shave heard Douglas 

Lambert ask Mr. Roussos questions about “helping me out.” As 

the call progressed, Detective Shave heard Douglas Lambert state 

to Mr. Roussos, “Do you remember that situation that we 

discussed when you were here” and that “that situation is a go.” 

Mr. Roussos responded by saying “Thank you very much. I really 

____________________________________________ 

hearing. See Trial Ct. Op. at 40. Nonetheless, the court explained in the 

opinion that even if it had not ruled that Lambert had lacked standing, it would 

have denied the suppression motion because the record was sufficient to 

support the stop. Id. at 45, 47. 
J-S11028-24 

- 4 - 

need that right now.” Detective Shave testified that when he 

heard this phone call, he did not understand to what the men were 

referring. 

Detective Shave next reviewed three (3) to four (4) calls 

that occurred on November 19, 2017, two (2) of which were 

significant to the present matter. The first of the batch constituted 

a call from Douglas Lambert to Mr. Roussos. In this call, Douglas 

Lambert tells Mr. Roussos that “[his] peoples just got out.” 

Detective Shave did not know at his time what Douglas Lambert 

meant. Detective Shave testified that he heard Douglas Lambert 

tell Mr. Roussos that Mr. Roussos [“]needed to get in touch with 

the person who had just got out and,[”] as Detective Shave 

testified, and explain [“]the situation[”] to him, because Douglas 

Lambert [“]was not able to talk over the phone.” Again, Detective 

Shave did not at this time know what the “situation” was. 

The second call of interest that occurred on November 19, 

2017[,] was a call again made by Douglas Lambert to William 

Roussos in the evening of that day, which was a Sunday. During 

this call, Douglas Lambert advised Mr. Roussos “that he would 

need to go out to a location and scout out and get a feel for what 

he was going to do.” As the call progressed, Detective Shave 

heard Mr. Roussos tell Douglas Lambert that he was “probably 

going to go out tonight after the game, around midnight to get ice 

cream, if the place is open late.” Unaware of any establishment in 

the area that sold ice cream at midnight, Detective Shave testified 

that he was suspicious of Mr. Roussos’[s] statement. Based on his 

training and experience as a law enforcement officer, Detective 

Shave thought the two (2) men were speaking in code, that is, 

using words and phrases to make what the true intention of the 

discussion is about. 

Next, Detective Shave reviewed phone calls from Douglas 

Lambert that took place on November 20, 2017. The first of these 

calls, and the only one from that day that appears to be relevant 

to the instant proceedings, was a phone call made from Douglas 

Lambert to Mr. Roussos at 8:45 a.m. The first thing that Mr. 

Lambert said to Mr. Roussos was, “Tell me good news”, to which 

Mr. Roussos replied, “We need to go again.” Douglas Lambert then 

stated, “You guys didn’t go?” Mr. Roussos explained that “they” 

did go, but they encountered some things they did not expect. 

When asked by Douglas Lambert what they encountered, Mr. 

Roussos replied that “we encountered horses and an old lady that 
J-S11028-24 

- 5 - 

was acting weird. Just things we didn’t expect. We have to go 

again.” 

Detective Shave next reviewed calls that occurred on 

November 21, 2017. One of these calls was a call from Douglas 

Lambert to Mr. Roussos wherein they “were discussing the 

possibility of Thanksgiving Eve, there were going to be a lot of 

people out.” Mr. Roussos told Douglas Lambert that “he had an 

appointment to go to see his PO and he would be getting an ankle 

bracelet and he described that he would be concerned with his 

ability to make movement—his ability to move.” Detective Shave 

testified that Thanksgiving Eve in 2017 was November 22, 2017. 

In a call that occurred either on November 21, 2017[,] or 

November 22, 2017, Detective Shave observed that Douglas 

Lambert called another number that Detective Shave was able to 

determine belonged to the [d]efendant, Jonathan Lambert. 

Detective Shave learned that [Lambert] was Douglas Lambert’s 

brother and that [Lambert] had just been released from Chester 

County Prison on November 19, 2017. Based upon this 

information, Detective Shave inferred that Douglas Lambert must 

have been referring to his brother, [Lambert], when he stated to 

Mr. Roussos on November 19, 2017[,] that his “people just got 

out.” 

In Douglas Lambert’s call to [Lambert] made on either 

November 21, 2017[,] or November 22, 2017, Douglas Lambert 

asked [Lambert] “if everything is going okay.” Detective Shave 

testified that [Lambert] was “clearly agitated in the phone call.” 

[Lambert] stated to Douglas Lambert, “Yo, your man is blingin. 

I’m thinking he might have went and done it hisself.” Detective 

Shave testified that he believed [Lambert] was referring to Mr. 

Roussos. Detective Shave testified that he did not know what 

[Lambert] meant by his statement that something had been done 

by Douglas Lambert’s “man”; that is, Detective Shave did not yet 

know what that something was. 

In this phone call, Detective Shave heard [Lambert] telling 

Douglas Lambert that “he was concerned.” [Lambert] stated, 

“[Y]our man is blingin. I’m getting concerned he is going to go 

and do the job himself.” [Lambert] then stated, “I’m thinking 

about taking the young boys, Little Lee, Little Prince and going 

and doing it myself, if you give me the green light. One will come 

in with me, one will be the lookout.” Detective Shave testified that 

he believed that “Little Lee” was a reference to co-defendant Lee 
J-S11028-24 

- 6 - 

Fitzgerald Wilson. At the time of the Preliminary Hearing, 

Detective Shave did not know who “Little Prince” was. Detective 

Shave testified that the way the men’s conversation sounded, it 

appeared that the “job” was going to be done on the night of 

November 22, 2017. 

The date of the next phone call that Detective Shave 

reviewed was November 23, 2017. The call was made in the 

morning from Douglas Lambert to Mr. Roussos. In this phone call, 

Douglas Lambert asked Mr. Roussos what happened the night 

before. Detective Shave testified that Mr. Roussos sounded 

confused and replied, “What are you talking about?” Douglas 

Lambert said, “Come on, man, you know what’s going on. You 

were supposed to do it last night.” Mr. Roussos replied, “I thought 

it was for tonight”, to which Douglas Lambert responded, “Oh, you 

thought it was for tonight?” The phone call was then disconnected. 

Douglas Lambert then calls his brother, [Lambert]. Douglas 

Lambert tells [Lambert], “I just talked to him. He said it’s on for 

tonight.” [Lambert] replied, “Oh, yeah, I already talked to him. 

It’s on.” Detective Shave testified that the night of November 23, 

2017[,] was Thanksgiving night. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on 

November 23, 2017, Douglas Lambert again called [Lambert]. 

Detective Shave testified that in this phone call, Douglas Lambert 

can be heard several times stating to [Lambert], “I just want you 

to be careful tonight. I’ll be thinking about you and make sure you 

are dressed for the occasion.” 

On November 23, 2017, after reviewing these prison phone 

calls, Detective Shave, Detective Murtagh, and Coatesville City 

Police Corporal Ken Michaels, along with several Pennsylvania 

State Troopers, established surveillance of [Lambert], who was 

with Lee Fitzgerald Wilson at an establishment called the West End 

Tavern at the time. The police also surveilled William Roussos, 

who was at his residence in Parkesburg. The police set up the 

surveillance because the phone calls indicated that the trio were 

involved in something, that the “something” in which they were 

involved was going to take place that night, and they wanted to 

follow the men to determine what it was that they were doing. 

The police observed [Lambert] and Mr. Wilson leaving the 

West End Tavern at approximately 11:30 p.m., roughly fifteen 

(15) to twenty (20) minutes after the police arrived. Detective 

Shave could not recall whether he observed [Lambert] carrying 

anything when he left the bar. Mr. Wilson got into his car; 
J-S11028-24 

- 7 - 

[Lambert] got into a different car. Both proceeded southbound on 

Strode Avenue to Snake Road to 1241 Youngsburg Road, which is 

[Lambert]’s residence. They both entered [Lambert]’s residence. 

Detective Shave did not observe either man to be carrying 

anything when they entered [Lambert]’s residence. 

Police surveillance of Mr. Roussos showed Mr. Roussos 

leaving his residence in Parkesburg and traveling to [Lambert]’s 

residence at 1241 Youngsburg Road. Detective Shave was not 

aware of Mr. Roussos carrying anything with him into the 

[Lambert]’s residence. Detective Shave did not see any of the 

three (3) men carrying anything when they eventually exited 

[Lambert]’s residence. Detective Shave observed the three (3) 

men enter Mr. Roussos’[s] Jeep and drive southbound on 

Youngsburg Road. The police followed the Jeep. They observed 

the Jeep travel to Buck Run Road, turn northbound on Doe Run 

Road, turn onto Snake Road, go back to Youngsburg Road, take 

Youngsburg Road to Strasburg Road, then drive to Park Alley, 

finally reaching Valley Road. Detective Shave testified that the 

Jeep traveled at the speed limit, which was twenty-five (25) miles 

per hour. 

Trial Ct. Op. at 12-20 (citations to N.T. omitted). 

Roussos also supplemented the transcript of the preliminary hearing 

with the testimony of Corporal Kenneth Michaels, Jr., and Detective Jonathan 

Shave. Corporal Michaels testified that he pulled Roussos’s vehicle over at the 

direction of Detective Shave, who had told him it was driving erratically. N.T., 

10/29/18, at 20, 23. 

Detective Shave testified that he had been conducting surveillance of 

Roussos’s vehicle in an unmarked police vehicle because he believed, based 

on the prison phone calls, that the defendants were involved in a conspiracy 

to commit burglary. Id. at 30-31, 36. He stated Roussos’s vehicle went in a 

circular route, as he described at the preliminary hearing. Id. at 34. He also 
J-S11028-24 

- 8 - 

stated he “observed driving behavior that appeared to me they were trying to 

lose any type of car that was following them”: 

For example, when the car turned off of Buck Run Road onto 

Snake Road, I recall that the car was coming down to Buck Run 

Road and I believe it put its left turn signal on and made a quick 

right onto Snake Road. For us conducting surveillance, it would 

have been obvious that we were following the car if we turned 

onto Snake Road, so we had to radio to another surveillance unit 

that they had just turned onto Snake Road. 

Additionally, I don’t recall the officer, I believe it was Corporal 

Shannon Miller, was following the vehicle on Park Alley. She 

indicated that the vehicle was accelerating speed. These are 

tactics, in my training and experience, that are used by people 

who are trying to avoid surveillance. 

Id. at 35. He testified that he did not observe any specific vehicle code 

violations but suspected that the car was “driving erratically in an attempt to 

avoid surveillance.” Id. at 37-38. Detective Shave testified that he believed 

that if the vehicle was “successful in losing the surveillance units, they would 

have been able to successfully complete the burglary that they were 

planning.” Id. at 36. The court denied Roussos’s motion to suppress. 

Following a six-day trial, the jury convicted Lambert of criminal use of a 

communication facility, possessing instruments of crime, criminal conspiracy 

to commit burglary, criminal conspiracy to commit criminal trespass, criminal 

conspiracy to commit possessing instruments of crime, and criminal 
J-S11028-24 

- 9 - 

conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking.2 The court sentenced Lambert 

to an aggregate of four to nine years’ incarceration plus probation. 

Lambert filed a direct appeal, and we affirmed. Relevant here, Lambert 

argued the court had erred in denying his motion to suppress because, he 

alleged, the vehicle stop was illegal. This Court found that Lambert’s counsel 

had waived the issue by failing to argue in the trial court that the police lacked 

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the vehicle, and by failing to 

challenge the voluntariness of Roussos’s consent to the search. We also found 

that Lambert waived the issue because he had not challenged on appeal the 

erroneous conclusion that he had lacked standing. See Commonwealth v. 

Lambert, No. 3563 EDA 2019, 2020 WL 5684193, at *7 (Pa.Super., filed 

Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished memorandum). Lambert did not seek allowance 

of appeal. 

Lambert timely filed the instant PCRA petition through counsel on 

October 25, 2021,3 and, with leave from the PCRA court, subsequently filed 

an amended petition. The amended petition asserted his trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to argue for suppression based on the allegedly illegal 

stop of Roussos’s vehicle.4 

____________________________________________ 

2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7512(a); 907(a); 903(a)(1) and (2) (of 3502(a)(4)); 

903(a)(1) and (2) (of 3503(a)(1)(ii)); 903(a)(1) and (2) (of 907(a)); and 

903(a)(1) and (2) (of 3921(a)), respectively. 

3

 October 24, 2021, fell on a Sunday. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. 

4

 Lambert also raised an ineffectiveness claim regarding the redaction of 

Roussos’s police interview, which he has since abandoned. 
J-S11028-24 

- 10 - 

The court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a 

hearing. Lambert did not respond, and the court dismissed the petition. The 

PCRA court found trial counsel had not been ineffective, because there had 

been reasonable suspicion to support the stop of the vehicle: 

As a result of their intercept of numerous recorded prison phone 

calls between [Lambert], Mr. Roussos, and Douglas Lambert over 

multiple days leading up to the crimes, their subsequent 

surveillance of the three co-defendants, [Lambert], Mr. Roussos, 

and Lee Wilson, who were not incarcerated at the time of the 

crimes, and their following of Mr. Roussos’ vehicle and observation 

of that vehicle making what was described as an evasive 

maneuver to lose the police tail, the police had ample reasonable 

suspicion that criminal activity was afoot so as to justify the stop 

of Mr. Roussos’ vehicle for investigatory purposes. Consequently, 

even had trial counsel preserved a challenge to the validity of the 

stop of Mr. Roussos’ vehicle, it would have been denied for lack of 

merit. 

PCRA Court Opinion, filed 8/24/23, at 20. 

Lambert appealed. He raises one issue: “Did the PCRA Court err when 

it dismissed [Lambert’s] claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

seek suppression of items found in a vehicle that [Lambert] was a passenger 

in where the police lacked reasonable suspicion to effectuate the traffic stop?” 

Lambert’s Br. at 4. 

 Lambert argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue 

that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Roussos’s vehicle. He 

points out that Corporal Michaels testified at the suppression hearing that he 

stopped the vehicle because Detective Shave had observed “erratic” driving. 

However, Lambert argues, Corporal Michaels had not observed any traffic 
J-S11028-24 

- 11 - 

violations himself, and neither officer articulated what was erratic about 

Roussos’s driving. Lambert also argues that while Detective Shave testified 

that he suspected the vehicle was driving erratically to avoid surveillance by 

the police, the police had been driving unmarked vehicles. Lambert therefore 

contends Detective Shave’s assertion that vehicle was driving erratically to 

avoid apprehension is unsupported by the record. 

 “When reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we consider whether the 

determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is 

free of legal error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there 

is no support for the findings in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. 

Midgley, 289 A.3d 1111, 1118 (Pa.Super. 2023) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). 

 “Counsel is presumed to be effective.” Id. at 1119. A petitioner can only 

overcome this presumption by proving, “(1) the underlying claim is of 

arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or 

her action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, 

there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would 

have been different.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Contrary to Lambert’s argument, the police did not stop the vehicle for 

a moving violation due to erratic driving, but on suspicion that the occupants 

were about to commit a robbery. The PCRA court found that suspicion was 

reasonable, based on the prison phone calls and the police observation of the 

vehicle’s evasive maneuvering. 
J-S11028-24 

- 12 - 

We agree that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of 

criminal activity. “Reasonable suspicion is considerably less than proof of 

wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. 

Milburn, 191 A.3d 891, 898 (Pa.Super. 2018) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention 

exists where the police are able “to point to ‘specific and articulable facts’” 

that lead to them “to suspect criminal activity is afoot.” Commonwealth v. 

Butler, 194 A.3d 145, 148 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted). A court must 

consider the totality of the circumstances and give due weight “to the specific, 

reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer’s experience.” 

Id. (citation omitted). 

Moreover, “[m]erely because a suspect’s activity may be consistent with 

innocent behavior does not alone make detention and limited investigation 

illegal.” Commonwealth v. Riley, 715 A.2d 1131, 1135 (Pa.Super. 1998). 

Rather, we consider the trained officer’s “consideration of modes or patterns 

of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers.” Id. “[A] combination of 

circumstances, none of which taken alone would justify a stop, may be 

sufficient to achieve a reasonable suspicion.” Id. 

Here, Detective Shave articulated specific facts that led him to believe 

the occupants of Roussos’s vehicle had conspired to commit a burglary. He 

described the defendants speaking in “code” on the prison calls and discussing 

a “job” that would take place that night. The job required “scout[ing] out” the 

location beforehand and required one of the men to act as a “lookout.” 
J-S11028-24 

- 13 - 

Roussos had stated he was concerned that an ankle bracelet would interfere 

with his ability to participate, and a first attempt had failed after some of the 

participants encountered, late at night, “horses and an old lady that was acting 

weird.” See generally Trial Ct. Op. at 12-20. 

Detective Shave also testified why he believed the occupants of the 

vehicle were trying to evade observation: after the defendants started driving 

together in Roussos’s vehicle that evening, they drove in a large circle. When 

the vehicle was being followed by Detective Shave, it put its left turn signal 

on, but then quickly turned right. When another police car began to follow it, 

the vehicle accelerated. These facts, in combination, and considering 

Detective Shave’s perspective as an officer, gave rise to a reasonable 

suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle were on their way to commit a 

burglary. Stopping the vehicle to investigate this suspicion was not unlawful. 

The fact that the police were in unmarked cars when Roussos’s vehicle 

attempted to evade detection does not negate this analysis. The defendants 

might have suspected they were being followed by unmarked police cars or 

might have been attempting to avoid being observed by anyone at all. 

As Lambert has failed to establish that he would have prevailed on his 

motion to suppress, had counsel challenged the legality of the vehicle stop, 

he has failed to prove his counsel was ineffective. See Midgley, 289 A.3d at 

1120 (“Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the meritless 

issue”). 

Order affirmed. 
J-S11028-24 

- 14 - 

Date: 7/19/2024