J. A21038/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

STEVEN REYNOLDS, : No. 2883 EDA 2019

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 10, 2019,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0003880-2018

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: Filed: November 12, 2020

Steven Reynolds appeals from the September 10, 2019 judgment of 

sentence of three to six years’ imprisonment, followed by three years’ 

probation, imposed after he pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm.1 

After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case, as gleaned 

from the suppression hearing, as follows:

On May 8, 2018, at approximately 11:00 p.m., 

[Philadelphia Police] Officer [James] Crusemire and 

his partner, Officer Hickman,[

2] were on routine patrol 

in the area of the 900 block of West Huntington Street 

in Philadelphia, a district to which the officer had been 

assigned for five years[,] which he described [] as a 

high narcotic and “shooting” area. Upon arrival, he 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).

2 Officer Hickman’s first name was not identified at the suppression hearing.
J. A21038/20

- 2 -

observed a Jeep Cherokee travelling west bound 

toward 9th Street on West Huntington Street. The 

driver, [appellant], drove through the intersection 

without fully stopping at the stop sign and then 

abruptly pulled to the curb without using his vehicle’s 

turn signal. Officer Crusemire activated his vehicle’s 

lights and siren and initiated a traffic stop for these 

motor vehicle violations. Officers Crusemire and

Hickman exited their patrol car. Officer Crusemire 

approached the passenger side of [a]ppellant’s vehicle 

and Officer Hickman approached the driver’s side 

window.

As Officer Crusemire approached the vehicle, he 

observed its windows were down and he detected the 

odor of fresh marijuana coming from inside the car. 

Officer Crusemire then heard his partner ask 

[a]ppellant for his driver’s license and the car’s 

registration card. He immediately noticed that, after 

the request, [a]ppellant began to breathe heavily and

count money that had been sitting on top of the glove 

box. Officer Crusemire considered this behavior odd 

and manifested to the officer that [a]ppellant 

appeared nervous.

The officers asked [a]ppellant to exit his vehicle 

because of the smell of marijuana coming from inside 

the car. Upon being directed to exit his vehicle, 

[a]ppellant volunteered, “I don’t want any problems.” 

As [a]ppellant was exiting the Jeep, Officer Crusemire 

observed two bulges in his clothing, one of which was 

in a right pocket of [a]ppellant’s jeans and the other 

in his waistband. Officer Crusemire then had 

[a]ppellant put his hands on top of a car at which time 

Officer Crusemire frisked him for officer safety. When 

Officer Crusemire frisked [a]ppellant, he immediately 

felt the handle of a gun in [a]ppellant’s waistband. 

Officer Crusemire ordered [a]ppellant not to move and 

Officer Hickman recovered the gun. The officers 

placed [a]ppellant under arrest and searched 

[a]ppellant’s clothing[,] which resulted in the seizure 

of four jars filled with alleged marijuana from 

[a]ppellant’s right pocket.
J. A21038/20

- 3 -

[Appellant also testified at length during the 

suppression hearing, contradicting Officer Crusemire’s 

testimony.]

Trial court opinion, 12/23/19 at 1-3 (citations to notes of testimony omitted).

Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a 

firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets or public 

property in Philadelphia, and possession of a small amount of marijuana3in 

connection with this incident.4 On March 18, 2019, appellant filed an 

omnibus pre-trial motion to suppress the firearm seized pursuant to the 

traffic stop of his vehicle. Following an evidentiary hearing on April 9, 2019,

the suppression court entered an order on April 15, 2019, denying appellant’s

suppression motion. On June 20, 2019, the trial court conducted a guilty plea 

colloquy, during which appellant entered an open guilty plea to one count of 

unlawful possession of a firearm.5 In his written colloquy, appellant 

acknowledged that he understood that by pleading guilty, he was waiving the 

majority of the issues he could challenge on appeal. (See guilty plea colloquy, 

6/20/19 at 2-3.) As noted, the trial court sentenced appellant to three to 

six years’ imprisonment, followed by three years’ probation, on 

 

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 35 P.S. § 780-

113(a)(31), respectively.

4 The record reflects that appellant was ineligible to carry a firearm due to two 

prior convictions. (See notes of testimony, 6/20/19 at 4-5.)

5 The remaining charges were nolle prossed by the Commonwealth.
J. A21038/20

- 4 -

September 10, 2019. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions. This 

timely appeal followed.6

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Did the [suppression c]ourt err in denying the 

motion to suppress where the Commonwealth 

failed to establish reasonable suspicion or 

probable cause that [a]ppellant had committed 

a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code?

2. Did the [suppression c]ourt err in denying the 

motion to suppress where the Commonwealth 

failed to establish that, during a traffic stop, the

officers had probable cause or reasonable 

suspicion of criminal activity?

Appellant’s corrected brief at 3-4.7

Our standard of review when addressing a challenge to a suppression

court’s denial of a suppression motion is well settled.

[An appellate court’s] standard of review in 

addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression 

motion is 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 

 

6 On October 9, 2019, the trial court ordered appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Appellant timely complied and the trial 

court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on December 23, 2019.

7 We note that on June 17, 2020, appellant filed a motion for leave to file a 

corrected brief because of the fact his appellate brief was missing all 

even-numbered pages. The Commonwealth did not oppose this motion, and 

we accepted appellant’s corrected brief on July 13, 2020. (See per curiam

order, 7/13/20.)
J. A21038/20

- 5 -

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. 

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

omitted; brackets in original), appeal denied, 135 A.3d 584 (Pa. 2016).

Prior to any consideration of the merits of appellant’s suppression 

claims, we must first determine whether they are waived on appeal. It is well

established that “upon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant waives all claims 

and defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of the court, the 

validity of the plea, and what has been termed the ‘legality’ of the sentence 

imposed[.]” Commonwealth v. Jabbie, 200 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa.Super. 

2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268, 1275 (Pa. 

2014) (footnote omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Andrews, 158 A.3d 

1260, 1265 (Pa.Super. 2017) (stating, “[a] plea of guilty constitutes a waiver 

of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses and waives the right to challenge 

anything but the legality of [the] sentence and the validity of [the] plea.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Here, appellant fails to even acknowledge that he pled guilty in this 

matter or otherwise set forth any reasoning as to why this court should 

disregard his explicit waiver on appeal. Accordingly, based upon his guilty 

plea, we agree with the Commonwealth that appellant’s claims pertaining to 

the denial of his suppression motion are waived.
J. A21038/20

- 6 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/12/20