J

- S68027

- 19

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

v.

JAMES COLE Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 775 WDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 25, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 02

- CR

- 0013244

- 2013

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. * MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2019 James Cole appeals from the trial court’s order , entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, denying his petition filed pursuant to the
Pos t Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546. After careful review, we affirm

. In a prior appeal, o ur Court summarized the underlying facts of the case as gleaned from the trial cour t : On September 12, 2013, McKeesport Police Officer Steve Kon drosky was on patrol when he observed a blue Hyundai travelling eastbound on East Fifth Avenue. The vehicle was travelling in a prohibited driving lane and made an illegal left turn across th r e e lanes of traffic onto the Duquesne McKeesport Bridge without using a signal. Officer Kondrosky pursued the vehicle, which finally pulled over after approximately one [

- ] half of a mile, on Route 837 and Cochran Street in Duquesne.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S68027

- 19

- 2

-

Officer Kondros k y approached the car’s driver, subsequently identified as Cole, and re quested his license, insurance and registration information. Cole provided the officer with his license, but indicated that he was not the car’s owner and could not find the insurance or registration. Officer Kondrosky advised Cole that the documents co uld usually be found either in the center console or the glove compartment. However, Cole responded that he did not want to go in the glove box. Officer Kondrosky testified that Cole appeared nervous. Officer Kondrosky told Cole not to make any sudden movements while he waited for the dispatch center to respond with information regarding Cole’s license. While Officer Kondrosky waited to hear from dispatch, he observed Cole lean over to the passenger

- side of the vehicle, nearly disappearing from his line of sight. Officer Kondrosky told Cole to sit up and stop reaching around and Cole complied. Due to Cole’s movement and behavior, Officer Kondrosky called for backup. Lieutenant Connor Craig, a K

- 9 officer, Sergeant Mark Steele and Detective Vandelli Su mmers responded to the scene. As they arrived, Officer Kondrosky again approached Cole’s vehicle, at which point Cole again began to reach toward the passenger - side fl o or. Officer Kondrosky yelled to Cole to sit up and stop reaching and proceeded to unho lster his weapon, as he was not sure whether Cole was reaching for a gun. At that point the three backup officers had arrived, and they all approached the vehicle together. Officer Kondrosky asked Cole why he had disobeyed his order not to reach around in the vehicle, at which time he detected an odor of marijuana and informed Cole of what he smelled. Officer Kondrosky then observed that Cole was sweating profusely and was unable to complete a sentence because he was so shaken up. As a result of Cole’s a ctions, movements and demeanor, Officer Kondrosky asked Cole to exit the vehicle. Cole replied, “for what?” and placed his foot on the brake as he reached for the center gearshift. Officer Kondrosky then pointed his weapon at Cole and informed him that h e was not free to leave. After a few more demands by Officer Kondrosky, Cole exited the vehicle. Cole was placed at the rear of the vehicle. Officer Kondrosky informed Lieutenant Craig of Cole’s nervousness and movement while in the vehicle. As a resul t, Lieutenant Craig went to the passenger[

- ]side of the vehicle and, through the window, observed what appeared to be the butt end of a firearm protruding from the passenger seat floorboard. He stated “gun” to the other officers,J

- S68027

- 19

- 3

-

at which time Cole fled a cross Route 837 as Sergeant Steele grasped the back of his shirt. Lieutenant Craig deployed his [T]aser on Cole’s back, after which Cole was taken into custody. Lieutenant Craig recovered the firearm and another officer located a baggie containing a smal l amount of marijuana in the vehicle. Commonwealth v. Cole , 1526 WDA 2015 at 1

- 4 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 16, 2016) (unpublished memorandum). Cole filed a pretrial motion to suppress 1 claiming , in part, that the stop of his vehicle and initial detention w ere unlawful where “McKeesport Police exceeded or acted beyond their jurisdictional power and violated the Pennsylvania Statewide Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA).” Omnibus Pre[]trial Motion, 1/13/14, at ¶ 4. After a suppression hearing, t he tria l court denied the motion and a non

- jury trial ensued, after which the trial court found Cole guilty of various firearm, drug and traffic offenses. 2 On September 2, 2015, Cole was sentenced to a term of three to six year s’ imprisonment on the possession o f firearm (prohibited) charge and four years of probation on the persons not to possess a firearm charge ; no further penalty was imposed on the remaining counts. Cole filed a timely notice of appeal. Our Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. See Cole , supra . Cole’s petition for

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Cole also filed a motion to sever as to his possession of firearm (prohibited) charge , which was denied.

2 Cole was convicted of the following: possession of firearm (prohibited), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1); firearms not to be carried without a license, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1); resisting arrest, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104; possession of marijuana, 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(31 ); carrying a loaded weapon, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106.1(a); and improper signal, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3334(b). The Commonwealth dismissed the charge of use/possession of drug paraphernalia and Cole was found not guilty with regard to the charge of obedience of traffic

- c ontrol devices.J

- S68027

- 19

- 4

-

allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on May 24, 2017

. On June 15, 2017, Cole filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging, in part, that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the i ssue regarding whether Officer Kondrosky had jurisdiction to pursue him under the MPJA. The trial court appointed PCRA counsel, Brian McDermott, Esquire, who filed an amended PCRA petition including the claim that “counsel was ineffective for failing to a rgue [in prior counsel’s direct appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania] that Officer Kondrosky’s pursuit of [Cole] was not ‘ Hot and Fresh[.] ’ ” Amended PCRA Petition, 2/13/18, at ¶ 37. Following a hearing, the PCRA court denied Cole’s amended petiti on on April 25, 2019

. 3 This timely appeal follows. On appeal, Cole presents the following issue for our consideration: “ Did the trial court err when it denied [Cole’s] [a]mended PCRA [petition] to overturn his conviction and suppress all evidence as fru it of the poisonous tree [as a result of counsel’s ineffectiveness] ? ” Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 The standard of review of an order denying a PCRA petition is whether that determination 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 th e findings in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Johnston , 42 A.3d 1120, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2012)

.J

- S68027

- 19

- 5

-

Cole argues that since Officer Kondrosky failed to immediately activate his overhead lights and sirens when he stopped him, the officer’s pursuit was not “hot and fresh” for purposes of the MPJA. 4 We disagree.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 4 In his amended petition, Cole supports his ineffectiveness claim by pointing out the following:

 Officer Kondrosky testified that he could not immediately turn and follow the vehicle after he observed the traffic violation due to traffic. He waited approximately five to ten seconds before he was able to follow th e vehicle ;

 Once he got to the top of the ramp he testified the vehicle was approximately 300 yards in front of him. The Officer was able to catch up to the vehicle near the halfway point of the bridge at which point he activated his overhead lights and si rens ; [t] he Officer testified Petitioner may have been out of the officer’s jurisdiction prior to activation of lights and sirens ;

 Petitioner therefore argues that the chase was not immediate as required under the MPJA since the officer waited five to ten seconds before beginning to pursue him ;

 Petitioner argues that since police officers on patrol have the right to stop all traffic to pursue a suspect and that he could have done so;

 Petitioner submits that since the officer failed to immediately activate h is overhead lights and sirens that the pursuit was not hot and fresh for purposes of the MPJA;

 Additionally, it was not immediate because the overhead lights and sirens were not activated until hal f[] way across the bridge, which was [in] another jurisdicti on [.]J

- S68027

- 19

- 6

-

The MPJA confer s jurisdiction on officers making arrests outside of their primary jurisdiction

. See generally 42 Pa.C.S. § 895 1

- 8955

. That statute specifies six exceptions permitting officers to act outside their primary jurisdiction. One of those exceptions, set forth at s ection 8953(a)(2) of the MPJA, permits an officer to enforce the laws of this Commonwealth beyond the territorial limits of his primary jurisdiction “[ w ] here [he] is in hot pu rsuit of any person for any offense which was committed, or which he has probable cause to believe was committed, within his primary jurisdiction and for which offense the officer continues in fresh pursuit of the person after the commission of the offense

. ” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(2) (emphasis added)

. The

“ hot and fresh pursuit ” requirement under the MPJA necessi tates a finding that the officer met the immediate, continuous, and uninterrupted standard previously applicable to the Intrastate Hot Pursuit Act (IHPA) , 5 as well as the additional requirement of some sort of chase

. Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Pa. Super. 1998). Cole claims that counsel had no strategic reason for failing to argue, at his request, th e “hot and fresh pursuit” is sue on direct appeal , and that he was prejudiced because our Court would have reversed the suppression order and his conviction.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ Amended Post Conviction Relief Act Petition, 2/13/18, at 9

- 10 (emphasis added).

5 The IHPA, which was repealed and replaced by the MPJA, required police to “continue in pursuit.” McPeak , supra at 1265.J

- S68027

- 19

- 7

-

With respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we begin with the presumption that counsel is effective. Commonwe alth v. Spotz , 47 A.3d 63, 76 (Pa. 2012). To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, a petitioner must plead and prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, three elements: (1) the underlying legal claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basi s for his or her action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice because of counsel ’ s action or inaction. Id. (citation omitted). O u r Supreme Court has noted that the M PJA must be construed liberally to achieve its purpose s , one of which is to provide police with the authority to act outside their jurisdictions under the circumstances enumerated in that Act. Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123, 129 (Pa. Super. 2005), citing Commonwealth v. Lehman , 870 A.2d 818 , 820 ( Pa. 2005). In Common wealth v. Hilliar , 943 A. 2 d 984 (Pa. Super. 2008), our Court reiterated that: One of the principal purposes of the MPJA is to promote public safety while placing a general limitation on extraterritorial police patrols. It is in the interest of promoting public safety, therefore, that the MPJA exceptions contemplate and condone extra

territorial activity in response to specifically identified criminal behavior that occur[s] within the primary jurisdiction of the police

. Id. at 991 (citation omitted); see also Lehman , 870 A.2d at 820 ( Act was not intended to “erect impenetrable jurisdictional walls benefiting only criminals hidden in their shadows.” ). At the time Officer Kondrosky stopped Cole on Route 837 and Cochran Street in Duquesne , he had been follow ing Cole for more than one - half mileJ

- S68027

- 19

- 8

-

after witnessing him commit traffic violations in McKeesport, specifically making an illegal left turn without using a signal. Witnessing the traffic violations gave Officer Kondrosky probable cause to stop Cole. See Commonwealth v. Brown , 64 A.3d 1101, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2013) (where officer testified defendant turned vehicle from one street to another without using signal lamps, officer “unquestionably possessed facts to warrant belief by any reasonable person that [de fendant] violated the [V] ehicle [C] ode ” ). The stop occurred after the cars crossed the Duquesne

- McKeesport Bridge (Bridge) as the officer had “probably” just crossed over from his jurisdiction (McKeesport) into Duquesne. 6 N.T. Suppression Hearing, 2/4/14 , at 67 (defense attorney indicating that stop “probably” occurred outside jurisdiction); N.T. PCRA Hearing, 4/2 3 /19 , at 8 ( trial counsel stating that defendant was “probably arrested right outside McKeesport” ). Finally , Officer Kondrosky testified that C ole took almost one

- half a mile to stop his vehicle after the officer activated his overhead lights and audible siren. Id. at 6. Based upon these facts, we conclude that Officer Kondrosky’s pursuit of Cole was an “immediate, continuous, and uninterrupted” chase. McPeak , supra . The fact that the officer took a mere five to ten seconds to turn his vehicle around to follow Cole for more than half a mile and that he did not

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 6 The Bridge connects Route 837 in Duquesne and Route 148 in McKeesport

. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKeesport

- Duquesne_Bridge (last visited 12/4/19).J

- S68027

- 19

- 9

-

activate his siren and lights 7 until he had “probably” just crossed the jurisdictional line does not vitiate the officer’s “hot and fresh” pursuit of Cole under section 8953(a)(2). To find merit in Cole’s argumen t would require a hyper

- technical reading of the MPJA and contravene our Co urt’s liberal construction of the statute to eff ectuate its purpose. Hilliar , supra . See also N.T. Suppression Hearing, 2/4/14, at 69 (trial court acknowledges “the more prudent t hing was [to] let [the officer] get over the bridge to pull him over so there is a place to pull him over”). 8
B ecause Cole’s underlying claim has no arguable merit, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective. Spotz , supra . Accordingly, the trial court proper ly denied Cole’s petition. Johnston , supra . Order affirmed.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 7 In fact, at the PCRA hearing, Officer Kondrosky testified that he may have also turned on his overhead lights prior to crossing the bridge in order to get in front of oncoming traffic to pursue Cole. N.T. PCRA Hearing, 4/23/19, at 15

- 16. If in fact this is true, then the officer’s lights were turned on within his juri sdiction (McKeesport).

8 We note that even if Officer Kondrosky technically was not in hot and fresh pursuit of Cole, as it is defined under section 8953(a)(2), suppression would not have been the proper remedy. See Hilliar , supra (minor infraction of MP JA does not warrant suppression of inculpatory evidence; exclusionary rule does not apply in such cases).J

- S68027

- 19

- 10

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/20/2019