J-S45004-17

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KASHYISM MANSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 854 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 8, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013137-2011

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2017

Appellant, Kashyism Manson, appeals nunc pro tunc from the 

judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common 

Pleas, following his jury trial convictions of burglary, conspiracy, firearms not 

to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on public streets in 

Philadelphia, possessing instruments of crime, five counts of robbery, and 

his bench trial conviction of persons not to possess firearms.1 We affirm. 

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to 

restate them. We add only that the jury also convicted Appellant of 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a), 903, 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), 3701(a)(1)(ii), 

and 6105(a)(1), respectively. 
J-S45004-17

- 2 -

possessing instruments of crime. 

Appellant raises one issue for our review:

DID THE SUPPRESSION COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO 

SUPPRESS THE GUN FOUND ON [APPELLANT’S] PERSON 

WHERE THE POLICE RIPPED [APPELLANT] OUT OF HIS 

CAR, THREW HIM TO THE GROUND, AND SEARCHED HIM 

WITHOUT ARTICULATING ANY REASONABLE BELIEF THAT 

[APPELLANT] PRESENTED AN IMMEDIATE SAFETY RISK TO 

THE POLICE OR ANYONE ELSE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

“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.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 

A.2d 14, 26 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 115 (Pa.Super. 2005)). 

[W]e 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.

Williams, supra at 27 (quoting Jones, supra). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Susan I. 

Schulman, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question 
J-S45004-17

- 3 -

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 23, 2016, at 5-11) 

(finding: Officer Waters observed Appellant and two passengers exit vehicle 

that Appellant had just parked in laundromat parking lot; Officer Waters 

observed passenger remove handgun from his waistband and throw it onto 

rear floor of vehicle; when Appellant saw officers approaching, Appellant 

entered vehicle and tried to start it; at this point, Officer Waters was 

concerned not only about stopping vehicle before Appellant could flee, but 

also for his own safety because Officer Waters had observed gun in vehicle; 

Officer Waters and his partner immediately pulled Appellant from vehicle; 

Appellant repeatedly attempted to reach into his right pants pocket while 

police removed him from vehicle; concerned for their safety, officers 

subdued Appellant, searched his right pants pocket, and recovered handgun; 

fluid situation confronting officers in this case was that Appellant attempted 

to flee in vehicle with gun inside; detention of Appellant was appropriate 

under these circumstances, where officers had reasonable suspicion to 

detain Appellant when they saw his companion place gun inside vehicle; 

officers used physical force to prevent Appellant from fleeing with weapon, 

which did not automatically convert Terry2stop into arrest; physical 

detention was reasonable, particularly where Officer Waters knew firearm 

was in Appellant’s immediate vicinity; officers’ subsequent search of 

____________________________________________

2 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 
J-S45004-17

- 4 -

Appellant’s right pants pocket was also reasonable as Appellant repeatedly 

tried to reach into his pocket during removal from vehicle; facts immediately 

facing officers demanded rapid response in light of observed firearm and 

justified officers’ actions of physically forcing Appellant to ground and 

conducting limited search of pocket; court properly denied suppression 

motion). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/15/2017
Circulated 07/21/2017 01:18 PM