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, posses sing 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. The refore, 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 [APPELLA NT’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 unco ntradicted 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. Wil liams, 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 questionJ

- 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 park ed 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 Wat ers 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 at tempted 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 A ppellant 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 physica l force to prevent Appellant from fleeing with weapon, which did not automatically convert Terry 2 stop into arrest; physical detention was reasonable, particularly where Officer Waters knew firearm was in Appellant’s immediate vicinity; officers’ subsequen t 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: 8/15/2017Circulated 07/21/2017 01:18 PM