J

- S42042

- 19

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JANETTE ORTIZ,

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2780 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 23, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 23

- CR

- 0005169

- 2017

BEFORE: OTT, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 1 0 , 2019
Appellant, Janette Ortiz, appeals from the aggregate judgment of

sentence of 36 to 84 months of confinement followed by 48 months of
probation, which was imposed after her jury trial convictions for: c ontrolled

subst ance contraband to confined persons prohibited (“contraband”) ; manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a

controlled substance (“PWID”); and criminal use of communication facility. 1

We affirm

. In its opinion, the trial c ourt fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and p rocedural history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion,

November 20, 2018 , at 1

- 8

. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a), 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(30), and 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a), respectively.J

- S42042

- 19

- 2

-

at length here

. For the convenience of the reader, we briefly note that, on
June 20, 2017, Appellant was arrested on the above enumerated charges as
a result of purchasing Suboxone, repackaging it, and delivering it to her son,

an inmate at the State Correctional Instit ution

-- Chester. When interviewed

at her home by agents from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Bureau of Investigations Intelligence , Appellant admitted to the crimes.

On March 1 9, 2018, Appella nt filed a motion to suppress her statement,

cont ending that her “custodial detention . . . was illegal, without probable
cause, and without any lawful warrant of arrest.” Motion to Suppress
Statements, 3/19/2018, at ¶ 2. The motion further alleged that Appellant

“was not advised of her constitutional rights and did not waive her right to
counsel or her right against self

- incrimination” and that “[a]ny statements
obtained from her were not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily given [.]”

Id. at ¶ 4. The motion also pleaded that Appellant “ was repeat edly threatened
and coerced during interrogations by police officers and any statements
obtained from her were not voluntarily given and were not the product of her

free will. ” Id. at ¶ 5.
The trial court held a suppression hearing on April 23, 2018. 2 A t the
beginning of the hearing, Appellant expanded upon her argument in her

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 Appellant had a certified English

- Spanish interpreter present throughout the hearing. N.T., 4/23/2018, at 3.J

- S42042

- 19

- 3

-

written motion to suppress, contending that her waiver of her right s to counsel
and against self

- incrimination were not valid, because she was not given oral

or written Miranda 3 warnings in Spanish. N.T., 4/23/2018, at 4.
Agent Darrell Bradley testified that, prior to Appellant giving her
statement, he read the Miranda warnings to her in English and that Ap pellant
signed a form in English, stating that she understood her rights

. Id. at 9;

Exhibit CS

- 1. Agent Bradley continued: “As we were speaking with her, we
asked her if she was receiving money, if she had any evidence in her house,
maybe a note written from her son, at which time we asked her to consent to

a search of her residence.” N.T., 4/23/2018, at 14. Appellant signed a
consent form for the search, and three cellular telephones were seized. Id.
at 15, 17 ; Exhibit CS

- 3

. Agent Bradley’s testimony continued:
Q Did [Appellant] converse in English to you?

A She did. Q And by converse in English, I mean was she answering your questions yes and

– yes or no, or was she actually physically explaining in full sentences?

A She was explaining in full sentences. N.T., 4/23/2018, at 18. Agent Bradley testified that, a t no time did Appellant
tell him that she could not speak, read, or understand English. Id. at 11.
Agent Jeffrey Theob ald corroborated Agent Bradley’ s testimony,
confirming that Appellant spoke to him and Agent Brad l ey in English, read the

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

3 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).J

- S42042

- 19

- 4

-

forms in English wit h out issue, and never told either of them that she was
having trouble comprehending or communicating in English. Id. at 32. Agent
Theobald added that Appellant never asked to call an attorney. Id. at 36.
Appellant testified that she had lived in the “Mainl and United States” for
30 years. Id. at 41. Her testimony continued on cross

- examination:
Q You have had multiple listings or you have been in court multiple times for this case, correct?

A Yes. Q And this is only the third time out of all these listings that we’ve had an interpreter here?

A That I remember
Id. at 52. She admitted that this action was “not [her] first time in the
criminal justice system.” Id. at 56.
After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court issued an order
on April 27, 2018, de n ying Appellant’s motion to suppress. Order, 4/27/2018.
On July 13, 2018, a jury convicted Appellant of the above

- listed counts.

O n August 23, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to the aforementioned
judgment of sentence. On September 21, 2018, Appellant filed this timely
direct appeal.
On October 22, 2018, Appellant filed her statement of errors complained
of on appeal, whi ch stated, in its entirety, as follows:

1. Erroneous Ruling of April 27, 2018 Denying [Appellant] ’ s Motion to Suppress Statements made in the absence of a Valid Miranda Warning Appellant is entitled to a new trial because her Pa. Const. art. I § 9 and U.S. Const. amend. V & XIV self

- incrimination and dueJ

- S42042

- 19

- 5

-

process rights were violated when the trial court denied Appellant’ s Motion to Suppress [Appellant] ’ s Statements made during a custodial interrogation to law enforcement authorities in the absence of a vali d Miranda Warning given to her in her native language of Spanish in a manner which she was be able to understand what her rights were.

2. Erroneous Ruling of April 27, 2018 Denying [Appellant] ’s Motion to Suppress Statements Made Under Duress by Threat and Coercion after a request to speak with an attorney. Appellant is entitled to a new trial because her Pa. Const. art. I § 9 and U.S. Const. amend. V, VI & XIV self

- incrimination, right to counsel and due process rights were violated when the trial court de nied her Motion to Suppress [Appellant] ’ s Statements that were given under duress by threat and coercion during a custodial interrogation to law enforcement authorities in the absence of a valid Miranda Warning and after she requested to speak with an atto rney.
3. Erroneous Verdict on July 13, 2018 Due to Insufficient Evidence to Support a Guilty Verdict for 35 P.S. § 780
- 113 (a) (30) Possession of a Controlled Substance with the Intent to Deliver. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence and is entitled to a new trial, because her Pa. Const. art. I § 9 and U.S. Const. amend. XIV due process rights were violated and the Appellant did not receive a fair and impartial trial because the Commonwealth ’ s evidence was insufficient and lacked proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the offense element of

“ possession of a controlled substance” and the offense element of

“ intent to deliver” to support a verdict of guilt.

4. Erroneous Verdict on July 13, 2018 Due to Insufficient Evidence to Support a Gu ilty Ver dict for 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 7512 Criminal Use of Communication Facility. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence and is entitled to a new trial, because her Pa. Const. art. I § 9 and U.S. Const. amend. XIV due process rights were violated and the Appe llant did not receive a fair and impartial trial because the Commonwealth’ s evidence was insufficient and lacked proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the offense element of “ use of a communication facility ” to support a verdict of guilt.J

- S42042

- 19

- 6

-

5. Erroneous Verd ict on July 13, 2018 Due to Insufficient Evidence to Support a Guilty Verdict for 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 5123 Contraband/Controlled Substance. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence and is entitled to a new trial, because her Pa. Const. art. I § 9 and U. S. Const. amend. XIV due process rights were violated and the Appellant did not receive a fair and impartial trial because the Commonwealth’ s evidence was insufficient and lacked proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the offense element of “ sells, gives, t ransmits or furnishes a controlled substance” to support a verdict of guilt. Appellant’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 10/22/2018 (bolding in original)

. 4
Appellant now presents the following issue s for our review:
1) Whether the [trial] court erred in refusing to suppress the statement that [Appellant] allegedly supplied to police since it was the fruit of a seizure conducted without legal justification and in violation of her state and federal cons titutional rights? 2) Whether the [trial] court erred in refusing to suppress the statement that [Appellant] allegedly supplied to police since it was the product of improper inducement with a defective Waiver of Miranda rights, and therefore, not knowingl y, intelligently, or voluntarily made? 3) Whether the sentence is illegal since the crimes of Contraband

. . . and [PWID] should have merged? (This issue was not included in the Appellant’s 1925(b) Statement and is raised for the first time in this brief) Counsel for the [A]ppellant is waiving the sufficiency of the evidence claims raised in the Appellant’s 1925(b) Statement. Appellant’s Brief at 8 (trial court’s answers omitted).

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

4 The trial court entered its opinion on November 20, 2018.J

- S42042

- 19

- 7

-

Appellant first urges this Court to conclude that “the [trial] court erred
when it refused to suppress the statement [she] allegedly supplied to police

since it was the fruit of an unlawful seizure.” Id. at 15. Appellant did not
include this challenge in her statement of errors complained of on appeal,
which appears verbatim and in its entirety above. Thus, this claim is waived.

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4) (vii) (“ Issues not included in the Statement and/or
not raised in accordance with the provisions of th is paragraph (b)(4) are

waived. ”).
Appellant’s next claim concern s the denial of her motion to suppress her

statement:

The [trial] court erred in refusing to suppress [Appellant]’ s alleged statement to agents since it was the product of improper inducement and defective Miranda warning, and therefore, not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made.
The statement that [A ] ppellant allegedly supplied to [A] gents Bradley and Theobald was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made because the agents coerced her with threats and abuse, and induced her to speak. Appellant’s Brief at 19.
Preliminarily, we observe that Appellant made no mention of her
statement being the product of coercion, duress, threats, or any similar
actions by the agents i n her “Statement of Questions Involved” in her brief to
this Court, nor is any such claim implied therein. Id. at 8. Any issue
concerning coercion, duress, threats, or abuse is therefore waived. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“ No question will be considered unl ess it is stated in the
statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”).J

- S42042

- 19

- 8

-

As for Appellant’s remaining suppression claim

– i.e. , that her Miranda
warnings were improper, as they were given in English, when she is a native
Spanish speaker, thereby rendering her confessional statement to the agents
to be invalid, see Appellant’s Brief at 8 ¶ 2 & 19

– we begin by stating our

standard of review:
In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, our role is to determine whether the suppression c ourt’ s factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions draw n 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 defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the co ntext of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court’ s factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these findings an d may reverse only if the court’ s l egal conclusions are
erroneous. Where, as here, the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of leg al error, the suppression court’ s legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properl y applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Yim , 195 A.3d 922, 926 ( Pa. Super. 2018) (citations and
internal brackets omitted). Our scope of review from a suppression ruling is
limited to the evidentiary record created at the suppression hearing.

Commonwealth v. Fulton , 1 79 A.3d 475, 487 (Pa. 201 8 ).

In Commonwealth v. Padilla , 854 A.2d 549, 552

- 53 (Pa. Super.
2004), this Court fo und that the defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was
voluntary, “although the record support[ed] a determination that [the
defendant] could not read or write English and needed an interpreter to aid in
his comprehension of w ritten documents[.]” This Court reached such aJ

- S42042

- 19

- 9

-

conclusion, because: (1) prior to giving his statement, the defendant had
indicated to an officer that he understood his rights, was willing to give a
statement, and did not wish to consult with an attorney; (2) the officer

testified that the defendant spoke English well; and (3) the defendant had
familiarity with criminal proceedings. Id.

A fter a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well

- reasoned opinion of the Honorable

John P. Capuzz i, Sr., we conclude Appellant’s circumstances are analogous to

those of Padilla , id. , and that, accordingly, her second issue merits no relief.
The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of

that question :
Th[e trial c]o urt determined that Appellant did possess sufficient knowledge or fluency in the English language in order to validly waive her Miranda rights; and therefore, denied the motion to suppress. The credible testimony of Agent Bradley and the corroborating testim ony of Officer Theobald provide that Appellant was able to interact with them in English, listening to their questions and responding in full sentences [in English]

. Similarly to the Defendant in Padilla , Appellant was read the Miranda Form and agreed tha t she understood its contents as evidenced by her signature. At no time during the interview did Appellant ask for an attorney or ever indicate to either Agent that she did not understand due to a language barrier; Appellant answered in full sentences and testified that she has been in the United States for thirty years and is familiar with the court system. Furthermore, Appellant was before th[e trial c] ourt on several occasions where Appellant actively participated and understood what was occurring with out a translator. As the record from theJ

- S42042

- 19

- 10

-

suppression hearing supports these factual findings,[ 5 and are properly applied to the relevant case law, the denial of the [m]otion [to suppress] should be affirmed. Trial Court Opin ion, filed November 20, 2018, a t 9

- 10. Accordingly, w e affirm
Appellant’s second challenge on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Finally, Appel lant contends that contraband merges with PWID, but this
Court rejected the theory that these charges merge in Commonwealth v.
Sarvey , 199 A.3d 436, 451 (Pa. Super. 2018). 6
Based on the foregoing, Appellant is not entitled to relief on any of her
appellate issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/10/19

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

5 The trial court’ s factual findin gs are supported by the record at the suppression hearing. N.T., 4/23/2018, at 9, 11, 18, 32, 36, 41, 52, 56; Exhibit CS

- 1; s ee Fulton , 1 79 A.3d at 487; Yim , 195 A.3d at 926

.

6 Although Appellant did not include this issue in his statement of errors complained of on appeal, a challenge to the legality of a sentence cannot be waived. See Commonwealth v. Vargas , 108 A.3d 858, 876

– 77 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2014) ( en banc ) ( “[l]egalit y of sentence questions are not waivable”); Commonwealth v. Watley , 81 A.3d 108, 118 (Pa. Super. 2013) ( en banc ) (same).