J-S66014-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR. : : Appellant : No. 578 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 22, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0000169-2017, CP-48-CR-0004301-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 23, 2019
Appellant, Allan Leslie Sinanan, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, after
his jury trial convictions on eight counts each of possession of a controlled
substance and possession with intent to deliver ("PWID"), three counts of
criminal use of a communication facility, and one count of possession of drug
paraphernalia.1 We affirm.
In its opinions, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to
restate them.
____________________________________________
135 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), (30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a); 35 P.S. § 780- 113(a)(32), respectively. J-S66014-18
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER UNDER THE UNEMPLOYED PROCEDURES NECESSARY, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULES, AS WELL AS, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION[S] 8 AND 9 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION:
1) DID THE TRIAL COURT [ERR] IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS ALLEGED CONTRABAND FOUND ON APPELLANT'S PERSON AT THE PALMER TOWNSHIP POLICE STATION ON NOVEMBER 4, 2016, WHERE POLICE SUBJECTED APPELLANT TO A SEIZURE BASED SOLELY ON THREE (3) ALLEGED CONTROLLED PURCHASES FROM THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2016, WHERE WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, POLICE TOOK APPELLANT INTO CUSTODY, TRANSPORTED APPELLANT TO THE POLICE STATION TO SEARCH AND DETAIN THERE FOR INTERROGATION?
2) DID THE TRIAL COURT [ERR] IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS THE SEARCH WARRANT, WHERE THE TAINTED EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY FOUND ON APPELLANT'S PERSON AT THE POLICE STATION WAS ADDED TO VALIDATE THE APPLICATION FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT?
3) DID THE TRIAL COURT [ERR] IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS THE SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE ON NOVEMBER 4, 2016, WHERE THERE IS AN APPRECIABLE DELAY OF APPROXIMATELY SIXTY-FIVE (65) DAYS, AFTER THE ALLEGED THIRD CONTROLLED PURCHASE, IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2016, AND THE TIME THE SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED, ON NOVEMBER 4, 2016, FOR THIS DELAY IS ABSENT OF ANY CONTINUED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?
4) DID THE TRIAL COURT [ERR] IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS THE SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE ON NOVEMBER 4, 2016, PURSUANT TO A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE ALLEGED THREE (3) CONTROLLED PURCHASES IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2016 AND THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED; WHERE THE POLICE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT CONTRABAND WAS KEPT IN
J-S66014-18
THE PROPERTIES; WHERE THE VERACITY, RELIABILITY, AND THE BASIS OF THE C.I.'S KNOWLEDGE WITH CORROBORATION AND VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED; AND WHERE THE POLICE OFFICERS' OBSERVATIONS IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2016 AND