Opinion ID: 1491353
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: trial court's findings and appellate review

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court failed to make the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its ruling denying the motion to suppress. Although we agree that written findings greatly facilitate appellate review, and we recognize that it is sometimes difficult to discern the basis for a trial court's ruling from on-the-record free-form analysis, we do not believe this is a case where we are left in the dark as to the basis for the trial court's ruling. [3] Appellant offered no evidence to contradict the Commonwealth's evidence at the hearing, and, in his brief to this Court, Appellant does not contest the factual testimony at the hearing. Furthermore, when considered in the context of the immediately preceding evidentiary hearing, the trial court's oral comments sufficiently display its factual findings: (1) Officer Goins went to Appellant's residence for the purpose of performing an at-home visit to verify Appellant's residency (I agree with the prosecutor's theoryhis argument, anywaythat the intent of this parole officer was to make sure that this is in actual fact where he lived.); (2) Appellant refused to allow Officer Goins to enter the home (Was his refusal at the door sufficient....); (3) despite Appellant's refusal, Officer Goins entered the home, and thereafter smelled marijuana smoke which caused her to suspect that a search of Appellant's premises would yield evidence of contraband in violation of the terms of his parole (upon the entry she did smell marijuana which gives rise certainly to the necessary reason to conduct a search.). Given the nature of Appellant's argument on appeal, the primary issue here is a legal, rather than a factual, onei.e., did Officer Goins's initial entry into the home without permission constitute an unreasonable search? The trial court's oral comments on the record sufficiently documented its legal conclusion that because Officer Goins was required to verify Appellant's place of residence, her entry into the home was authorized and reasonable despite the fact that Appellant did not give his contemporaneous consent (I am holding that the entrance was sufficient. It was not a violation of [Appellant's] Fourth Amendment rights.). Thus, we believe the record below allows us to adequately review the trial court's ruling on Appellant's motion to suppress.