Court Opinion

ID: 9928792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:10:41.727805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:53.912257
License: Public Domain

J-S23036-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  JOHN PETTY                                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 1891 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 23, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002818-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.:                           FILED JANUARY 31, 2024

       Appellant, John Petty, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his plea of nolo

contendere to possession of a firearm prohibited. We affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.

Appellant was charged with possession of a firearm prohibited, possession of

a firearm without a license, and carrying firearms on public streets in

Philadelphia.1 Appellant subsequently filed a motion to suppress the firearm,

arguing that the officers initiated an investigative detention without

reasonable suspicion.         The suppression court conducted a hearing on

November 16, 2021, after which the court denied the motion.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 6108, respectively.
J-S23036-23

      On March 17, 2022, Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to

possession of a firearm prohibited. All other charges were nolle prossed. On

June 23, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 11½ to 23 months of

incarceration, followed by eight years of probation. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal on July 11, 2022. Thereafter, Appellant complied with the

trial court’s order and filed a timely concise statement of errors complained of

on appeal on August 22, 2022.

      Appellant raises one issue on appeal:

         Did not the trial court err in denying Appellant’s motion to
         suppress physical evidence under the Fourth Amendment of
         the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the
         Pennsylvania Constitution where the arresting officer lacked
         reasonable suspicion to believe that Appellant was engaged
         in criminal conduct where he was physically stopped and
         subjected to an investigatory detention or arrest merely
         based upon the receipt of information that he had a firearm,
         all in contradiction to the recent holding of the Pennsylvania
         Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Hicks, 652 Pa. 353,
         208 A.3d 916 (2019), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 140 S.Ct.
         645, 205 L.Ed.2d 410 (2019)?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4) (citation formatting provided).

      Preliminarily, “we note that in terms of its effect upon a case, a plea of

nolo contendere is treated the same as a guilty plea.” Commonwealth v.

Jabbie, 200 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa.Super. 2018) (internal quotation marks

omitted).   “Generally, upon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant waives all

claims and defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of the court,

the validity of the plea, and what has been termed the legality of the sentence

imposed[.]” Commonwealth v. Prieto, 206 A.3d 529, 533-34 (Pa.Super.

                                     -2-
J-S23036-23

2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

       Instantly, the Commonwealth suggests that Appellant has waived his

issue on appeal by virtue of his plea of nolo contendere. We agree with the

Commonwealth’s position.          Here, Appellant waived his right to appeal the

denial of his suppression motion once he entered the plea of nolo contendere.2

(See N.T. Plea Hearing, 3/17/22, at 6-7; Nolo Contendere Plea Colloquy,

dated 3/17/22, at 5). See also Prieto, supra; Jabbie, supra. Accordingly,

we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s issue, and we affirm.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 1/31/2024

____________________________________________

2 The record does not indicate that Appellant reserved his right to appeal his

suppression issue in a “conditional plea agreement.” See Commonwealth
v. Singleton, 169 A.3d 79, 81-82 (Pa.Super. 2017), appeal denied, 645 Pa.
571, 181 A.3d 1080 (2018) (recognizing validity of conditional plea
agreements reserving right to appeal suppression issue).

                                           -3-