Court Opinion

ID: 9554351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 18:11:27.788236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:38.565215
License: Public Domain

J-S07037-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  MELVIN KING                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 2275 EDA 2021

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 14, 2020
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003697-2018

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                FILED AUGUST 8, 2023

       Appellant, Melvin King, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following

his jury trial conviction for persons not to possess firearms.1 We affirm.

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

On April 29, 2018, Officers Anthony Agudo and Ryan Redmond responded to

a radio call of gunshots near the 3200 block of Shelbourne Street. The officers

arrived at the scene and did not find any suspects, but they recovered fired

cartridge casings. Analysis of this evidence led police to believe that at least

three (3) different firearms were used in the shooting.       Nevertheless, the

officers did not recover any firearms from the scene.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).
J-S07037-23

      The officers discovered security cameras at a property on the block.

Officer Agudo reviewed the surveillance footage, which depicted two black

males wearing red and black clothing. The two men walked towards another

black male, later identified as Appellant, who was wearing a dark jacket and

distinctive blue track pants.    The two men drew firearms and fired at

Appellant. While facing the shooters, Appellant kept his left hand inside his

jacket pocket and raised his arm. Smoke appeared to come from the pocket,

signaling to Officer Agudo that Appellant returned fire.

      Around this time, the officers received a call that a gunshot victim had

arrived at Temple Hospital. A blue Toyota Matrix dropped off the victim and

remained parked in front of the hospital. Officer Agudo called another officer,

who was already at the hospital, and asked him to describe the clothing of the

gunshot victim. The officer’s description of the gunshot victim matched the

appearance of Appellant from the surveillance footage. Subsequent testing

also revealed the presence of gunshot residue on Appellant’s hands.

      Officers Agudo and Redmond went to the hospital and found Appellant

in the emergency department.         Detective James Gruninger, the lead

investigator on the case, arrived at the hospital shortly thereafter.     After

checking Appellant’s identifying information against police records, the

detective learned there was an active warrant for Appellant’s arrest. Detective

Johnson then recovered Appellant’s belongings and put them on a property

receipt.

                                     -2-
J-S07037-23

      Detective Mark     Johnson assisted    Detective Gruninger with this

investigation by preparing an application for a warrant to search the vehicle

that transported Appellant to the hospital. While police waited for the warrant,

Officer Kyle Elwood secured the vehicle. Once police obtained the warrant,

they towed the vehicle to a secure lot. Detective Johnson and other officers

then searched the vehicle and photographed its contents. Significantly, the

vehicle contained a black, puffy jacket and a blue and white track jacket. The

black jacket had a hole in the left pocket. Police also recovered blood from

one of the floor mats.

      Based upon this evidence, police arrested Appellant for his role in the

shootout. On August 5, 2019, Appellant filed a suppression motion. In it,

Appellant argued that police conducted illegal, warrantless searches of his

vehicle and hospital room.     Appellant also claimed that police lied about

discovering his jackets during the search pursuant to the warrant. The court

conducted a suppression hearing on November 4, 2019.             Following the

hearing, the court denied the suppression motion.

      A jury trial commenced on November 13, 2019. At that time, Appellant

stipulated that he was not allowed to possess a firearm based upon a previous

conviction. (See N.T. Trial, 11/14/19, at 162-63). At the conclusion of trial,

the jury convicted Appellant of persons not to possess firearms. On February

14, 2020, the court sentenced Appellant to six (6) to twelve (12) years’

imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on February 18,

                                     -3-
J-S07037-23

2020, arguing that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The

motion did not include any challenges to the sentence. On February 25, 2020,

the court denied the post-sentence motion.

      The trial court opinion sets forth the remaining procedural history as

follows:

           On March 6, 2020, Appellant filed a timely appeal with the
           Superior Court of Pennsylvania from [a different] judgment
           of sentence imposed following the revocation of Appellant’s
           probation on docket number CP-51-CR-008683-2014. On
           March 17, 2020, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
           docketed Appellant’s violation of probation appeal at 866
           EDA 2020. [The trial c]ourt later issued a [Pa.R.A.P.]
           1925(a) opinion on November 2, 2021, in which it addressed
           appellate issues relating to Appellant’s violation of probation
           appeal.

           On April 2, 2020, Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal
           from the judgment of sentence imposed following his
           [firearms] conviction. On this notice of appeal, Appellant’s
           counsel erroneously included the incorrect Common Pleas
           docket number, mistakenly listing docket number CP-51-
           CR-0008683-2014, which was associated with Appellant’s
           violation of probation case. Counsel should have instead
           listed docket number CP-51-CR-0003697-2018, which was
           associated with the instant matter…. On May 8, 2020, the
           Superior Court of Pennsylvania docketed the notice of
           appeal containing the incorrect docket number at 1062 EDA
           2020.

           On November 22, 2020, [prior counsel] filed an application
           to withdraw as counsel from Appellant’s cases. The Superior
           Court of Pennsylvania granted this application on December
           15, 2020, and ordered [the trial c]ourt to appoint substitute
           counsel for Appellant. On December 23, 2020, [the trial
           c]ourt appointed [current counsel] to represent Appellant on
           his appellate matters. On August 16, 2021, the Superior
           Court of Pennsylvania issued a Rule to Show Cause as to
           why the appeal docketed at 1062 EDA 2020 should not be
           dismissed as duplicative of the appeal docketed at 866 EDA

                                        -4-
J-S07037-23

        2020. Although Appellant filed a response, the Superior
        Court dismissed the appeal docketed at 1062 EDA 2020 sua
        sponte as duplicative.

        On September 4, 2021, Appellant filed a motion with [the
        trial c]ourt to reinstate his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc
        for his [firearms] conviction at docket number CP-51-CR-
        0003697-2018. Appellant subsequently filed both a new
        notice of appeal and a [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) Statement of
        Matters Complained of on Appeal with [the trial c]ourt on
        September [9], 2021. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania
        docketed this new appeal at 1829 EDA 2021 on September
        20, 2021. On October 5, 2021, the Superior Court of
        Pennsylvania issued a Rule to Show Cause as to why the
        appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. On
        October 28, 2021, due to Appellant’s failure to file a
        response, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania quashed the
        appeal docketed at 1829 EDA 2021 as untimely.

        On September 29, 2021, Appellant separately filed a [Post
        Conviction Relief Act] petition … seeking reinstatement of
        his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc for his [firearms
        conviction]. On November 4, 2021, [the c]ourt granted
        Appellant’s PCRA petition and reinstated Appellant’s
        appellate rights nunc pro tunc.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/14/22, at 15-17).       On November 7, 2021,

Appellant timely filed a nunc pro tunc notice of appeal.       That same day,

Appellant filed a voluntary Rule 1925(b) statement.

     On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

        Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to
        establish each and every element of the crime of Violation
        of the Uniform Firearms Act, Section 6105.

        Whether the jury verdict was against the weight of the
        evidence.

        Whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s pretrial
        motion to suppress physical evidence.

                                     -5-
J-S07037-23

          Whether the introduction of fabricated evidence and
          perjured testimony violated Appellant’s Due Process rights
          and constituted prosecutorial misconduct.

          Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by
          imposing a sentence that was not based upon the gravity of
          the violation, the extent of Appellant’s record, his prospect
          of rehabilitation, nor an assessment of the mitigating and
          aggravating factors as noted in 42 Pa.C.S. [§] 9721 of the
          Sentencing Code.

(Appellant’s Brief at 8).

        In his first and second issues, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth

did not prove that Appellant possessed a firearm. Appellant claims that the

police witnesses merely speculated that Appellant possessed a firearm based

on what they observed in the surveillance video. Although the officers testified

that smoke emanated from Appellant’s jacket pocket, Appellant complains

that the images on the surveillance video were “grainy.” (Id. at 18). Rather

than smoke, Appellant contends that the officers observed “the bullet entering

Appellant’s body and the resultant excretion of clothing fiber or bodily fluid.”

(Id.)     Appellant acknowledges the Commonwealth’s evidence regarding

gunshot residue, but he avers that this evidence is not persuasive. Appellant

emphasizes the Commonwealth’s expert’s testimony that “gunshot residue

can follow a bullet for thirty feet,” and Appellant maintains that the residue on

his hands must have resulted from the bullets fired by his attackers. (Id. at

17).

        Appellant also argues that the police witnesses provided contradictory

testimony. Specifically, Appellant contends that Detective Johnson testified

                                      -6-
J-S07037-23

that Appellant’s jacket “was ripped on the right pocket,” but Officer Agudo

testified that Appellant “fired a gun through his left jacket pocket.”   (Id.)

Further, Appellant criticizes the testimony from the Commonwealth’s ballistics

expert, claiming it did not demonstrate that three different firearms were used

during the shootout. Appellant concludes that the Commonwealth presented

insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and the conviction was against

the weight of the evidence. We disagree.

      In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard

of review is as follows:

         As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency
         claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most
         favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the
         benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
         evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the
         verdict when it establishes each material element of the
         crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused,
         beyond a reasonable doubt.              Nevertheless, the
         Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical
         certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be
         resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak
         and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of
         fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

         The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of
         wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that
         the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a
         crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where
         the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn
         therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence.
         Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that
         of the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced,
         accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
         demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant’s
         crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s
         convictions will be upheld.

                                     -7-
J-S07037-23

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336-37 (Pa.Super. 2019)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa.Super.

2013)).

      Additionally,

             The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder
             of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the
             evidence and to determine the credibility of the
             witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its
             judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may
             only reverse the … verdict if it is so contrary to the
             evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

          Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d
          666, 672-73 (1999). Moreover, where the trial court has
          ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is
          not to consider the underlying question of whether the
          verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather,
          appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably
          abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408

(2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004)

(most internal citations omitted).

      The Uniform Firearms Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:

          § 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture,
               control, sell or transfer firearms

             (a)   Offense defined.—

                   (1) A person who has been convicted of an
             offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without
             this Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence
             or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c)
             shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or
             manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control,

                                       -8-
J-S07037-23

            sell, transfer or    manufacture     a   firearm   in   this
            Commonwealth.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).

      “When contraband is not found on the defendant’s person, the

Commonwealth must establish constructive possession….” Commonwealth

v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 121 (Pa.Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Haskins, 677 A.2d 328, 330 (Pa.Super. 1996)). “Constructive possession is

the ability to exercise conscious control or dominion over the illegal substance

and the intent to exercise that control.” Id. “The intent to exercise conscious

dominion can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

         It is well established that, as with any other element of a
         crime, constructive possession may be proven by
         circumstantial     evidence.      In   other   words,   the
         Commonwealth must establish facts from which the trier of
         fact can reasonably infer that the defendant exercised
         dominion and control over the contraband at issue.

Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36-37 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal

denied, 651 Pa. 10, 202 A.3d 42 (2019) (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted).

      Instantly, Appellant stipulated that he is prohibited from possessing a

firearm due to a prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance with

intent to deliver.    (See N.T. Trial, 11/14/19, at 162-63).          Regarding

Appellant’s constructive possession of the firearm, the trial court elaborated

on this issue as follows:

         As Philadelphia Police Officer Mark Wilusz testified to, no
         firearm was ever recovered from the 3200 block of

                                     -9-
J-S07037-23

       Shelbourne Street in Philadelphia, where a gunfight
       involving three individuals occurred on April 29, 2018.
       Philadelphia Police Detective James Gruninger testified,
       however, that he recovered other physical evidence,
       including multiple fired cartridge casings and bullets. Officer
       Wilusz examined the casings and concluded they originated
       from two different types of firearms. He also determined
       that one of the bullets recovered from the scene must have
       originated from a third firearm.

       On the night of April 29, 2018, Philadelphia Police Officer
       Anthony Agudo responded to the area of the gunfight and
       reviewed video footage which depicted it. The footage
       showed two black male individuals firing gunshots in the
       direction of a third black male individual, who was wearing
       a dark colored jacket and blue track pants with a white
       stripe down the side. The footage also showed the third
       individual raising his left arm inside his jacket pocket with
       smoke then coming out of the pocket. Officer Agudo
       testified that this indicated to him that the third individual
       was shooting back at the other two individuals. Video
       footage taken from a different angle also showed the third
       individual falling next to the bumper of a blue vehicle after
       possibly being shot.

                                *     *      *

       Detective Gruninger also responded to Temple University
       Hospital, where he observed the clothing located near
       Appellant. Believing it to be consistent with the third
       individual in the video footage, Detective Gruninger had
       Appellant’s hands tested for gunshot residue. Philadelphia
       Police Officer Tiffany Richardson testified that she conducted
       an SEM test for gunshot residue on both of Appellant’s
       hands, per Detective Gruninger’s request. Hung Le, a
       forensic science and gunshot residue testing expert,
       testified that he tested the evidence recovered from
       Appellant’s hands and found substances consistent with
       gunshot residue on both samples collected from Appellant’s
       hands.

       The Commonwealth and counsel for Appellant also
       stipulated that Appellant was driven to Temple University
       Hospital by his girlfriend in a blue Toyota Matrix.

                                    - 10 -
J-S07037-23

          Philadelphia Police Detective Mark Johnson testified that he
          prepared a search warrant for this vehicle. After the warrant
          was executed, two jackets were recovered from the vehicle,
          including a blue-and-white jacket.        Detective Johnson
          testified that the right pocket of this jacket was ripped.
          Detective Gruninger also testified that he observed a hole in
          the jacket with stuffing sticking out of it, which he opined
          was likely caused by a bullet.

                                   *     *      *

          Based on the totality of the circumstances, the
          circumstantial evidence offered at trial established that
          Appellant constructively possessed and used a firearm while
          he was ineligible to do so under the Uniform Firearms Act.

(Trial Court Opinion at 19-21) (internal record citations omitted). We accept

this analysis.

      Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as verdict winner, the record supports the inference that Appellant

constructively possessed a firearm. See Sebolka, supra. Further, the court

concluded that the guilty verdict was not shocking. (See Trial Court Opinion

at 23).   On this record, we cannot say that the court palpably abused its

discretion in ruling on the weight claim. See Champney, supra. Therefore,

Appellant is not entitled to relief on his sufficiency and weight claims.

      In his third issue, Appellant baldly asserts that the police illegally

removed his jacket from the vehicle parked outside the hospital before

obtaining a search warrant. In support of this claim, Appellant cites various

portions of the trial transcripts to demonstrate that the detectives lied about

“the actual circumstances surrounding the search of Appellant’s vehicle.”

                                       - 11 -
J-S07037-23

(Appellant’s Brief at 20). Appellant argues:

          Detective Gruninger initially testified that he recovered
          Appellant’s jacket at the hospital along with Appellant’s
          other clothes. N.T. 11/13/19 p. 63-65. Detective Gruninger
          then changed his testimony and stated that the jacket was
          recovered from Appellant’s vehicle pursuant to execution of
          a search warrant. Id. at 63.[2]

(Id.)

        Appellant insists that this “inconsistent testimony … exposes the

duplicity of the information presented to the court at the [hearing on the]

motion to suppress, as well as to the jury at trial.” (Id.) Relying on this

testimony, Appellant speculates “that upon seeing the jacket in the vehicle

upon arrival at the hospital, Detective Gruninger removed the jacket and

brought it into the hospital to confront Appellant.” (Id. at 21). Appellant

maintains that the purported warrantless vehicle search violated his

constitutional rights, and no exception to the warrant requirement justified

the warrantless search. Appellant concludes that “the search is unlawful and

____________________________________________

2 We have reviewed the record and note that Appellant’s citations to the trial

transcripts are incorrect. Although Appellant cites to the November 13, 2019
trial transcript, Detective Gruninger did not testify until November 14, 2019.
Setting aside this error, it appears that Appellant is relying on a portion of the
cross-examination of Detective Gruninger. Specifically, defense counsel asked
whether police recovered “the puffy jacket” from Appellant’s vehicle, and
Detective Gruninger confirmed that they did. (See N.T. Trial, 11/14/19, at
64). Immediately thereafter, defense counsel stated, “And you said at the
preliminary hearing you got the puffy jacket from the hospital room; right?”
(Id.) Detective Gruninger agreed. (Id.) Defense counsel continued, “You
never said anything about clothing obtained from the car when you were at
the preliminary hearing; is that right?” (Id.) Again, Detective Gruninger
responded affirmatively. (Id.)

                                          - 12 -
J-S07037-23

the evidence recovered should have been suppressed.”         (Id. at 23).   We

disagree.

      The following principles govern our review of an order denying a motion

to suppress:

         An appellate court’s standard of review in addressing a
         challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to
         determining whether the suppression court’s factual
         findings are supported by the record and whether the legal
         conclusions drawn 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 context of the record as a
         whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are
         supported by the record, the appellate court is bound by
         those findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal
         conclusions are erroneous.       Where the appeal of the
         determination of the suppression court turns on allegations
         of legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions are
         not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to
         determine if the suppression court properly applied the law
         to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below
         are subject to plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Ford, 175 A.3d 985, 989 (Pa.Super. 2017), appeal

denied, 647 Pa. 522, 190 A.3d 580 (2018). “[A]ppellate courts are limited to

reviewing only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing when

examining a ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress.”      Commonwealth v.

Koonce, 190 A.3d 1204, 1212 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bush, 166 A.3d

1278, 1281-82 (Pa.Super. 2017)). “It is within the suppression court’s sole

province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to

be given to their testimony.” Id. (quoting Bush, supra at 1282).

                                     - 13 -
J-S07037-23

       Regarding searches conducted by police,

          [b]oth the Fourth Amendment to the United States
          Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
          Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches
          and seizures by police in areas where individuals have a
          reasonable expectation of privacy. If a person has a
          reasonable expectation of privacy in a place, then these
          constitutional provisions generally require police to obtain a
          warrant to search the place; a search warrant must be
          supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral,
          detached    magistrate.        Warrantless    searches     are
          presumptively unreasonable under the state and federal
          constitutions.

Commonwealth v. Barr, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 266 A.3d 25, 39-40 (2021)

(internal citations, footnote, and quotation marks omitted).

       Instantly, Detective Johnson testified at the suppression hearing

regarding the application for a warrant to search the Toyota Matrix that

transported Appellant to the hospital.3            Detective Johnson explained that

Appellant

____________________________________________

3 We note that the vehicle at issue here was registered to someone other than

Appellant. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth did not argue that Appellant
lacked a privacy interest in the vehicle. Rather, the Commonwealth’s only
argument at the suppression hearing was that the police conducted a valid
search pursuant to a warrant. Under these circumstances, the Commonwealth
effectively conceded the privacy interest, and we will not consider whether
Appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle searched.
See Commonwealth v. Enimpah, 630 Pa. 357, 368-69, 106 A.3d 695, 701
(2014) (stating it is Commonwealth’s burden to present evidence that
defendant’s constitutional rights were not infringed; Commonwealth may
concede privacy interest, choosing to contest only legality of police conduct;
if it does so, defendant’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” need not be
established); Commonwealth v. Peak, 230 A.3d 1220, 1224 (Pa.Super.
2020), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1426, 209 L.Ed.2d 150 (2021)
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 14 -
J-S07037-23

           was brought into Temple Hospital by that vehicle. And it
           was in front of the ER doors, and it was secured almost
           immediately by the officers until we had it towed to … where
           I could execute the search warrant.

(N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/4/19, at 11). Detective Johnson testified that

no one entered the vehicle until police obtained a search warrant. (See id. at

11-12).

        Once he obtained the warrant, Detective Johnson searched the vehicle

with other officers. Regarding the items recovered from the vehicle, Detective

Johnson identified a “black puffy coat, which has a blown-out left pocket” that

was found in the back seat. (Id. at 14). Detective Johnson also identified a

“blue-and-white track jacket” that was recovered from inside the vehicle.

(Id.)

        Thereafter, Detective Gruninger provided details about other articles of

Appellant’s clothing that police recovered from inside the hospital. Detective

Gruninger testified:

           These are clothing that were recovered. There is a pair of
           blue track pants with a white stripe down the side, a
           hoodie—or a sweat jacket that’s blue and white, a pair of
           black thermal pants, a white T-shirt, and also a pair of
           sneakers.

____________________________________________

(stating Commonwealth did not make argument regarding Appellant’s
reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle during suppression hearing; for
that reason, trial court did not address Appellant’s expectation of privacy, or
lack thereof, in its opinion, and this Court could consider issue waived on
appeal).

                                          - 15 -
J-S07037-23

(Id. at 31).   Nevertheless, Detective Gruninger changed his testimony on

cross-examination.     At that time, defense counsel revisited the articles of

clothing recovered from the hospital.         Regarding the jacket, Detective

Gruninger added:

         I thought about it after the DA asked the question earlier.
         If we could go back and ask the question. The blue-and-
         white sweat jacket was actually recovered with the jacket in
         the vehicle.

(Id. at 36).

      In evaluating this testimony, the suppression court determined that the

record did not support Appellant’s claim that the police conducted a

warrantless search of the vehicle.    (See Trial Court Opinion at 29).    This

factual finding is supported by the record, and we are bound by it. See Ford,

supra. Here, the suppression court was free to credit Detective Johnson’s

testimony regarding the search pursuant to a warrant. Although Detective

Gruninger subsequently provided conflicting statements limited to the

recovery of the blue-and-white jacket, it was within the court’s province as

factfinder to credit the detective’s assertion that he misspoke. See Koonce,

supra. To the extent Appellant relies on Detective Gruninger’s subsequent

trial testimony to support his argument, we emphasize that this Court is

limited to reviewing only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.

See id. Under these circumstances, we cannot fault the court for denying the

suppression motion. See Ford, supra. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled

to relief on his third issue.

                                     - 16 -
J-S07037-23

       In his fourth issue, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth committed

misconduct through “the presentation of knowingly false testimony and

fabricated evidence.” (Appellant’s Brief at 23). First, Appellant contends that

the Commonwealth improperly utilized Detectives Gruninger and Johnson’s

purportedly fabricated statements about the seizure of Appellant’s jacket.

Next, Appellant claims that Officer Agudo’s testimony that he saw a gunshot

come from Appellant’s left pocket was “proven demonstrably false.” (Id. at

24).     Further,    Appellant     complains       that   the   prosecution   introduced

“unsupported” ballistics evidence. (Id.) Appellant, however, failed to raise

any objection to this evidence at trial. (See N.T. Trial, 11/13/19, at 23-102;

N.T. Trial, 11/14/19, at 33-103).              Thus, this issue is waived.4         See

Commonwealth v. Sasse, 921 A.2d 1229, 1238 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal

denied, 595 Pa. 706, 938 A.2d 1052 (2007) (reiterating, “In order to preserve

a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, a defendant must make an

objection and move for a mistrial”).

       In his final issue, Appellant argues that the court imposed an

unreasonably excessive sentence without considering all relevant factors

enumerated in the Sentencing Code, such as Appellant’s characteristics, his

rehabilitative needs, and the gravity of the offense. As presented, Appellant’s

challenge    implicates     the   discretionary      aspects    of   sentencing.    See

____________________________________________

4 The trial court also found this issue waived, albeit due to the lack of detail in

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement. (See Trial Court Opinion at 27).

                                          - 17 -
J-S07037-23

Commonwealth          v.   Ahmad,    961    A.2d   884,   886   (Pa.Super.   2008)

(explaining, “A challenge to an alleged excessive sentence is a challenge to

the discretionary aspects of a sentence”).

         “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an

appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d

103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174

L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing

issue:

            [W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether
            appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P.
            902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved
            at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
            sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s
            brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether
            there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed
            from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
            Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (internal citations omitted).

“[I]ssues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised

in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during

the sentencing proceedings.          Absent such efforts, an objection to a

discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.” Commonwealth v. Cartrette,

83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc).

         Instantly, Appellant did not raise his claims at the sentencing hearing or

in his post-sentence motion. Thus, Appellant’s final issue is waived. See id.

                                       - 18 -
J-S07037-23

Nevertheless, Appellant would not be entitled to relief even if he preserved his

claims.

      “When imposing sentence, a court is required to consider the particular

circumstances    of the   offense   and the    character   of the   defendant.”

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied,

545 U.S. 1148, 125 S.Ct. 2984, 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005). “In particular, the

court should refer to the defendant’s prior criminal record, his age, personal

characteristics and his potential for rehabilitation.” Id. “Where [PSI] reports

exist, we shall continue to presume that the sentencing judge was aware of

relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those

considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v.

Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa.Super. 2020) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Devers, 519 Pa. 88, 101-02, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (1988)).

      Instantly, Appellant addressed the court at the sentencing hearing.

Appellant took responsibility for possessing the firearm and stated that he

fired “two warning shots” only after the unidentified assailants fired at him.

(See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 2/14/20, at 14).             Despite Appellant’s

statement, the court imposed a sentence of six to twelve years’ imprisonment,

emphasizing:

          I have considered the [PSI report], the mental health report,
          the submissions by the Commonwealth and defense, prior
          record score report, sentencing guidelines, purposes of the
          sentencing code.

          [Appellant], there are several issues here.      One is that

                                     - 19 -
J-S07037-23

          basically you’ve been dealing drugs, it looks like
          consistently, since 1998 as an adult. Before that, as a
          juvenile since 1994. It’s been like a business it looks like.
          In and out of juvenile facilities. As an adult, you have 19
          arrests, 15 convictions, 20 commitments. In the county
          prison, state prison, violations, but it’s all for drug dealing.

                                       *       *    *

          I don’t think you ever stopped drug dealing from what I can
          tell because the most recent arrest for drug dealing was
          January 20th of 2018 and that was when [another jurist]
          imposed a sentence of 9 to 23 months of incarceration. This
          incident then happened, it looks like, on April 29th of 2018,
          which I think was an incident that happened just five months
          after the January arrest. I don’t know what’s going on, but
          people tell me drugs is not a violent crime, it’s a nonviolent
          crime. It’s not. It leads to shootings. I don’t know why
          people are shooting at you and you were shooting at people,
          but, considering everything else in this case, I don’t think
          that the guidelines of 72 to 90 in terms of the—should be
          eight or nine years, but there is a major problem. You’ve
          been dealing drugs most of your life. I don’t know what else
          to say. A shooting on the street like this, I saw the video,
          as did the jury many times. I think you should get all the
          necessary medical treatment. That has nothing to do with
          where you’re at in terms of—and I will send an email to the
          state prison people detailing the medical condition,[5] the
          medications you’re taking and other things, and ma[k]e
          sure that they have that. You need to make sure that they
          have that also to follow up on.

          What I am going to do is as follows: On the 6105 charge, I
          am going to sentence you to a sentence of 6 to 12 years in
          the state prison which is in the guidelines. It’s the lowest
          end of the guidelines.

(Id. at 14-16).

____________________________________________

5 Earlier in the hearing, Appellant explained that he suffered from “non-
ischemic cardiomyopathy,” and he received a pacemaker for this condition.
(N.T. Sentencing Hearing at 13).

                                           - 20 -
J-S07037-23

      In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court elaborated on the reasons for

Appellant’s sentence:

         [The c]ourt followed the fundamental norms of the
         sentencing process and appropriately sentenced Appellant
         following his VUFA conviction. Prior to sentencing Appellant,
         [the c]ourt reviewed Appellant’s [PSI] Report, his Mental
         Health Evaluation, the Commonwealth’s sentencing
         memorandum, submissions from Appellant’s family,
         Appellant’s prior record score, the Sentencing Guidelines
         Form required by the Pennsylvania Commission on
         Sentencing, and finally, the stated purposes of the
         Sentencing Code. The record therefore reflects [the c]ourt’s
         careful consideration of the facts of Appellant’s crime and
         character.     [The c]ourt expressed concerns about
         Appellant’s extensive prior record, noting that Appellant had
         previously been arrested nineteen times, convicted fifteen
         times, violated probation or parole nineteen times, and
         committed to prison twenty times, including for violations of
         probation or parole.

         [The c]ourt additionally considered the facts and
         circumstances of VUFA offense by observing the danger of
         how drug dealing can and often does lead to gun violence,
         as occurred in Appellant’s conviction. Finally, [the c]ourt
         stated the need for Appellant to receive proper medical care
         in accordance with his health conditions.

(Trial Court Opinion at 25-26).

      Here, the record makes clear that the court adequately considered

Appellant’s prior record, the sentencing guidelines, the circumstances

surrounding the firearms conviction, as well as the PSI report. The sentencing

court described its concern for the escalation of Appellant’s drug dealing to

gun violence. Further, the presence of a PSI report allows us to presume that

the court was aware of Appellant’s character and mitigating factors, and the

court’s discretion while using a PSI report should not be disturbed.     See

                                    - 21 -
J-S07037-23

Watson, supra. On this record, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his final

claim. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/8/2023

                                    - 22 -