Court Opinion

ID: 9384340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 16:07:29.956643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:52.819042
License: Public Domain

J-A01037-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JOSHUA PETER CORRELL                       :
                                               :
                        Appellant              :   No. 851 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 28, 2021
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-13-CR-0000216-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                                FILED APRIL 3, 2023

        Joshua Peter Correll appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon Country, after being convicted by a jury

of one count each of possession of firearms prohibited,1 flight to avoid

apprehension/trial/punishment,2 false identification to a law enforcement

officer,3 resisting arrest,4 possession with intent to deliver a controlled

substance,5 and two counts each of possession of a firearm by a person not

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).

2   Id. at § 5126(a).

3   Id. at § 4914(a).

4   Id. at § 5104.

5   35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-A01037-23

registered6 and use/possession of drug paraphernalia.7         After review, we

affirm on the basis of the opinion authored by the Honorable Judge Steven R.

Serfass.

        On January 14, 2021, Officer John Pruitte of the Borough of Jim Thorpe

Police Department observed a yellow Ford Escape parked on Olympian Way in

Jim Thorpe, Carbon County. Officer Pruitte identified the vehicle as Correll’s

based on previous recent narcotics investigations.      Officer Pruitte also had

received a call approximately three hours earlier notifying him that a warrant

for Correll’s arrest had been issued. See N.T. Jury Trial, 5/5/21, at 30-31.

As Officer Pruitte approached the Ford Escape, he observed an individual, who

he believed to be Correll, sitting in the passenger seat of a nearby car.8 Officer

Pruitte drove around the block twice until he was able to positively identify

Correll. Id. at 34 (Officer Pruitte testifying “I made two passes. The first time

he didn’t look at me. The second time, [Correll] looked at me and I was able

to confirm it was him.”). On the third time around the block, Officer Pruitte

parked his police vehicle in front of the Chevy. Upon approaching Correll,

Officer Pruitte observed Correll take an unknown item from his waist and place

it under the front passenger seat. Id. at 36.

____________________________________________

6   Id. at § 780-113(a)(30).

7   Id. at § 780-113(a)(32).

8 The car was for sale and owned by Mark Holland. Katie Murphy was sitting
in the driver’s seat.

                                           -2-
J-A01037-23

        Officer Pruitte asked Correll to exit the vehicle, which he refused to do.

Id. (Officer Pruitte testifying that he asked Correll to exit the vehicle at least

10 times before he complied). Once Correll exited the vehicle, he began to

inch away from Officer Pruitte. At that point, Officer Pruitte called Detective

Lee Marzen for backup. Id. at 37-38. As Officer Pruitte subsequently tried to

place Correll in handcuffs, Correll attempted to flee. Id. at 38. Following a

brief foot chase in the direction of State Route 903, Officer Pruitte tased

Correll.    Id. at 41.     Officer Pruitte searched Correll’s person and found

$2,030.00, a syringe and a spoon. Detective Marzen obtained consent from

Holland to search the Chevy and found a 9mm handgun under the front

passenger seat.      On January 15, 2021, a search of Correll’s Ford Escape

yielded a gun holster and bag, approximately 1.2 grams of methamphetamine,

syringes, boxes, baggies, rubber bands, and other materials commonly used

to package and distribute narcotics.

        On January 14, 2022, Correll was arrested and charged with the above-

mentioned offenses, in addition to one count of firearms not to be carried

without a license.9 On April 8, 2021, Correll filed an omnibus pre-trial motion,

which included a motion to suppress his arrest and a habeas corpus motion

challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the charges. On July 1,

2021, the trial court conducted a hearing and on July 15, 2021, the court

____________________________________________

9   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6016.

                                           -3-
J-A01037-23

granted Correll’s habeas corpus motion as to the firearms not to be carried

without a license charge and denied the motion in all other respects.

      Correll proceeded to jury trial on August 5, 2021, and was found guilty

on all remaining charges on August 6, 2021. He was sentenced on October

28, 2021 to an aggregate term of 117 to 234 months’ incarceration. Correll

filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on February 28,

2022. This timely appeal follows, in which Correll raises the following issues

for our review:

      1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by denying [] Correll’s
         [o]minibus [p]re-[t]rial [m]otion to suppress where [] Correll
         was subject to an unconstitutional seizure of his person
         pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States
         Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
         Constitution?

      2. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at
         trial that [] Correll possessed the firearm that was found in the
         vehicle that was owned by Mark Holland?

      3. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at
         trial to establish that [] Correll possessed 1.2 grams of
         methamphetamine with intent to deliver it?

      4. Whether [] Correll’s conviction for [p]ossession of [f]irearms
         prohibited is against the weight of the evidence where the
         [t]rial [c]ourt awarded too great a weight to Officer Pruitte’s
         testimony that he observed [] Correll place something under
         the seat of the vehicle?

      5. Whether [] Correll’s conviction for [p]ossession with [i]ntent to
         deliver a [c]ontrolled substance was against the weight of the
         evidence where the [t]rial [c]ourt awarded to great a weight to
         the Commonwealth’s assertion that the items found in []
         Correll’s vehicle were consistent with packaging and
         distribution and that the amount of United States [c]urrency
         found on [] Correll’s person is consistent with the intent to
         deliver a controlled substance?

                                     -4-
J-A01037-23

       6. Whether [] Correll’s conviction for [p]ossession with [i]ntent to
          deliver a [c]ontrolled substance was against the weight of the
          evidence where the [t]rial [c]ourt placed insufficient weight of
          [] Correll’s alternative explanation as to why he was carrying
          the amount of United States currency in question, namely that
          he had intended to purchase a vehicle[?]

       7. Whether [] Correll is entitled to a new trial under Brady v.
          Maryland, [373 U.S. 83 (1963),10] because prior to trial, the
          Commonwealth withheld the statement of Katie Murphey,
          which [Correll] was entitled to as per his discovery request?

Appellant’s Brief, at 10-11.

       After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, and the record on

appeal, we rely on the May 19, 2022 opinion, authored by Judge Serfass, to

affirm Correll’s judgment of sentence. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/22, at

7-8 (pre-trial motion to suppress properly denied where probable cause for

valid warrant existed as officer knew of active felony warrant out for Correll

three hours prior to arrest; Pennsylvania law does not require arresting officer

to possess physical copy of arrest warrant; and, officer was familiar with

Correll and Correll’s vehicle due to previous narcotics investigations and

physical interactions); id. at 8 (habeas corpus issue moot because Correll

proceeded to trial without filing direct appeal from denial of habeas corpus

motion); id. at 9-10 (sufficient evidence of constructive possession of

handgun where officer observed Correll remove an item from his waist and

place it under front passenger seat and detective found handgun under front

____________________________________________

10 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding “the suppression by
the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due
process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”).

                                           -5-
J-A01037-23

passenger seat); id. at 10-11 (sufficient evidence for possession of

methamphetamine consistent with intent to deliver where items found in

Correll’s vehicle, including rubber bands, clear plastic baggies, syringes, boxes

commonly used to store bricks of heroin, $2,030.00 in cash, drug

paraphernalia and 1.2 grams of methamphetamine, consistent with packaging

and distribution of narcotics); id. at 12 (possession of firearm prohibited

conviction not against weight of evidence where Holland testified he did not

own handgun found under front passenger seat of his car and that he cleaned

out vehicle to get it ready for sale, and search of Correll’s vehicle yielded a

gun holder and bag); id. at 13 (possession of methamphetamine with intent

to deliver not against weight of evidence where Correll was unemployed and

deposits at bank       did   not come   from employer, Social Security or

unemployment benefits); id. (Correll’s due process rights not violated under

Brady where “supplemental narrative” generated by Detective Marzen

following interview with Murphy did not prejudice Correll; narrative contains

statements that Murphy observed Correll with a handgun and Holland asked

Correll if had a permit for handgun and Correll could have brought Murphy as

his own witness).

      In light of the foregoing, we affirm Correll’s judgment of sentence and

direct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Serfass’ opinion in the event of

further proceedings.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -6-
J-A01037-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/3/2023

                          -7-