Commonwealth v. Morrison

245 A.3d 1093 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Steven Corey MORRISON, Appellant

No. 1374 MDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed December 23, 2020

Reargument Denied February 16, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:

Appellant, Steven Corey Morrison, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on March 21, 2019, in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. After review, we affirm. ¹

The trial court summarized the factual background of this case as follows:

On Friday, July 7, 2017, an operation involving detectives from the police departments of Wyomissing Borough, City of Reading, and Spring Township, and agents from the United States Department of Homeland Security was conducted at a hotel in the Borough of Wyomissing related to suspected prostitution and sex trafficking. Two law enforcement officers initiated the investigation and began contacting women advertising for sex via [a now defunct website entitled] Backpage.

Morgan Rehrig testified that she met [Appellant] in June 2017 on the street in Reading. Rehrig was homeless at the time and [Appellant] offered her a place to stay and a chance to make money as a sex worker. As part of her work in prostitution she used a Backpage online profile created at the direction of and with assistance from [Appellant] and a cell phone provided by [Appellant]. In exchange she lived in an apartment offered to her by [Appellant] and gave [Appellant] the money that she made. [Appellant] also provided Rehrig with food and drugs, often in lieu of cash money.

Rehrig further testified that on July 7, 2017, she agreed to meet a man (an undercover detective) for sex at the Inn at Reading using the cellphone [Appellant] had provided. [Appellant] was with her inside her room at the time. [Appellant] arranged for a third person to drive Rehrig to the Inn at Reading, and [Appellant] rode along to the hotel. When they arrived Rehrig was dropped off at the entrance of the hotel because it was raining. She called the phone number for the man she was meeting and was given a room number. Two Wyomissing police officers followed the vehicle as it left the hotel. Rehrig entered the room with the man and they agreed on a price for sex. At the [sic] point Rehrig was detained by law enforcement and stated that she was acting under the direction of one of the men in the car ([Appellant]). Based on this information [Appellant's] vehicle was stopped, and [Appellant] was arrested.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/2/19, at 1-2 (footnote omitted).

On October 24, 2017, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with three counts of prostitution and one count of possessing a controlled substance. Information, 10/24/17. On February 5, 2019, the Commonwealth filed an amended information which added, inter alia , a fourth count of prostitution, and specified that Appellant's crimes occurred between June 27, 2017, and July 7, 2017. Amended Information, 2/5/19. Accordingly, Appellant was charged as follows: count one, encouraging, inducing, or otherwise intentionally causing another to become or remain a prostitute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b)(3) ; count two, transporting a person into or within this Commonwealth with the intent to promote the engaging in prostitution by that person, or procuring or paying for transportation with that intent, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b)(6) ; count three, leasing or otherwise permitting a place controlled by the actor, alone or in association with others, to be regularly used for prostitution or the promotion of prostitution, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b)(7) ; count four, possessing a controlled substance, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16) ; and count five, soliciting, receiving, or agreeing to receive any benefit from prostitution, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b)(8).

On December 4, 2017, Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress in which he asserted that the police illegally stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger and that the subsequent search of his person was unlawful. Motion, 12/4/17. Appellant contended that any evidence seized as a result of that arrest and search should be suppressed. Id. On March 19, 2018, the trial court held a suppression hearing. On July 11, 2018, the trial court denied Appellant's suppression motion, and Appellant's case proceeded to a jury trial. At the conclusion of his trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of all four counts of prostitution and one count of possessing a controlled substance.

On March 21, 2019, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The trial court provided Appellant with credit for time-served and sentenced Appellant as follows: count one, eighteen to thirty six months of incarceration; count two, eighteen to thirty six months of incarceration consecutive to count one; count three, twelve to twenty-four months of incarceration consecutive to count two; count four, twenty-four months of probation consecutive to count three; and count five, twelve to twenty-four months of incarceration concurrent with count three. Sentencing Order, 3/21/19. This resulted in an aggregate sentence of forty-eight to ninety-six months of incarceration, followed by twenty-four months of probation. Id. Appellant filed post-sentence motions, and the trial court held a hearing on May 8, 2019. On July 18, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motions, and Appellant filed a timely appeal on August 16, 2019. The trial court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and drafted an opinion addressing only the issues Appellant raised in the post-sentence motions. Trial Court Opinion, 12/2/19.

On appeal, Appellant presents two issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the [s]uppression [c]ourt erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress physical evidence where the record demonstrates than an improper detention, Terry [v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968) ] frisk, and search of Appellant's person occurred.

2. Whether the [s]entencing [c]ourt erred in imposing illegal sentences on [the prostitution convictions at] counts one, two, three and five.

Appellant's Brief at 13 (internal footnote omitted).

In his first issue, Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his suppression motion. ² When faced with an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, our Supreme Court has stated the following:

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court's denial of a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. When reviewing the ruling of a suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence of the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record.... Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.

Commonwealth v. Eichinger , 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted). "It is within the suppression court's sole province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony." Commonwealth v. Gallagher , 896 A.2d 583, 585 (Pa. Super. 2006). Moreover, our scope of review from a suppression ruling is limited to the evidentiary record that was created at the suppression hearing. In re L.J. , 79 A.3d 1073, 1087 (Pa. 2013).

The record reflects that on July 7, 2017, the Wyomissing police Department, in conjunction with the United States Department of Homeland Security, were investigating human trafficking and prostitution. N.T., 3/19/18, at 7-8, 13. Wyomissing Police Officer Douglas Goeltz testified that he and Officer Joe Klatt were in uniform and assisting in the investigation. Id. at 8. Officers Goeltz and Klatt were stationed in an unmarked police car at the Inn at Reading hotel. Id. at 8-9. Inside the hotel, other officers and agents of the Department of Homeland Security were waiting for a prostitute to arrive. Id. at 10. Officer Goeltz was in real-time communication via radio with the officers inside of the hotel. Id. Officer Goeltz testified that a black Hyundai pulled into the hotel's parking lot. The driver of the car was a white male, there was a black male in the passenger seat, and a white female in the backseat. Id. The woman, who was later identified as Morgan Rehrig, exited the car and entered one of the hotel rooms. Id. at 11. The black Hyundai then left the parking lot. Id. Officers Goeltz and Klatt followed the Hyundai and witnessed the vehicle make an illegal turn onto Woodland Road. Id. at 12. Around this time, law enforcement officers at the hotel radioed Officer Goeltz and relayed that the Hyundai had dropped off Rehrig at the hotel for purposes of prostitution. Id. at 13. Officers Goeltz and Klatt effectuated a traffic stop of the Hyundai. Id. When the officers approached the car, the driver started yelling "cuss words" at the officers and the occupants of the Hyundai began reaching under the seats and around the dashboard area of the car. Id. Officer Klatt focused on the driver and had him exit the car. Id. Officer Goeltz approached Appellant, who was the passenger, and asked him to exit the car. Id. After Appellant stepped out of the car, Officer Goeltz patted down Appellant and felt baggies that the officer identified as "nickel bags of marijuana." Id. at 14. Testing later revealed that the baggies contained synthetic marijuana. Id.

Officer Goeltz explained that he asked Appellant to exit the car for a pat-down search for the officers’ safety. N.T., 3/19/18, at 15. Officer Goeltz testified that he believed Appellant may be armed because he saw Appellant reaching around the interior of the vehicle during the traffic stop and the nature of the underlying investigation was human trafficking. Id. Officer Goeltz stated that he patted down only the outside of Appellant's clothes and felt bulges that he immediately identified...