Commonwealth v. Rode

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN MICHAEL RODE Appellant

No. 530 WDA 2021

No. J-S32020-21

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 12, 2021

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 25, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County Criminal Division at CP-17-CR-0000198-2018

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM

MURRAY, J.

Steven Michael Rode (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of eight counts of arson, four counts each of aggravated arson and recklessly endangering another person, and one count of risking catastrophe.^[1] Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. Upon review, we affirm.

The affidavit of probable cause in this case reads as follows:

1. [Corporal Greg] Agosti, a co-affiant is employed by the Pennsylvania State Police and is a certified fire investigator in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1033 as recognized by the Pennsylvania Office of the State Fire Commissioner and maintains Certified Fire Investigator Status with the International Association of Arson Investigators. Officer [Ken] Kiehlmeier, a full-time police officer of the Sandy Township Police Department is a co-affiant in this matter.

2. The Sandy Township Fire Department was dispatched to Fayette Resources, an occupied assisted living facility at 15 Arminta Street in Sandy Township, Clearfield County on 01/15/18 at 0035 for a report of a dryer fire. Fayette Resources is a community home for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The fire department located a fire in a laundry room in the basement of the facility near the power cord for the dryer. Two employees, Owen Samuels [(Samuels)] and [Appellant], were on site at the time of the fire. The fire was extinguished.

3. On 01/21/18 the Sandy Township Fire Department was dispatched to the same facility for another fire in the laundry room at 2145 hours. The fire department located clothing burning on the floor near the clothes dryer. The fire was spreading up the wall. West Sandy Hose Company Chief Bill Beers requested PSP assistance with determining the cause of the fire.

4. … Samuels, an employee of Fayette Resources advised the fire department a fire occurred earlier in the evening on 01/21/18 inside the clothes dryer. He explained he and [Appellant] located clothing burning inside the dryer while the dryer was operating. Samuels utilized a fire extinguisher and removed the clothing from the dryer. The fire department was not requested. The facility was evacuated and the 4 residents were relocated to another property. Samuels and [Appellant] returned to the property to gather personal items for the displaced residents. [Appellant] was in the building for 10-15 minutes before exiting. Samuels then entered the building an additional time to locate another personal item. Upon his entry, he immediately observed smoke again. Samuels called 911. The Sandy Township Fire Department responded to the scene and extinguished a fire in the basement laundry room. Samuels met with Chief Beers and reviewed the damage. Samuels recognized the fire consumed some clothing which was part of the earlier dryer fire. He advised Chief Beers the clothing appeared to be moved from where he originally placed it after extinguishing it the first time.

5. Cpl. Agosti arrived at the scene and conducted a scene examination. The cause of the most recent fire in the laundry room was determined to be the result of arson. The electric clothes dryer was also examined pertaining to the earlier fire on 01/21/18. There was no electrical or mechanical fault located with the appliance. The cause of the fire which occurred inside the dryer was also determined to be the result of arson. Indications of arson were also present relating to the fire that occurred on 01/15/18 at 0035 hours.

6. Cpl. Agosti and Officer Kiehlmeier conducted interviews of staff and residents at the scene. Owen Samuels provided accounts of events leading to each fire. He also informed officers another small fire occurred on 01/14/18 prior to the fire at 0035 hours on 01/15/18. He explained power in the building kept going off and on. During this period smoke was observed. [Appellant] located a small fire inside a baseboard heat unit along the laundry room wall. [Appellant] obtained a glass of water and extinguished the fire.

7. [Appellant] was interviewed by Cpl. Agosti in the presence of Officer Kiehlmeier at the scene on 01/22/18 at approximately 0030 hours. [Appellant] explained how he located each fire and the actions he took because of each fire. He explained he was praised by his employer for his actions on 01/15/18. Cpl. Agosti advised [Appellant] the fires were the result of the crime of arson. [Appellant] confessed to setting 4 fires and explained each one in detail. He advised he first lit dryer lint on fire inside the baseboard heating unit beside the laundry room on 01/14/18. He then ignited a cardboard insect glue trap on fire which was on the floor behind the dryer at 0035 hours on 01/15/18. [Appellant] further explained he poured alcohol on clothing inside the dryer and ignited it with a lighter. Finally, he lit the previously burned clothing with a lighter. He piled the clothing against a wood paneled partition wall at the entrance of the laundry room. [Appellant] explained he loved his job and worked very hard for his employer. He felt he did a good job but did not receive the recognition he deserved. He received praise from his employer for his actions locating the fire and evacuating the building on 01/15/18. He ignited the fires on 01/21/18 to receive more accolades. [Appellant] provided Officer Kiehlmeier with a written statement documenting his previously verbal confession to Cpl. Agosti.

8. There were 5 people present inside the facility at the time the fire was ignited and discovered. The discovery of the fire caused alarm and exposed all residents and employees to danger of death or bodily injury.

9. Physical evidence supported the confession made by [Appellant]. ...

Affidavit of Probable Cause, 1/25/18, at 1-3.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with the aforementioned offenses. On April 26, 2018, Appellant filed a suppression motion claiming his confession was illegally obtained. The court held a hearing on August 3, 2018, and denied the motion on September 25, 2018. A jury rendered its guilty verdicts on January 3, 2019. On February 25, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 4 - 8 years of incarceration. Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

[1.] Whether the [trial court] erred by denying [Appellant's] OPTM to Suppress Evidence, where Police Officer(s) did not have sufficient cause to conduct an investigative detention[?]

[2.] Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by denying [Appellant's] OPTM to Suppress Evidence, where [Appellant] made inculpatory statements in the course [of] a custodial interrogation without being apprised of his right to remain silent and/or right to counsel[?]

[3.] Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by denying [Appellant's] OPTM to Suppress Evidence, where [Appellant's] written confession was not voluntarily given[?]

Appellant's Brief at 7.

In reviewing Appellant's three issues challenging the denial of suppression, we recognize:

[Our] 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. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Appellate review is limited to the suppression hearing record. In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1085 (Pa. 2013). "[I]t 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. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530, 542 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

First, Appellant contends he was subjected to an investigatory detention, and the police lacked "the requisite cause to believe that Appellant was engaged in criminal activity when two officers sequestered Appellant in the kitchen of the home, and advised him that they suspected him of setting various fires at the residence." Appellant's Brief at 11. He continues:

Appellant readily concedes that the police did not physically threaten, restrain or coerce him into confessing during the course of the interview. At the same time, however, there is no evidence to suggest that Appellant, or any reasonable person, would have understood that he was free to terminate the interview and leave the scene of the incident. To the contrary, Appellant was acutely aware that Corporal Agosti

...