Opinion
J-S01034-18 No. 1052 MDA 2017
02-09-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAELLE M. NDAMAGE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003041-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Jaelle M. Ndamage, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following her jury trial conviction for possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance, criminal conspiracy, and possession of drug paraphernalia. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING [APPELLANT]'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS WHERE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE BASIS TO DETAIN, NOR A WARRANT AND/OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, [APPELLANT] IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable David L. Ashworth, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 24, 2017, at 1-9) (finding: at suppression hearing, Detective Michael Vance testified that he executed search warrant for Appellant's boyfriend's car and apartment he shared with Appellant; officers apprehended boyfriend after they found him at his car and he attempted to flee; police then executed search of couple's apartment; police announced themselves and knocked at back door of apartment; officers heard someone inside, but no one answered door; police breached door and identified themselves as officers with search warrant; police observed Appellant attempting to leave apartment; when police stopped Appellant and brought her back into apartment, her book bag fell to her feet from her shoulder; inside book bag police discovered 520 grams of heroin and digital scale; officers also found in apartment another digital scale, dust masks, sandwich baggies with corner cut off, yellow rubber gloves, and $4,073.00 cash; police seated both Boyfriend and Appellant in living room and read them their Miranda rights; when asked if there was anything else in apartment, Appellant responded "everything they had inside the house was in the bag"; police then arrested Appellant; officers permissibly detained Appellant when she attempted to leave apartment as officers executed search warrant; officers' temporary detainment of Appellant as she tried to leave was not arrest; after detaining Appellant, police searched backpack Appellant dropped inside residence; search of backpack was proper, because search warrant gave officers authority to search entire residence for contraband, and Appellant did not physically possess bag when officers seized it; Detective Vance credibly testified that, after officers read Appellant her Miranda rights, Appellant acknowledged drugs and drug paraphernalia found inside back pack belonged to her; drugs and drug paraphernalia officers found in bag provided officers probable cause to arrest Appellant; court properly denied Appellant's suppression motion). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of that opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 02/09/2018
Image materials not available for display.