J-S01008-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
CALVIN JAMAR HILL-GAMBLE :
:
Appellant : No. 678 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0005209-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 27, 2017
Appellant, Calvin Jamar Hill-Gamble, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, following
his jury trial convictions of three counts of firearms not to be carried without
a license, and one count each of persons not to possess firearms, receiving
stolen property, possessing instruments of crime, possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver (“PWID”), possession of a controlled
substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.1 We affirm.
In its opinions, the trial court fully and correctly sets for the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1), 6105(a)(1), 3925(a), 907(a), 35 P.S. §§ 780-
113(a)(30), (a)(16), and (a)(32), respectively.
J-S01008-17
restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID NOT THE COURT ERR IN DENYING [APPELLANT’S]
MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF
[APPELLANT’S] CELL PHONE RECORDS AND THE SEARCH
OF THE CONTENTS OF [APPELLANT’S] CELL PHONE
SEIZED BY POLICE INCIDENT TO [APPELLANT’S] ARREST?
DID NOT THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY
FAILING TO GRANT [APPELLANT] A NEW TRIAL ON THE
BASIS THAT THE GUILTY VERDICTS WERE AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
WAS THE IMPOSITION OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES, RESULTING IN AN AGGREGATE SENTENCE
OF [TEN] TO [TWENTY] YEARS, CLEARLY UNREASONABLE,
SO MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, THE GRAVITY OF THE
OFFENSES, AND [APPELLANT’S] REHABILITATIVE NEEDS?
(Appellant’s Brief at 7).
Our standard of review of the denial of a motion to suppress evidence
is as follows:
[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
-2-
J-S01008-17
not binding on [the] 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 [trial court
are] subject to…plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358, 361-62 (Pa.Super. 2012),
appeal denied, 618 Pa. 684, 57 A.3d 68 (2012).
Additionally, the standard of review for a challenge to the weight of
the evidence is as follows:
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 [trial]
court’s verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one’s sense of justice. 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)
(internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Deborah E.
Curcillo, we conclude Appellant’s issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial
court opinions fully discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented.
(See Opinion in Support of Denial of Motion for New Trial, filed February 29,
2016, at 1-4, and Trial Court Opinion, filed July 11, 2016, at 3-5, 8-9)
-3-
J-S01008-17
(finding: (1) search of Galaxy S5 cellphone left in car on August 22, 2014,
uncovered cellphone’s registered phone number, and subsequent police
investigation revealed that registered phone number was transferred to
another phone on August 23, 2014; after police arrested Appellant, police
recovered Galaxy S3 cellphone from Appellant’s person; Appellant’s mother
subsequently confirmed Appellant’s Galaxy S3 phone number was same
number associated with Galaxy S5 cellphone seized from vehicle; in light of
fact that Appellant was registered owner of vehicle and Officer Corby
recognized Appellant as passenger in vehicle stopped on August 22, 2014,
this information was sufficient to warrant person of reasonable caution to
believe search of Galaxy S3 cellphone should be conducted; further, Officer
Corby recovered Galaxy S5 cellphone in close proximity to numerous items
of drug-related contraband; based on his eight years of experience as police
officer, Officer Corby knew it was commonplace for drug dealers to arrange
drug transactions via text message and cellphone calls; because Galaxy S3
and Galaxy S5 cellphones had identical phone numbers, there was fair
probability that police would find contraband or evidence of crime on Galaxy
S3 cellphone; thus, court properly concluded probable cause existed to
warrant search of Galaxy S3 cellphone; (2) Officer Corby ran vehicle’s
license plate during early morning hours of August 22, 2014, and
determined vehicle’s registration was expired; Officer Corby activated lights
and sirens, and vehicle eventually stopped in apartment complex about one
-4-
J-S01008-17
mile from where Officer Corby first initiated traffic stop; when vehicle
stopped, all three occupants attempted to escape; while Officer Corby was
able to apprehend driver, other two passengers escaped; nevertheless,
Officer Corby observed both passengers who fled scene during incident;
Officer Corby believed Appellant resembled one of passengers who fled;
significantly, Appellant’s half-sister lives in apartment complex where vehicle
stopped on August 22, 2014, and eyewitness testified she saw Appellant’s
half-sister and her mother talking to man matching Officer Corby’s
description of Appellant on night of incident; further, police seized two
cellphones during investigation, both of which connected Appellant to
criminal contraband found in car after traffic stop; Appellant testified he was
not one of passengers who fled on August 22, 2014, because his co-
defendant had dropped him off at home prior to traffic stop; despite
Appellant’s insistence that he was not in vehicle at time of stop, Appellant
admitted his involvement in certain criminal activity around time of incident;
in light of this evidence, jury’s guilty verdict does not shock one’s sense of
justice; (3) jury convicted Appellant of numerous drug and firearm-related
offenses, including receiving stolen property, possessing instruments of
crime, and possession of controlled substance; on March 22, 2016, court
held resentencing hearing to adequately explain its imposition of four
consecutive terms of imprisonment; at resentencing hearing, court noted
Appellant’s dual behavior; on one hand, Appellant was articulate and
-5-
J-S01008-17
compliant with his federal probation and parole requirements; on other
hand, Appellant repeatedly used his mind for criminal activity, which
culminated in Appellant’s October 28, 2015 conviction of numerous drug and
firearm-related offenses; under these circumstances, it was within court’s
discretion to impose aggregate term of ten to twenty years’ imprisonment
especially in light of nature of offenses and Appellant’s criminal history).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinions.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/27/2017
-6-