J-S29007-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CLIFTON BODDIE
Appellant No. 127 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 16, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013368-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 05, 2017
Clifton Boddie appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after a jury found him guilty
of driving under the influence (“DUI”) and numerous other offenses related
to a hit-and-run. Because Boddie has waived his sole issue on appeal, we
affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts as follows:
[A]s Officer Brian Graves traveled north on the 3100 block of
North 22nd Street, he saw a black [Chevy] Tahoe traveling south
on the same road with heavy front end damage, smoke coming
out of the vehicle, and liquid coming from underneath. Officer
Graves then followed the Tahoe to a gas station and walked up
to the vehicle to see [Boddie] in the driver’s seat. The officer
asked [Boddie] if he was okay and if he knew that his car was
leaking. [Boddie] replied he was okay and that he did not know
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29007-17
his car was leaking. At this time, Officer Graves smelled alcohol
from [Boddie’s] person and noticed his slurred speech. He also
observed a case or a six-pack of beer and some opened beer
sitting on the floor and on the seat of [Boddie’s] vehicle. The
officer then took [Boddie] outside the vehicle and placed him in
the back of his patrol car.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/9/16, at 2 (citations to record omitted).
Boddie moved to suppress the blood drawn after his arrest, as well as
any statements he may have made to police. In arguing his motion, Boddie
asserted that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him and
focused his argument on Officer Graves’ observations after Boddie had been
stopped. The court denied the motion. A jury subsequently convicted
Boddie and the court sentenced him to an aggregate of two to four years’
incarceration, followed by one year of probation. Boddie filed a notice of
appeal to this Court followed by a court-ordered statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), in which he raised
the following claim: “The [c]ourt erred in denying [Boddie’s] motion to
suppress.” In response, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court
addressed the specific argument Boddie raised in his suppression motion,
i.e., whether Officer Graves had probable cause to arrest him.
On appeal, Boddie raises the following claim: “Did the suppression
court err in denying the motion to suppress?” Brief of Appellant, at 3.
However, unlike in the trial court, Boddie now focuses his argument on the
legality of Officer Graves’ stop of his vehicle, rather than whether Officer
Graves possessed probable cause to arrest him.
-2-
J-S29007-17
“[A]ppellate review of an order denying suppression is limited to
examination of the precise basis under which suppression initially was
sought; no new theories of relief may be considered on appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1241 (Pa. Super. 2015),
quoting Commonwealth v. Little, 903 A.2d 1269, 1272–73 (Pa. Super.
2006). “When a defendant raises a suppression claim to the trial court and
supports that claim with a particular argument or arguments, the defendant
cannot then raise for the first time on appeal different arguments supporting
suppression.” Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 566 (Pa. Super.
2006). A theory of error different from that presented to the trial court is
waived on appeal, even if both theories support the same basic allegation of
error which gives rise to the claim for relief. Commonwealth v. Gordon,
528 A.2d 631, 638 (Pa. Super. 1987).
Here, Boddie argued before the suppression court that Officer Graves’
post-stop observations did not support a finding of probable cause to arrest
him. See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 8/27/15, at 57-61. On appeal, Boddie
now asserts that Officer Graves possessed neither reasonable suspicion nor
probable cause to stop his vehicle. Because Boddie failed to argue the latter
theory before the trial court, he may not now raise it on appeal.
Accordingly, his sole appellate claim is waived.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-3-
J-S29007-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/5/2017
-4-