J-S25024-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LUIS VILLACORTA, :
:
Appellant : No. 939 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order February 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0005228-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JUNE 13, 2017
Appellant, Luis Villacorta, appeals from the order entered February 29,
2016 denying his petition for writ of certiorari in the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas. In the petition, Appellant asserted that the Philadelphia
Municipal Court erroneously denied his motion to suppress narcotics
evidence seized from his person. We remand for further proceedings,
including entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Municipal
Court.
In February 2015, Appellant was arrested and charged with intentional
possession of a controlled substance.1 In December 2015, before the
Honorable Joyce O. Eubanks, Appellant argued a motion to suppress physical
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
J-S25024-17
evidence, namely, narcotics recovered in conjunction with the arrest. In the
motion, Appellant averred that police lacked reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to justify a protective frisk of Appellant and that the frisk
exceeded the permissible bounds of a protective frisk. A suppression
hearing was held that same day, and the court held the motion to suppress
under advisement. According to the docket, at the next court listing, the
Municipal Court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress. However, the notes
of testimony are devoid of any discussion of the resolution of the motion and
no findings of fact or conclusions of law are present in the certified record.2
At the listing, the Appellant was found guilty of intentional possession of a
controlled substance and sentenced to twelve months of reporting probation.
Thereafter, in January 2016, Appellant filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the Municipal Court
erroneously decided the motion to suppress. In February 2016, the Court of
Common Pleas denied Appellant’s petition. Appellant timely filed a notice of
appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In July 2016, the
Court of Common Pleas issued a responsive opinion.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
____________________________________________
2
The docket entry of December 11, 2015, the apparent date that the
suppression motion was resolved, reads in relevant part, “Motion to suppress
is DENIED. Defendant is found guilty of possession of a controlled
substance.”
-2-
J-S25024-17
1. Did not the trial court err in denying Appellant’s motion to
suppress, as the police officer’s actions were in violation of the
4th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, as
well as the broader protections of Article I, Section 8 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution, in that the officer lacked reasonable
suspicion and probable cause to justify Appellant’s detention,
frisk, arrest, or search, and, more specifically, that he lacked
reasonable suspicion justifying any protective frisk in the course
of a traffic stop, and that the frisk performed exceeded the
acceptable grounds of protective frisk and/or the plain feel
doctrine?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Consistent with our opinion in Commonwealth v. Neal, 151 A.3d
1068, 1070 (Pa. Super. 2016), because Judge Eubanks failed to enter
findings of fact or conclusions of law, we remand the case with instructions
for Judge Eubanks to enter these findings and conclusions.
In Neal, we concluded:
In prior decisions, when courts of common pleas have denied
suppression motions without entering findings of fact and
conclusions of law, we have vacated the order denying
suppression and remanded with instructions for the suppression
judge to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. The same
remedy should apply when the Municipal Court denies a
suppression motion and the defendant subsequently files a
petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County. Just as this Court cannot perform appellate
review of a common pleas order denying a suppression motion
until the common pleas court enters findings of fact and
conclusions of law, neither can the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County perform appellate review of a Municipal
Court order denying a suppression motion until the Municipal
Court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Neal, 151 A.3d at 1071 (internal citations omitted).
-3-
J-S25024-17
Accordingly, as the Municipal Court failed to enter findings of fact and
conclusions of law into this record, we order the following:
(1) The order denying Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari is
vacated;
(2) This case is remanded to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
with instructions to remand the case to the Municipal Court with instructions
that Judge Eubanks enter findings of fact and conclusions of law;
(3) Following entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas shall reconsider Appellant's petition for
writ of certiorari by reviewing the evidentiary record in accordance with the
standards articulated in Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa.
2010) (outlining the standard of appellate review of orders denying motions
to suppress) and In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1087 (Pa. 2013) (noting that the
scope of review from a suppression ruling is limited to the evidentiary record
created at the suppression hearing); and
(4) We relinquish jurisdiction.
Order denying Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari vacated. Case
remanded for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
-4-
J-S25024-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/13/2017
-5-
Com. v. Villacorta, L.
Combined Opinion