Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 24, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004920-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. [*]
Appellant, Joel Berrios, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia, resisting arrest, and possession of a controlled substance. 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 two issues for our review:
DID THE COURT ERR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS?
WAS THE COURT'S SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE?
(Appellant's Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Carolyn H. Nichols, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed July 15, 2013, at 3-8) (finding: (1) initial contact between officers and Appellant was mere encounter where officers were investigating report of shots fired; during encounter, Appellant continuously reached for his waistband, which appeared to be weighed down by heavy object; based on Officer Boone's experience, report of shots fired in area, and Appellant's acts of reaching and adjusting heavy looking object in his waistband, officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant for investigatory detention and perform pat-down search of Appellant's outer clothing for weapons; upon frisk, officer felt handle of gun in Appellant's waistband; once Officer Boone felt gun, officer had probable cause to arrest Appellant; search incident to arrest showed Appellant possessed firearm, various prescription pills, and marijuana; Commonwealth established by preponderance of evidence that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Appellant and subsequent probable cause to search his person; therefore, court properly denied Appellant's motion to suppress; (2) Appellant waived challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing because he did not file post-sentence motion or otherwise preserve issue by raising claim at sentencing). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.