J-S24001-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. QUINTON BRIGHT Appellant No. 2924 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 14, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015523-2010

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 15, 2015 Appellant, Quinton Bright, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his convictions for firearms not to be carried without a license, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, and persons not to possess firearms.1 We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case.2 Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review: ____________________________________________

18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1), 3921(a), and 6105(a.1)(1), respectively.

The trial court’s opinion at page 5, footnote 4 cites to Commonwealth v. Vandivner, 962 A.2d 1170, 79 (Pa. 2009). The correct citation is Commonwealth v. Vandivner, 962 A.2d 1170, 1179 (Pa. 2009).

J-S24001-15

DID NOT THE COURT ERR BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESS MARTEL DAVIS AS FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE SINCE THE IDENTITY AND TESTIMONY OF THIS WITNESS WAS OBTAINED THROUGH [APPELLANT’S] SUPPRESSED AND INVOLUNTARY STATEMENTS TO POLICE, AND THE [TRIAL] COURT’S ASSERTION THAT THE IDENTITY OF MARTEL DAVIS AS A WITNESS WOULD HAVE BEEN INEVITABLY DISCOVERED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD? (Appellant’s Brief at 3).3 “Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 135, 808 A.2d 893, 904 (2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919, 123 S.Ct. 2284, 156 L.Ed.2d 137 (2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349, 363, 781 A.2d 110, 117 (2001)).

Admissibility depends on relevance and probative value.

Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact. Drumheller, supra at 135, 808 A.2d at 904 (quoting Stallworth, supra at 363, 781 A.2d at 117-18).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the ____________________________________________

Notwithstanding the phrasing of Appellant’s issue, his complaint on appeal is that the court erred in denying his motion in limine to preclude the live, voluntary testimony of Martel Davis at trial. The court actually suppressed Appellant’s confession and the statement of Martel Davis obtained by police as a result of the confession.

-2- J-S24001-15

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Linda Carpenter, 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 20, 2014, at 7-8) (finding: Martel Davis could testify at trial because he appeared in court willingly and without force, and his testimony was voluntary; ongoing police investigation removed taint of unlawful police conduct because investigation would have occurred without Appellant’s involuntary statement; police obtained numerous phone records and statements from other witnesses who placed another individual with Appellant at time of shooting; police would have continued to investigate who else was with Appellant on night of shooting, and who else made phone calls around time of shooting; continued investigation would have revealed identity of Mr. Davis through means independent of Appellant’s involuntary statement; court properly concluded taint was removed and, therefore, Mr. Davis could provide live testimony if he appeared for trial of his own volition). The record supports the trial court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

-3- J-S24001-15

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/15/2015

-4- Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM Circulated 05/04/2015 02:20 PM