J-S48036-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STANLEY PETROSKI : : Appellant : No. 2765 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 15, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0001402-2022

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 6, 2025 Appellant, Stanley Petroski, appeals from the judgment of sentence of to 36 months’ incarceration and $2,866 in restitution, imposed after a jury convicted him of various offenses, including theft by unlawful taking, conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property.

On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress, the court’s failure to grant a mistrial when allegedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony was offered at trial, and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court set forth a detailed summary of the facts and procedural history of this case, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 6/4/24, at 1-5. We only briefly note that Appellant’s convictions stem from evidence that he and a cohort stole a “bill-to-bill cash exchange machine, which breaks larger bills into smaller denominations for use in change J-S48036-24

machines,” from a laundromat in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Id. at 1.

Surveillance video from inside the laundromat showed “two individuals … pulling the machine out of the wall.” Id. Based on still photographs taken from that video, police created a “wanted poster” and, two days after the theft, they “responded to a 911 call identifying Appellant at a local Walmart.”

Id. at 2, 3. When Police Officer Michael Owen arrived, he observed Appellant and compared him to the photographs from the wanted poster, concluding that Appellant matched those images. Id. at 3, 10. Officer Owen asked Appellant for identification and, upon discovering that Appellant had an active warrant for his arrest, he placed Appellant in custody. Id. A subsequent search of Appellant’s vehicle pursuant to a warrant revealed that not only was the car stolen, but also “the exchange machine [was] in the back of the vehicle[,] along with the Adidas hoodie Appellant wore on the night of the theft, mail addressed to Appellant, and assorted tools.” Id. After his arrest, Appellant was charged with the above-stated offenses, as well as criminal mischief and possessing an instrument of crime. Prior to trial, Appellant filed, inter alia, a pretrial motion to suppress, arguing that Officer Owen did not possess reasonable suspicion to detain and ultimately arrest him, as well as a motion “to preclude publication of Officer Owen’s body camera footage of Appellant’s arrest.” Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). After a hearing on May 30, 2023, the court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress and his case proceeded to a jury trial that same day. Ultimately, Appellant was convicted of the above-stated charges. The court scheduled his sentencing -2- J-S48036-24

proceeding for July 6, 2023, but Appellant failed to appear. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest, and he was subsequently taken into custody and sentenced on August 15, 2023, to the aggregate term set forth supra. Appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which the trial court denied after a hearing. On October 24, 2023, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He and the court also complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Herein, Appellant states the following four issues for our review: 1. Did the [trial] court err by denying [Appellant’s] [m]otion to [s]uppress his arrest when the police officer[’s] alleged reasons for arresting [Appellant] were not supported by reasonable suspicion to believe he had committed a crime[?]

2. Did the [trial] court err by failing to order a mistrial after the jury saw photographs and/or videos of [Appellant] in handcuffs taken from a police officer’s body cam?

3. Did the [trial] court err by failing to adequately cure the Commonwealth’s error in making the jury aware that [Appellant] had been in custody, and by failing to grant a mistrial?

4. Did the [trial] court err in imposing a sentence that is punitive, excessive, and fails to differentiate [Appellant’s] conduct from similarly situated defendants in Bucks County; that fails to consider mitigating evidence, such as [Appellant’s] struggle with addiction and his age; and that fails to consider additional mitigating evidence that would have been presented had [Appellant’s] [m]otion for [r]econsideration of [s]entence been granted?

Appellant’s Brief at 6-7.

In assessing Appellant’s issues, we have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have examined the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey L. Finley of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. We conclude that Judge Finley’s

-3- J-S48036-24

comprehensive opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant.1 Accordingly, we adopt Judge Finley’s opinion as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set forth therein.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

1 This is especially true given the brevity of Appellant’s arguments before this Court. For instance, in his first issue, Appellant simply argues that Officer Owen lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him because, although the officer testified that he personally observed Appellant and concluded that Appellant matched the images of the thief from the wanted poster, the officer “did not approach [Appellant] immediately[,]” thereby “suggest[ing] that Officer Owen was not as certain as he claimed to be as to the identity of [Appellant] as being the person depicted in the … poster.” Appellant’s Brief at 21. Appellant cites no case law or other legal authority to support that this speculative argument demonstrates the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him for further investigation. Additionally, in Appellant’s second issue, he merely states, without any developed argument, that “a mistrial should have been declared due to the manifest necessity caused by prejudice to [Appellant] created by the jury[’s] viewing images of [Appellant] in handcuffs.” Id. at 23.

Appellant’s argument in support of his third issue is likewise sparse. There, he asserts that the trial court should have sua sponte declared a mistrial when a detective made a passing reference to Appellant’s prior incarceration. See id. at 24. In rejecting this claim, Judge Finley relied, inter alia, on the fact that he immediately gave the curative jury instruction that was requested by defense counsel. See TCO at 14. On appeal, Appellant concedes that the curative instruction he asked for was provided, but baldly “contends that the curative instruction was inadequate,” without any further elaboration.

Appellant’s Brief at 24. Finally, in Appellant’s fourth issue challenging his sentence, he briefly states that the “court did not adequately consider” factors such as his addiction issues and that “[h]e wants to get his life together so that he can be reunited with his son.” Id. at 20. However, Appellant recognizes that he presented evidence of these circumstances at the sentencing hearing, and he offers no explanation to support his claim that the court did not take them into account in fashioning his sentence. Given the lack of meaningfully developed arguments that Appellant presents to this Court herein, we conclude that Judge Finley’s comprehensive opinion is more than sufficient to demonstrate that no relief is due.

-4- J-S48036-24

Date: 3/6/2025

-5- 02/18/2025 12:46 Circulated 02/1802025 12 46 PM 1-7Prr l 7po« •

IN THE COURT OF COMMON FLEAS PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA, CP-09-C R-0001402-2022 €P-09-€R-0001402-2022 Appellee Appellee v, V. PT l ('".)n Qi..

OPTIONAL STANLEY PETROSKI, Appellant.

Appellant.

OPINION OPINION Stanley Petroski Stanley Petroski C Appellant") appeals , ("Appellant") appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from this t

Court's Court's Judgement of Sentence. Ponuant Judgement of Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), this Opinion in support this Court files this Opinion support of its its ruling. ruling. `

1.

I. URAL BACKGROUND FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL This This case arises from case arises from the theft af of aabill lo - - bill exchange bill-to.-bill exchange machine from aatwenty-four-hour machine from twenty - four - hour coin- self.- operating self-service coin-operating service laundromat in Feasterville. County. In the morning hours of Feasterville, Bucks CountN January 10, January 2022, Srikanth 10, 2022, Srikanth Paidipally, Paidipally, the owner ofFeasterville Laundromat, awoke to aa,phone Feasterville Laundromat. phone call from one of his employees. N,T.

N,T 5/20/2023, p. 80, 80. The employee emplo%.ec reported that the laundry's bill-to-bill bill-to-bill cash exchange exchange -machine, machine, which breaks larger bills into smaller denominations for use in the change the machines, had change machines, had been removed rerpoved from the the wall and was missing. Al../\fter missing. d. Mr.. Paidipally After Mr. arrived arrived on-scene, he checked the laundry's interior surveillance footage and observed two on-scene, individuals., later individuals, later identified as Appellant and his friend. friend, Amber May, pulling the machine out of the wall wall at at around 3:00am. Id. ld. at p. 81; 8l; Commonwealth"s Commonwealth's Exhibit C-) C-3.

According According to Amber May's to Amber testimony, on the night May's testimony, night of the theft. theft, she and Appellant arrived at at the laundromat to use its bathroom and otherwise hang the laundromat out." Id, -hang out," Id. at p. 89.

89. After Aer aawhile, they

t 11 ' t • the noticed the exchange exchange machine affixed to the wall with with plywood and ultimately decided to steal it.

Id, Id. The twa two had some sonic initial difficulty difficulty figuring figuring out how to get it out of the wall, but after some experimentation, noticed that the plywood experimentation, plywood holding holding the machine in place was secured to the wall with screws. Id. ld. at pp. 92-93, at pp. 92-93. Using Using a a drill. Appellant removed the screws on the plywood, plywood, causing causing the machine the to come machine to come free ofits free of housing. Id its housing. Id. Once the exchange Once exchange machine machine was free, free, the pair discovered that it was pair discovered was too heavy to too heavy to carry out out of the laundry by hand, Id. Atter by hand. After some discussion, they they decided to use one of the spare laundry carts to help help load the machine into the back of Appellant's Appellant's red Chevy Trailblazer. Id. at pp. 90, 93 93.

can while May backed the SUV up Appellant managed the cart up to to the front door, and and the tvvo two made off $8,000 machine. along with the $8.000 along with the approximately approximately $3,000 in bills contained within. Id. at pp. pp, 83-85, 83.85, 93-94.

93.94 After foregoing on surveillance After observing the foregoing surveillance footage, footage, Mr. Paidipally Paidipally called 911 to report report the theft. Id. at pp. pp. 80-b 1. The 80-81, The report was was forwarded to Detective Stephen Brookes Brookes of the Lower Southampton Southampton Police Police Department, Department, who was then then assigned assigned as as lead lead investigator. investigator. Al.

Id. at at pp. pp. 13536..

135.36 investigation, Detective Brookes obtained Mr. Paidipally"s Pursuant to his investigation, Paidipally's surveillance footage footage and observed observed the the same same sequence sequence of of events. events. ld.

Id. at at p. p. 136.37.

136-37. Afterward, the the Detective took took several several still still images from from the the video, video, later introduced introduced as through C-14. Id as Commonwealth's Exhibits C-6 through Id. at p. 137.

17. Using aaselection of these photographs to create a wanted poster, Detective Brookes a wanted distributed it to the Bucks bucks and Montgomery County investigators investigators and the Southampton Southampton Township Township Crime Watch webpage. webpage. Id. Id. at at pp. pp. 138-39; 138-319; Commonwealth's Exhibit C-15.

C-15. Thereafter, he received received multiple Crime Watch tips identifying the photographed photographed individuals as well as the vehicle they were driving.N driving. N.T. 5/30/20.23, p. 140.

T 5/30/2023,p.

On 4nJanuary January 1.2, 2022, at approximately 12, 2022, approximately 7:30pm, Officers k- ichael Owen and Michael and'Steven Steven Ambs of the Bensalem Township Township Police Department Department responded to a a911 call identifying Appellant at a a local Walmart. Id. at pp. local 125-26; Commonwealth's Exhibit C-44. pp. 125-26; C-44. Oieer Officer Owen ON ,en located Appellant using using the Crime Watch wanted poster, poster, pulled pulled him aside, and secured his identification. Id. at pp.

13-14. After his information returned an active probation probation violation %varrant, Officer Owen placed warrant, Oficer Appellant into Appellant into custody. custody. Id. at pp. pp. 14, 127-28.

127-28. Among the the items discovered discovered on Appellant's Appellant's person person was aacar key on aaskull keychain. Id. at pp. 128,130.

128, 130.

Detective Brookes was notified of Appellant's Appellant's arrest and kind responded to the Walmart to locate the red Trailblazer. Id. at p. lot. Detective Brookes located p. 140. After scouring the parking lot, vehicle, which was identified gs the vehicle, as stolen. Id. Id. at pp, pp. 140-41. The The vehicle vchicle was transported to the: the Bensalem, impound Bensalem impound lot where Detective Brookes later searched it pursuant to a %varrant. at p warrant. Id. at p. 142.

142. Ultimately, the'Detective Ultimately, the discovered the Detective discovered exchange machine the exchange in the machine in the back back of of the the vehicle tiehicle along along with the Adidas hoodie Appellant Appellant wore wore on the night of the theft. theft, mail addressed to Appellant.

Appellant, and assorted tools. Id. at pp. pp. 142-44. Detective Brookes photographed these discoveries. which were later introduced as Comm onwealftt's Exhibits C-18 through 31.

Commonwealth's The Detective also took DNA samples from the Trailblazer's steering wheel. wheel, gear shifter p. 147, and interior surfaces as well as from the exterior surfaces of the exchange machine. Id. at p, 147.

fingerprints. Id. Later analysis of The Detective also dusted for fingerprints. of the DNA samples identified Appellant Appellant as a a major major contributor of the DNA on the steering wheel and gear shifter. N.T.

NT, pp. 29-30. To conclude his investigation, Detective Brookes retrieved the key 5131/2023, pp.

5/31/2023, discovered on Appellant's discovered Appellant's person upon person upon arrest and obtained the the vehicle vehicle owner's permission to to try try the key key in the Trailblazer's ignition. at p. 152. The key started the vehicle. ignition. Id, at vehicle. Id. Id

•

By the time By the time police police recovered recovered the exchange machine, the exchange machine, it was was severely damaged and damaged and functionally functionally useless. N.T, N.T. 5/30/2023.

5/3012023. pp. pp. 84-85.

84-85. According to May, after she and Appellant left the the laundromat, they drove the machine to laundromat. they to aafriend's house in Philadelphia where they used drills, prybars, prybars, grinders, grinders, and screwdrivers to break it open. Id. at pp. 94.95.

94-95. While these efforts eff6rts were met with mixed success. success, the pair pair was ultimately able to breach portions of the machine and rernove n3achine and remove at p. most of the cash within. Id. et to 37. p. 145; Commonwealth's Exhibits C-32 10 Oil January On January 21, 2022, Appellant was charged, utter Appellant was inter alia, with one one ((I) 1) Count of Theft by Taking. 1one Unlawful Taking.' one ((1) 1) Count of Conspiracy Commit'T'helt Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking,' one one (() 1) Count of of Receiving Property,.3one Receiving Stolen Property,' one ((I) 1) Count of Mischief,' and of Criminal Mischief, one ((D) and one 1) Count of Possession of an Instrument of of Crime,' Crime. On May 8, 2023, Appellant filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion Motion requesting, among others, requesting, among others, suppression suppression of of his arrest and his arrest and all all evidence evidence secured secured thereby, thereby. A A hearing hearing was held on May the Suppression May 18. 2023, where the Suppression Motion was deferred to to. the start start of trial on May on 30, 2023.

May 30, 2023. All All other other defense defense motions were either motions were either withdrawn or resolved withdrawn or resolved by by agreement of agreement of counsel. counsel On May On 30, 2023, this May 30, this Court Court held held aahearing hearing in in advance advance of of trial trial on. on the remaining pre-trial the remaining matters, including Appellant's matters, including Suppression Motion Appellant's Suppression Motion and and a a Motion limine to Motion in limine to preclude publication of Officer Owen's body body camera footage footage of Appellant's arrest. arrest,b After testimony frorn from Detective and Officer Owen.

Brookes and Owen. this Court denied this Court denied Appellant's Suppression Motion, Appellant's Suppression finding sufficient Motion, finding sufficient

18 Pa.C.S. $39210a) '18 1 §3921(a).

1 18 Pa.C.S. 8903.

18PC.S. §903.

3 18 Pa.C.S. §3925(x.).

18Pa.CS. $3925(a) Pa.C.S. §3;04(x)(5). '18 $3304a)(5) Pa.C.S. §907(a).

18Pa.C.S. 89070a).

Appellant also insists this Court made a Appellant a pre-trial ruling precluding mention of o£ Appellant's incarceration the time police incarceration at the police secured the Trailblazer key from from his effects. See, Concise Statement, Statement, ¶9(13).

9(D). However, However, neither neither the the transcript from from the the pre-trial pre-trial hearing on on May May 30, 2023, 30, nor 2023, nOf the preceeding preceeding record. disclose aaformal ruling on the matter. basis for basis for Appellant's Appellant's initial stop at initial stop at the Walmart.

Walmart. N.T.

N.T 5/301202 3, p. 28 5/30/2023.p. 28 This Court further This Court further deferred deferred its ruling ruling on the body camera issue for later in the trial. ki.

Id. at pp. 22.25.

22. 25.

Appellant then Appellant then pr6ceeded ajury proceeded to a jury trial from May May 30-31.

30-31. 2023, where: where lie wa.s ultimately he was convicted of the above-referenced charges. charges. Sentencing , Sentencing was deferred to July 6.

6. 2023.

2023. However, Appellant Appellant failed appear for sentencing failed to appear sentgncing on that that date. date. and and this this Court issued a a bench warrant warrant for his arrest. Appellant his arrest. Appellant was ultimately ultimately apprehended, apprehended, and on August 15.

15. 2023, was sentenced to not less than eighteen less eighteen ((18) 18) to no no more thirty-six (36) more than thirty-six (36) months months'' incarceration, with $2,866 $2,866 in in restitution restitution to Srikanth .Paidipally. to Srikanth Paidipally. On August August 16, 16, 2023, 2023, Appellant Appellant filed a filed a. Post-Sentence Post-sentence Motion Motion for for Reconsideration Reconsideration of Sentence. A hearing Sentence. A hearing was was held, held, and and on September 2023. this Count September 27. 2023, Court denied denied Appellant's Appellant's motion. On October 24, 2023.

2023, Appellant appealed to the Superior Court. This Court then then directed Appellant Appellant file file a a Concise Statement of Concise Statement of errors Complained of Errors Complained of on on Appeal Appeal the the same day. same day However, due to However, to aatransition transition in in counsel counsel in in the the meantime. meantime. trial trial transcripts transcripts were never ordered. On On.December ordered. - December 9, 2023, this 8, 2023, this Court Court issued issued its its initial initial Opinion that the Opinion that appeal was the appeal was therefore therefore waived. On March 21, j2024, 2024, the Superior Superior Court issued an Order Order remanding the mater platter to this Court for for supplemental supplemental proceedings. proceedings. On March 22, 2024, this Court issued a a second Concise Statement Order.

I1<.

II. CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL On May 2024, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) May 7, 2024, 1925(b)-— and after an an extension extension of time time to do so -— Appellant Appellant filed filed his Concise Statement Statement of Errors Errors Complained. of Complained of on on Appeal, forth, in relevant Appeal, set forth, relevant part, part, verbatim herein: verbatim herein A.

A. The trial The trial court court erred, as a erred, as amatter matter of of law, law, by denying Defendant's by denying Motion to Defendant's Motion Suppress to Suppress his arrest which his arrest which was s*pported by was not spported by reasonable suspicion. suspicion, and therefore in violation of the rights the rights of Defendant under the of Defendant the Fourth Fourth Amendment Amendment of of the the United United States States Constitution Constitution and and Article 1, Article I, Section 8 the Pennsylvania Pensylvania Constitution. The police officers' alleged reasons for arresting arresting defendant defendant atthe the Walmart Store in January.

January, 2022 were not supported by ' I ! ' reasonable reasonable suspicion to to believe he had committed believe he committed aacrime and accordingly any and all evidence obtained as aaresult evidence result of of his illegal arrest should his illegal should have have been suppressed.

B.

B. The trial The erred, as trial court erred, as a matter of a matter of law, law, by by not not properly curing the properly curing the Commonwealth's failure to to conform to to the Court's Pre-Trial Ruling the Court's against mentioning Ruling against mentioning to to the jury jury that that Defendant waswas aaprisoner prisoner at the Bucks County Correctional Facility at the time time aa search warrant was warrant was served served by by the the Commonwealth Commonwealth to to obtain car keys obtain car keys to to aavehicle vehicle that that defendant defendant driving on had been allegedly driving on the day the underlying criminal offense occurred. The trial offense occurred. trial decision in this regard violated court's decision violated the defendant' defendant's s right right to to Due Process under the the Fourth Amendment of Amendment the United of the States Constitution United States Constitution and under Article and under Article 1, Section 8 1, Section the the Pennsylvania Constitution Constitution inasmuch inasmuch as as the jury was the jury was made awareaware that defendant was in that defendant in custody some point prior to custody at some point prior to the trial and could thereby and could thereby infer defendant infer defendant was guilty of guilty of this or some or other criminal some other criminal offense offense thereby depriving defendant thereby depriving defendant of of a a fair fair trial. trial, C.

C. The The trial court erred, trial count erred, as as aamatter of law, matter of law, by by failing failing to to order order aa mistrial after the mistrial after the jury jury saw photographs saw photographs and/or and/or videos videos ofof the the defendant defendant in in handcuffs taken from handcuffs taken from the the body camera body camera of one one of the the Commonwealth's police witnesses witnesses in in violation violation of defendant's defendant's Due Process Process rights rights under the the Fourth Amendment of the Fourth Amendment the United United States States Constitution Constitution and and Article Article 1, 1, Section Section the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Constitution, thereby depriving, Constitution, thereby depriving defendant defendant ofof a fair trial. a fair trial.

D.

D, The trial court erred in imposing imposing a a sentence that, under the circumstances, waswas excessive, unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion. Specifically, Specifically, the trial court violated the discretionary discretionary aspect aspect of sentencing sentencing in in the the following respects: following respects: a) a) The trial The trial court's sentence is court's sentence is punitive, excessive, and punitive, excessive, fails to and fails differentiate the to differentiate the defendant's conduct defendant's conduct from similarly situated from similarly situated defendants defendants in in Bucks county [sic]; Bucks county [sic]; b) b) trial count The trial court failed to to give give any any meaningful. meaningful consideration to mitigating to mitigating evidence evidence presented by the presented by the defendant, defendant, including including his struggle with addiction his struggle and his addiction and his age.

c) C) The trial The court erred trial court by failing erred by failing to to grant the defendant. grant the request for defendant. request for reconsideration of of sentence sentence which deprived deprived defendant of of an an opportunity opportunity',to present to present additional evidence by way of mitigation additional mitigation that could could have resulted in a a more lenient sentence. sentence III. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review

challenge is to this Court's denial of his pre-trial motion for suppression.

Appellant's first challenge suppression.

The Superior The Superior Court's Court's review review of suppression denials of suppression denials is limited to determining whether the to determining factual findings the factual findings are supported supported byby the the record record and whether the legal conclusions conclusions drawn drawn from those correct, [The those facts are conreet. [The Court isj by the is] bound by suppression court's the suppression court's factual factual findings so long findings so as they long as they are supported are supported by the record .... Where, as here, [an by the record.. Where, as here, appellant] is appealing [an appellant] is appealing the ruling of the of the suppression court, [the Court] may consider only the evidence of the suppression court, [the Court] may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth Commonwealth and and so much of of the the evidence evidence for for the defense as remainsremains • uncontradicted. uncontradicted. [The [The Court's] Court's] scope scope of review of suppression rulings includes suppression rulings includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes evidence elicited at trial. trial, Commonwealth v.v. McMahon, 1069,1071 Mc Mahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1071 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 2022).

2022) Appellant's second and Appellant's and third challenges appear third challenges appear to allege error to allege error in this Court's in this C:our"s failure to failure to declare aamistrial after the jury jury ((I) 1) heard testimony testimony referencing referencing appellant's Appellant s pre-trial pre-trial incarceration and (2) (2) saw photographs of Appellant in handcuffs.' Under Penns , N , nia Rule Pennsylvania mule of Criminal Procedure Procedure ("Pa.R.Crim.P.") 605, "[i]t is (Pa.R.Crim.P,") 605,[i] is within within aatrial trial judge's discretion to judge's discretion to declare declare aamistrial mistrial sua sponte upon sponte upon the showing showing of of manifest manifest necessity." necessity." Commonwealth v. Kelly. 797 A.2d • Felty, 925.936 4.24 925, 936 ((Pa Pa. Super. Super, 2002). Accordingly, "absent an abuse of that discretion. discretion. [the [the Superior Court] Courtl will not disturb his or her decision." Id. Id Finally, Appellant Finally, Appellant challenges challenges his sentence as, among other things. excessive and insufficiently insufficiently considerate Appellant's mitigating considerate of Appellant's mitigating evidence. evidence. A A defendant right to defendant has no absolute right to appeal when challenging appeal challenging the the discretionary aspects of a a scntence.:iee Commonwealth ti,,.Crump, sentence. See Commomweahh Crump, A..2d 1280, 1282 995 A.2d 1282 (Pa. A sentence will not be disturbed (Pa. Super. 2021). A disturbed -absent absent aa manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Ed ards, 194 A.3d 625, 637 Edwards, 637 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 20)8).

2018). To meet this high high burderi, appellant must establish, burden, "the appellant by reference to the establish, by the record, record, that the sentencing court the sentencing ignored'or ignored or misapplied misapplied the law, exercised exercised its judgment for reasons of its judgment prejudice, bias or of partiality, prejudice, ill ill will, or arrived will, or arrived at amanifestly at a manifestly' unreasonable unreasonable decision." decision." lei. Id. Alternatively stated, an Alternatively stated. an appeal appeal is is permitted if there permitted if is aasubstantial there is substantial question as to question as to whether the sentence whether the sentcnce was appropriate under was appropriate the under the sentencing sentencing code. See, id code. Ses,

7 Appellant's third challenge Appellant's challenge uses the language uses the language of of mistrial directly. while the mistrial directly the second challenge alleges only that this Court erred in "not properly alleges only properly curing" curing testimony regarding; regarding Appellant's Appellant's incarceration. Compare Compare Concise Statement, ¶9($) 9(B) with Id. id, at $9(C).

TI%Q. Ilowever, However, as Appellant does not specify not specify what aproper a proper cure to cur to that testimony testimony would have been, heen. this Court will interpret the gravamen gravamen of of 9() ¶9(B) to to raise essentially essentially the the same same claim as 9KC) claim as I(9(C) -- namely, namely, that that this Court should this Count should likewise likewise have declared a have declared a mistrial. mistrial.

A A substantial question arises substantial question arises when an an appellant "aplausible appellant sets forth "a plausible argument that the the sentence violates a sentence violates a provision provision of the sentencing of the sentencing code code or is contrary to is contrary to the the fundamental fundamental norms norms of the sentencing process, sentencing process." "IId. Sentencing courts d Sentencing courts determine what favor mitigation what factors favor mitig4tion or or aggravation of aasentence and have the discretion to sentence accordingly. , see Commonwealth vv. Bowen, 97'5 See 975 A.2d 1120, 1128 A.2d 1120, 1128 ((a.

1'a. Super, Super. 2009).

2009). Critically, Critically, so so long long as as the sentencing court cites the relevant relevant aggravating factors for sentence sentence on on the the record record and those those factors are are legitimate, legitimate, aasentence sentence will will not not be disturbed. See, be disturbed. , See, id, id B. This Thie Court Did Dad Not Err in Denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress His Arrest Nat Er Because Because.His His Stop and Subsequent Stop and Subsequent Arrest Were Supported Arrest Were Supported by by Reasonable Suspicion Reasonable Suspicion and qnd Probable Cause.

Appellant first Appellant first challenges challenges the the circumstances circumstances surrounding his initial stop surrounding his stop by Officer Oflieer Owen and his subsequent subsequent detention on reasonable detention on reasonable suspicion grounds. Specifically, suspicion grounds. Specifically, he argues that because argues that because his stop was his stop was not not supported supported by by reasonable suspicion, this reasonable suspicion, this Court Court should have granted should have granted his motion to his motion to suppress suppress his arrest and his arrest and all all evidence evidence obtained therefrom. therefrom. As articulated by As articulated the Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Superior Court.

[t]he Founth [t]he Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, I, Section 8of the Pennsylvania 8of Pennsylvania Constitution protect citizens Constitution protect citizens from. from `*unreasonable searches "unreasonable searches and seizures, and seizures, including including those those entailing entailing only only aa brief brief detention." detention." Commonwealth Commorwealth v. v Strickler, 563 Pa.Pa. 47, 757 A.2d 884, 888 (2000). ,%e also Commonwealth (2000). See Commorwealth v. v» Xforris. 422 Pa.Super. 343, 619 A.2d 709, 711 ((1992).

Morris. 1992). '1'o To secure the right of citizens to be free i'rornfrom such intrusions, courts in. in Pennsylvania require law enforcement officers to demonstrate ascending ascending levels of suspicion, suspicion to justify their interactions with citizens interactions with citizens toto the extent those the extent those interactions interactions compromise compromise individual. individual liberty. See liberty. See (.'orrrmonsveulth Commonwealth ».ix Beasley, 761 A.2d 621, 624 624 (Pa.Super. 2000). (Pa.Super. 2000). For this this purpose, purpose, our our Supreme Supreme Court Court has has defined defined three forms forms ofof police-citizen police-citizen interaction: a a mere encounter, encounter, an investigatory detention, detention, and and aa custodial custodial detention. SSee ee Commorwealth C.'ommonwealth v. • Bos yell. 554 Pa..

Boswell. Pa. 275,721 AN A.2d 336, 340 ((1998).

1998).

Commonwealth •v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196.

1196. 1201 1201 (Pa. (a. Super. 2002).

2002) differentiating between In differentiating between these forms, aacourt wliether aaseizure of court must determine whether of the person person has occurred. occurred. Id. A seizure Id. A seizure usually results when when "the demeanor and conduct of the police • • would. have communicated to a would areasonable person that he or she was not not free to decline the officer's request request or otherwise terminate the encounter." ki, Id, at 1201-02.

1201-02. If no tzo seizure scixurc has occurred, the a mere encounter, and no suspicion on the part interaction is a pan of police is necessary. Beasley, 761 A.2d at at 624.

if seizure has occurred, the court must evaluate the coerciveness of the police's However, if conduct to determine whether it is in investigatory or custodial detention. detention. Commo»t7•ealth v. Commonwealth v Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 889 88.9 (Pa. 2000).

2000). If the interaction "subjects "sutajects an individual to a astop and a a period. period of detention but is not so coercive as to to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest," it it is is an investigatory investigatory stop stop that that need only only be supported by by reasonable and articulable articulable suspicion. M. suspicion. Id However, if the the -interaction interaction serves the functional equivalent equivalent of an arrest, it is a a custodial detention that..rnust that must be supported by be supported by probabl probable. cause. Id. Id Here, there there is is no dispute dispute th4t that Officer Owen Owen subjected subjected Appellant Appellant to an investigatory stop investigatory stop on January 12, January 1.2, 2022' 2022. 8 Accordingly, Accordingly, the remaining remaining question is whether the the stop was supported supported by reasonable reasonable suspicion, suspicion. Considering the evidence Considering the evidence adduced at the adduced at the suppression suppression hearing. this Court hearing. this Court concludes that there Was stop Appellant and take sufficietxt basis for Officer Owen to step was sufficient t* him into custody thereafter.

At the suppression hearing, Officer Owen testified that he responded to the Bensalem suppression hearing, Waim Walmart pursuant to aa911 call reporting the suspects from the Crime Cringe Watch poster were there.

N.T. 5/30/2023, 5/34/2123, p. p. 12. The call also gave aaphysical description of both suspects. including their

8 DgjriN their initial interaction, Officer Owen pulled Appellant aside and asked During their initial interaction, Officer Owen pulled Appellant aside and asked for his 1D. ID. N.T N.T.

5/301.`2423, $/30/2023, p,p. 141 14; Commonwealth's Exhibit CS.7,CS-7. Although Appellant was not yet under arrest, it was was clear that Appellant Appellant was not ' free "free to to decline the the officer's request or or otherwise terminate the terminate the encounter." Reppert, Reppert, 814 A.2d at A.2d at 1201-02. Accordingly, Appellant was seized, but under circumstances far less coercive than circumstances tlian a a formal arrest. arrest. Therefore, Therefore. Appellant was subjected to an investigatory stop. Strickler, 757 A.2d at 889. sex, race, clothing, and hair color color. Id, Id.. Commonwealth's Exhibit CS-7, Additionally, Officer Owen Owen. had had his own own copy of Veatch poster of the Crime Watch pester containing photos photos of the the suspects taken directly directly frortr from the laundromat laundrornat'ss surveillance footage. footage. Id. /d. at pp. 8-9, 13.

Finally, the Officer testified that based on his personal Finally. personal observations of A.pgellant Appellant at the time he was stopped, stopped, he concluded that Appellant Appellant matched both the 911 9l description and the Crime Watch irages images provided provided to him. Id. Id. at pp. pp. 13,17-1 S. See, also, Commonwealt 13, 17.-18. Commonwealth's h's Exhibit CS-6. On balance, this Court agrees that the 911 description, description, Crime Watch photos, O+wen's photos, and Officer Owen's observational comparisons observational comparisons of of Appellant Appellant to to those those sources provided ample sources provided ample basis basis fora for a reasonable reasonable and articulable suspicion that Appellant was involved in criminal activity. activity. Accordingly, Accordingly, Appellant's Appellant 's stop was proper under the Fourth Amendment.

Amendment To the extent Appellant Appellant also also challenges the the validity validity of his ensuing arrest, the challenge his ensuing must likewise be rejected. rejected. As noted above, custodial detentions (i.e., any' detention (i.e., arrests and any d iention serving; the functional equivalent serving equivalent to an arrest) arrest) must be supported supported by by probable probable cause. Strickler, 757 A.2d at 889. Probable cause to arrest exists where the circumstances known to the officer are such that a a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in his belief that the suspect suspect has committed committing aacrime. C or is committing Commonwealth ommomwealth •v Calabrese, C;aWrese. 184 A.3d 164, 166 (Pa. Sum. 2018). (Pa. Super. 2018), Here, Here. Appellant was arrested after the the biographical information, information he provided to Officer Owen returned an active warrant for his arrest due to prior prior probation N.T. 5/30/2023, probation violations NT, p, 5/30/2023,p. Appellant's identification 14. Because the initial retrieval of Appellant's proper under identification was proper undor the Fourth Fourth Amendment, Amendment, the the subsequent discovery of subsequent discovery of Appellant's warrant afforded Appellant's warrant Officer Owen afforded Officer Owen the the probable probable cause necessary necessary to detain him. Accordingly, Court did not err in denying Appellant's Accordingly, this Count Appellant's suppression motion, arguments to the contrary should motion. and his arguments should.be dismissed.

C.

C. This This Court Court Properly Cured Testiniony Testimony lndicating,4ppellant Indicating Appellant Was Incarcerated While White Chevrolet Police Searched the Chevrotet Trailblazer.

Appellant's second issue challenges this Court's failure to declare aamistrial mistrial following following certain testimony from Detective Stephen Brookes. The declaration of aamistrial is necessary only when when "the "the incident upon which the motion is based is of such aa nature that its unavoidable unavoidabld effect i5 is to to deprive the the defendant of aa fair trial byby preventing the jury from the jury from weighing and rendering weighing and rendering aatrue tnie verdict. verdict."C ommonwealth v.v - ComMOP11fealth Parker, 957 A.2d 319 ( Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied.

A.24 311, 319(Pa.Super. 2008), denied. 600 PA.Psi, 755.

755.966 A.2d 966 A.2 (2009). (2009), A A niistriai mistrial is inappropriate where cautionary cautionary instructions are sufficient overcorne.arty to overcome any potential prejudice. Id. Id Commonwealth v.. Lopez; S7 , Lopez, 57 A.3d 14,83-84 14,83.-84 (Pa. (quoting Commonwealth v. Be4ford, (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Bedford, 50 A.3d 707, 712-13 712.13 (Pa Super.: 2012). Stated differently, where an incident prejudices (Pa Super.. 2012). preiudices the defendant., mistrial defendant, misWal is pnly if cautionary is appropriate only cautionary instructions are are insufficient insufficient to to overcome the risk risk of that that ;prejudice. prejudice. Hare, Here, this Court is satisfied that Court is the curative that the curative instruction it ,gave gave to to the the jury jury was under the was sufficient under the circumstances, By way of useful comparison, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed aa virtually virtually identical claim claim, in the case of Commonwealth v. • Padilla, 923 A.2d 1189 1189 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 2007). In that case, the defendant was charged with having sexual intercourse with with .his his girlfriend's fifteen-year- daughter-. old daughter. Id. at 1191. Id. 1191, Prior to trial, Prior - for, and secured, aaruling in limine trial, defense counsel moved liar.

precluding any reference to the the defendant's prior incarceratit.m. hf. at 1 incarceration. Ad ruling, 192. Despite this ruling, 1192 -

' however, the arresting officer testified that the defendant had had"[{apparently.. apparently . , . ,just gotten( out of just got[ten] I I jail," at the time of his. his arrest. Id. Defense counsel immediately imrnediatgly objected and. moved for mistrial at sidebar. objected and sidebar. Id. The trial court ! was initially inclined to grant the motion, but ultimately relented upon the Commonwealth's suggestion suggestion of a a curative instructiola. instruction. Id. at 1192-93. The trial court instead denied the motion for mistrial and advised the jury simply " jury to simply disregard the remarks made by "disregard ¢ by this witness at this

I t i particular particular time." Id. at 1193, 1193. After further briefing by by the morning, the the parties the next morning. the trial court court reaffirmed its holding reaffirmed its holding that that its its instruction to tthe instruction to he jury jury was sufficient sufficient to cure any to cure any prejudice to the prejudice to the defendant.' N. defendant." A Beginning Beginning with with its prejudice prejudice analysis, the the Superior Superior Court that the Court quickly concluded that the inadvertent testimony from the the arresting officer prejudiced the defendant. Of particular relevance to its analysis was the trial. trial court s initial ruling court's ruling; excluding excluding all references to the defendant's prior Id, at 1193, The purpose of aamotion in incarceration. Id. in limine, noted the Court, is to ((l) "preclude 1) "'preclude evidence from ever ever reaching a that may prov¢ a jury that prove to to be so so prejudicial prejudicial that no instruction instruction could cure cure the the harm to the harm to the defendant[,"" defendant(;]" and and (2) (2) provide provide "counsel with a "counsel with a basis basis upon which to upon which to structure structure trial strategy." Id. at 1194 (quoting strategy."ld, (quoting Commonwealth v. ». Noll, Noll, 662 A.2d 1123, 1125 1125 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1995)), tendency to inculpate 1995)). These facts. and the testimony's tendency crimiinal activity, inculpate the defendant in criminal activity, rendered the trial court court'ss reversal reversal of its pre-trial ruling particularly pre-trial ruling particularly prejudicial. Id. at 1193-96. prejudicial. Id. 1193-95.

Finding the testimony to be prejudicial, the Superior the Superior Court next evaluated ihd sufficiency sufficiency court'ss instruction, ultimately finding it wanting. of the trial count wanting. Specifically, the Court Cowt,analyzed analyzed the issue as follows, issue as follows; Based onon our review of the trial trial transcript, we find the circumstances surrounding circumstances surrounding the court's ruling to be troubling troubling and the instruction itself too vague vague to to have cured the the prejudice. prejudice. TheThe trial trial court court had had granted granted Appellant's Appellant's emotion motion inin limine limine and, and, upon upon violation of violation of its order. agreed its order. agreed to to aamistrial. mistrial. Pressed by by the the prosccutot, prosecutor, however, however, the court instead trial court instead opted opted to give acautionary to giwea cautionary instruction and await instruction and await further further argument. argument, The record suggests that the jury may have heard the side bar conference during during which the trial court reversed itself. Moreover, the trial court's instruction did not

9Specifically, the Specifically, the trial court concluded trial court concluded that that [t]he inadvertent reference to Appellant's (IJhe Appellant's prior jail jail time was a apassing passing remark, not intentionally elicited by by the Commonwealth. The witness did not say say why why Appellant was in prison. prison, The The Commonwealth Commonwealth did did not not attempt to take take advantage advantage of the remark. remark. While this remark made by by the witness was unfortunate, given given the nature and nature and circumstance circumstance in in which which it it occurred, we we think that that the the curative curative instruction instruction was sufficient to eradicate anyany prejudice prejudice resulting resulting from this reference. The jury jury was directed to directed to disregard disregard the the witness' remarks and witness' remarks and we can presume we can presume that they followed that they followed the the court's instructions. instructions Padil/a, Padilla, 923 A.2d A.2d at 1193. ,' pit 1.193, •

specifically direct the jury to disregard Officer Bealer's remark. "-Apparen1by Just Apparently he just got out of jail." Then, despite the instruction, instruction, the prosecutor resumed his examination of examination of Officer Officer Bealer Beatler by repeating repeating the the officer's testimony that officer's testimony "Mom was that "Mom was upset.," thereby upset," allowing the thereby allowing jury to the jury to hear hear again again testimony testimony the trial court the trial court had had just just instructed instructed them them to disregard. disregard.

The purpose of a apre-trial pre-trial motion in Iimine limine is to to prevent prevent prejudicial et idence from prejudicial evidence reaching the jury, based on on -the the theory that "once thethe ''skunk skunk is in the box,' box. the odor is ineradicable." Blumenkopf,16 Blumenkopf, 16 N.Eng.L.Rev. N.Eng.L.Rev. at 173 173 ((quotations quotations omitted). Given the circumstances circumstances in this case, we we conclude conclude that only remedy that the only remedy available toto remove remove the prejudice prejudice to to Appellant Appellant was was for for the the trial trial court toto declare a a mistrial and to to relist the case fear for trial before a different jury a different jury. Id. ld. at 1.1.96 ( internal record citationis I96 (internal citatiorfs and paragraph omitted). paragraph numbers omitted) In essence, the Superior Court ultimately found the trial court's instruction instruction",insufficient because ((I) because 1) there there was aspecific motion was a motion In in limine precluding precluding the testimony; testimony: ((2) 2) the trial court court initially favored initially favored mistrial mistrial but but reversed reversed itself upon being itself upon being pressed pressed by Commonwealth. ((3) by Commonwealth: 3) the the dial not cautionary instruction did disregard the witness' specific not specifically direct the jury to disregard specific remark; remark; and (4) and despite the (4) despite the instruction, instruction, the Commonwealth resumed the Commonwealth examination righ resumed examination right t where where the the challenged testimony challenged left off. testimony left off.

Here, Detective Brookes Here, Detective Brookes gave gave similar passing testimony testimony referencing referencing Appellant's prior Appellant's prior incarceration. Specifically, incarceration. Specifically, in in response response to to aaCommonwealth question about Commonwealth question about how how he he retrieved the retrieved the key key to to the Chevy Chevy Trailblazer, he testified Trailblazer, he tdstified that that he "served "served the search warrant the search warrant at at the Bucks- County the Bucks-County N.T. 5/30/2023, p. 149. Accordingly, because this statement has a Prison." N.T, the tendency to direct the a tendency jury's attention to Appellant's prior incarceration, this Court will assume its its: prejudicial prejudicial nature nature.

However, as as to the the adequacy of this this Court's Court's curative instruction. instruction. none of the circumstances underlying underlying the Padilla Court's Court's ultiintzate ultimate conclusion are present conclusion are present here. here. According Iy, this Accordingly. Court finds this Court finds its its instruction instruction to to have been been aasufficient cure cure.

First, despite Appellant's First, despite Appellant's contention contention to the contrary, to the contrary, there there was was no specific ruling no specific in Iimine ruling in imine regarding the prior incarceration issue. issue. No appears on the No such order appears the: docket. docket. and and no such ruling no such is ruling is disclosed in the record. For example. Pre. Trial Motion, Appellant raised example, in his Omnibus Pre-Trial raised aaMotion Motion Pursuant to to Suppress Arrest, aaMotion to Dismiss Pursuant Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, and a to Pa.R.Crim.P. a Motion to Suppress Statements. The Statements. arrest suppression The arrest suppression was was litigated litigated at at the May 30. the May 2023 hearing, 30, 2023 along with hearing, along with aanew new Motion in lindne limine regarding arrest body camera footage. Meanwhile, both regarding the arrest both the Rule 600 Motion and Motion and Motion to Suppress Suppress Statements Statements were resolved at at the the May May 18, I8, 2023 2023 hearing. hearing. Accordingly, the only pre-trial pre-trial motions litigated prior prior to trial were were the the arrest arrest suppression and motions. and body camera motions N.T. 5/30/2023. pp.

NT. 5/30/2023, 20-28. This pp. 20.-28. This Court Court appreciates appreciates that that the defense may the defense may have have wished to avoid wished to avoid testimony testimony as to Appellant's Appellant's prior prior incarceration, but at no point point was this desire reflectedin reflected in aaformal pre-trial motion or ruling." pre-trial ruling.'" See, Yee, Criminal Trial Misc.

Misc. Notes Notes -— 5/18/2023; 5/18/2023; Criminal Trial Misc.

Misc.

Notes Notes ._ 5/30/2023, 5/30/2023 Second, unlike in Padilla, not only Second. only did the defense here never request a amistrial, but it it was the very very party party that requested requested the curative instruction to begin begin with. N.T.

N.T, 5/30/2023, p. 149.

Moreover, without wavering in its decision, this Court immediately gave the defense the precise cure it it asked asked for, 150. for. Id. at p. 150, Third, this Third. this Court C'ourt's cautionary instruction 's cautionary instruction directly targeted the comment directly targeted comment made made by by Detective Detective Brookes and specifically specifically instructed the jury to disregard the jury disregard it. Immediately sidebar, this Court Immediately after sidebar, , fury as instructed the jury as follows: follows THE COURT: AII THE COURT: All right. right. Ladies and gentlemen, you've you've heard testimony testimony.from from the detective that he received aacar key from the the prison. prison. You are not not to to draw drag any certainly any inference. certainly any adverse adverse inference inference against the defendant against the defendant from from the fact that that he may may not have may or may have been in in custody, custody, and and the the fact that the key was received from that from that source. source Id, at at p. 151. When p. 151 When given given the opportunity to the opportunity to supplement supplement the the instruction, defense counsel instruction, defense counsel declined. declined.

Id. Accordingly, ld. Accordingly, far from the vague vague instruction in Padilla, this Court's instruction specifically

The closest The 10 closest this this Court Court came came to such aaruling to such was its ruling was its preclusion preclusion of any portion of any portion of of the police the police body camera footage body referencing Appellant's footage referencing Appellant's pre-existing pre-existing warrant. N.T.

N,T, 5/30/2023, 5/30/2023,p.p. 22 22. " identified the comments and the improper comments and clearly precluded precluded the jury from drawing the jury drawing any any adverse inference therefrom. Id, Id. at at 1193.

1193, Appellant provides no no basis to believe the the jury did not jury did not or or could could not follow'the follow the Court's instruction. instruction, Finally, Finally, rather than retreading rather than retreading ground ground laid laid by the challenged testimony, testimony, the Commonwealth here Commonwealth here immediately abandoned that immediately abandoned line of that line questioning and of questioning and redirected redirected Detective Detective Brookes elsewhere. In sum, the Brookes elsewhere. the comment comment by by Detective Brookes Brookes %% as a was passing remark in' no apassing no way way elicited by elicited by the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth or taken advantage of taken advantage by it. of by it. This Court is This Court satisfied. therefore, is satisfied. therefore, that under under the totality of the totality of the circumstances, circumstances, its instruction to its instruction to the the jury jury was sufficient to was sufficient cure any to cure any risk of of prejudice such that prejudice such that mistrial mistrial was was tinnecessary. unnecessary. Accordingly.

Accordingly. this not err in failing this Court did not failing to declare a a mistrial.

D. This Court Dirt' Did Not Err in Not Declaring a a Mistrial When the Commonwealth Allegedly Published 1,Body Allegedly Published vdy Camera Camera .Footage Footage of Appellant Being of Appellant Arrested .Because Being Arrested Because Defense Counsel Neither Objected Nor Moved for Mistrial. for Mistrial Appellant's third issue likewise challenges challenges this C'ourt's Count's failure to declare a a mistrial following an alleged publication to to the jury body camera jury of body rootage from Appellant's camera - footage Appellant's arrest. As arrest. As noted above, when "the [a] mistrial is necessary only when "the incident incident upon upon which which the the motion motion is is based based is is of such a anature-that nature that its its unavoidable effect is to deprive the defendant of a afair trial by by preventing preventing the jury jury froMweighing, from weighing and and rendering rendering aatrue verdict." (: ommornrealth verdict." Comorw ealth v • Parker, 957 A.2d 31.1, 319 (Pa.Super. 2008), 311, 319 (Pa.Super. 2008), alapeal appeal denied. denied, 600 Pa. 155.

755. 966 A.2d 571 (2009). (2009). AA mistrial is inappropriate where cautionary cautionary instructions are sufficient to overcome sufficient to overcome anyany potential potential prejudice. prejudice. Id. Id Lopez, 57 A.3d at at 83-84 (quoting (quoting Bedford, Redford, 50 A.Jd A.3d at at 712-13). Where aadefendant 712.131. Where does not defendant does object.. not object, Pa.R.Crim.P. 605 nonetheless empowers the trial court "to declare aamistrial .

P'aRCrim.P. sua .iponte sua upon the sponte upon showing of showing ofxnanifest manifest necessity." K fly, 79'7 necessity." Kelly, 797 A.2d at 936.

A.2d at Initially, Initially, it it is doubtful that is doubtful the jury that the jury actually observed what actually observed what Appellant Appellant claims. claims. The only The only photographs or videos of Appellant source through which the jury could have observed photographs Appellant in Oven's body camera footage handcuffs was Officer Owen's footage of Appellant's Appellant's arrest. This This video video was the subject of one of Appellant': argued for its preclusion Appellant's pre-trial motions where he argued preclusion on on prejudice prejudice grounds, N.T. 5/30/2023.pp. grounds. N.T 5130/2023, pp. 20-21. `0-21. This Court ultimately ultimately deferred ruling rling on the motion motion to to permit permit the parties to further discuss the intended use of that footage. footage. Id. at at 22-23.

22.-23.

Prior to Officer Owen's testimony, the parties defense called parties reached what the defense called "a ·% reasonable reasonable agreement" agreement" by which Commonwealth would which the Commonwealth would not publish the portions not publish portions of the video of the video showing Appellant being cuffed. Id. at pp. 122-24.

122-24. Instead, Instead, the Commonwealth would would only only play play Officer Owen's initial contact with Appellant, and the Trailblazer key key being being found on his found on his person. person.

Id. ld. Later, when the Commonwealth sought to submit and publish the video during during Omcer Officer Owen's Owen's testimony, defense counsel did not object, provided it was done in accord with their agreement. agreement. Id. I at p. at 129. The p. 129, The Commonwealth then then published the the video video without defense defense objection. objection.

"Thus, by all appearances, Thus, appearances. the Commonwealth observed observed .its its end of the bargain bargain and and :skipped skipped Appellant's actual arrest. Insofar as the portions published portray Appellant published did portray Appellant • in in handcuffs, handcuffs, however, the issue should have been addressed at or after trial, not for the first time time on on appeal. appeal. See, See, Pa.R.A.P. 302()([ilssues Pa.R.A.P. 302(x) (`•[ i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot cannot be raised for for the the first first time on appeal"). appeal"), E. This Count Court Dial Abase its Discretion in Sentencing Did Not Abuse Sentencing Appellant Appellant to Eighteen Eighteen (18) to (I8) to Si(,3b) TWNY-Six Thirty (36) Months' Incarceration Because Because the the Sentence is Supported Supported b the by the Record.

Record Appellant's final Appellant's issue challenges final issue challenges his sentence as his sentence as excessive excessive and and insufficiently insufficiently considerate considerate of his mitigating evidence. In matters of sentencing. sentencing. "great weight [ "great weight must be [must be given] to the given] to the sentencing court, since it is in the best position to evaluate the defendant's character, character,, displays displays of of remorse, defiance, indifference, and the overall nature and extent of the crime." Commonwealth Commonwealthv.

Jackson, 585 A.2d A.2d _36, 36, 41 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 1990) (internal (internal citations omitted). omitted). "When imposing imposing aa

•

sentence, sentence, aa court court is is required to consider required to the particular consider the circumstances of particular circumstances of the the offense and the offense and the character character of the Commb' nwealth v Hill, 210 the defendant." Commonwealth A.3d 1104, A3 1104. 1116.17 1116-17 ((Pa. Pa, Super. Super. 2019).

2019 A sentooing A court is also sentencing court also required required to to consider the sentence consider the sentence ranges ranges set set forth forth in in the [e Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Sentencing Cruidelin•s, Guidelines. See, Comfnonwealih Commonwealth •1• 1'uhasz. A,M 11"l Yuhasz. 923 A.24 1, 1118 1111, 1118 (Pa. (PA. 2007). However., the 2007). However, the trial court court may deviate deviate fronl the recommended from the guidelines-, they recommended guidelines; they are "merely are "meret one factor one among many factor among many that that the court must the court must consider consider in in imposing imposing a a sentence." sentence" N.

Ad Initially, this Court Initially, this Court notes notes that that an appellate court an appellate court may consider facts may only consider facts wltioh which have have been been daily cortif+ad duly certified in in the the record on appeial. record on appeal. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Williailpv. 71:5 • Williams. A.2d 1101, 715 A.2d 1101, 1105-06 1105.06 ((Pa. Pa. 1998).

I998). Whom Where review review depends depends upon facts not upon facts not present present in the record. in the record. the claim is the claim is waived. waived. Id. Id. Here, Here, Appellant Appellant argues argues that that this this Court Court issUed an excessive issued an excessive sentence sentence and and failed failed to adequately consider to adequately consider his hie mitigation mitigation evidence. evidence. However, However, Appellant Appellant neglected to secure neglected to secure transcripts transcripts from his'sentencirig from his on sentencing on August 15, 15, 2023. Accordingly, Accordingly, this Count this Court is is unable unable to to evaluate factors cited evaluate the factors cited by by itit on on the the record record or or review its consideration consideration of Appellant's supposed mitigation evidence. Appellant's mitigation evidence. Appellant's sentencing sentencing waived. challenge is -therefore waived In any In any event, event, the the challenge challenge is also substantively is also substantively meritless. Here. Appellant meritless. Here. Appellant was was sentenced sentenced to to no no less titan eighteen. (18) than eighteen to no (18) to no more than thirty--six more than thirty-six (36) (36) months' months' incarceration. incarceration. with with time- ti%. served served credit for seventeen credit for seventeen (17) (17) months. months. His minimum sentence His minimum of eighteen sentence of eighteen ((8) 18) months months was wee wit-bin the within standard guideline the standard guideline range of twelve range of twelve ((12) 12) to to eighteen eighteen ((18) 18) months. months, His His sentence, sentence, therefore, there pxestunptively reasonable. Comni is presumptively onwealth • Commonwealth : v. Ventura. 975 A.24 A.2d 1128, 1134.35 1134-35 (Pa. (PA. Super. Super 2009).

Moreover, at at the the time of Appellant's time of Appellant's conviction, conviction, this this Court Court not not only only granted granted Appellant's Appellant'gs request for for a a thirty thirty (30)-day deferral to gather mitigation evidence. it also extended extended Appellant Appellant the the ,grace grace of remaining on of remaining og bail bail in in the the i.ntetim. N.T. 5/31/2023, interim. N.T, 5/31/2023, p.123. p. 123. However. Appellant abused However. Appellant abused this this

grace and failed tO grace and appear as to appear as directed for his directed for his July h, 2023 July 6, 2023 sentencing. sentencing. For For at at least these reasons, least these reasons, in in addition to those cited by this Court on the record at sentencing, sentencing, Appellant's sentence was more Appellant's sentence more than appropriate, appropriate IV. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, this Court believes that the issues which -Appellant has Appellant has complained of in his Concise Statement are without merit. Accordingly, Accordingly, this Court Court respectfully respectfully submits that its denial submits denial of Appellant's May May 8, 8, 2023 suppression motion, 2023 suppression motion, its its trial trial decisions, and its decisions, and it August 15. 2023 judgment of sentence should August 1$. should be affirmed and be affirmed and that that Appellant"s Appellant's Appeal be denied Appeal be denied.

13Y THE COURT: BY

DATE: June'. Acw-f Jove i 2oaf It

is