HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1356-2005
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
LEO JULIUS GOULBOURNE
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1356 - 2005
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J., August
, 2006
The defendant has filed this timely appeal from the order of the Honorable Kevin
A. Hess sentencing him in connection with his conviction of possession with intent to
deliver a Schedule I Controlled substance. 1 Among the issues he raises on appeal was
our alleged error in failing to grant his pretrial suppression motion. We will address that
issue in the opinion that follows.
On October 10, 2005 we conducted an evidentiary hearing in connection with the
defendant's suppression motion. We will summarize the facts as we found them to be.
Trooper Brian Overcash of the Pennsylvania State Police was patrolling Interstate
81 on March 15, 2005. He stopped the defendant's vehicle for speeding.2 When the
trooper asked for his license and registration, the defendant acted "extremely nervous"?
Nevertheless the defendant presented a valid Virginia license and all of the other
documents were in order. Trooper Overcash gave the defendant a written warning,
returned all of his documents, and told him that he was free to leave. Thereafter, the
trooper asked for and was given permission to search the defendant's vehicle.
1 See Judge Hess' Sentencing Order dated April 4, 2006.
2 See Transcript of Suppression Hearing, October 10,2005, p. 5.
3 Transcript of Suppression Hearing, October 10,2005, p. 5.
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1356 - 2005
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing counsel asked us to consider various
cases before we made a ruling. Defendant's counsel pointed us to Commonwealth v.
Ortiz, 786 A.2d 261 (Pa.Super 2001). The Commonwealth relied on Commonwealth v.
Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 757 A.2d 884 (2000). We read both cases and stated the reasons for
our ruling on the record as follows:
I have read the cases. As I understand the breakdown in Ortiz they
likened that to Freeman, where the original traffic stop was over, and then
a second investigative detention took place because he told him he
couldn't drive the car away in Ortiz. We did not have that in this case.
I think this case is controlled by Strickler. We do find the testimony of the
police officer to be credible. We are satisfied that he told the Defendant
that he was free to leave at the conclusion of the first traffic stop, and then
asked whether he would consent to the search, and that consent was freely
and voluntary given.4
DATE
Edward E. Guido, J.
District Attorney
Paul B. Orr, Esquire
F or the Defendant
:sld
4 Transcript of Suppression Hearing, p. 34.
2