J-S41035-23
2023 PA Super 270
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANTHONY FLETCHER :
:
Appellant : No. 144 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 6, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0004877-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: December 20, 2023
Anthony Fletcher appeals from the January 6, 2023 aggregate judgment
of sentence of 50 to 100 years’ imprisonment, to be followed by 85 years’
probation, imposed after he was found guilty of 174 counts related to the
prolonged sexual abuse of his stepdaughter and his possession of child
pornography. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from
the certified record, are as follows: On April 20, 2021, the Pennsylvania State
Police executed a search warrant at Appellant’s home after the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children received a report in February 2021 that an
image of child pornography had been uploaded at the IP address associated
with the residence. A subsequent search of the electronic devices found in
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41035-23
Appellant’s home yielded a litany of images of child pornography as well as
multiple videos of Appellant having sex with an unconscious minor. Further
investigation revealed that Appellant had drugged and sexually assaulted his
stepdaughter on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2021.
On July 7, 2021, Appellant was charged with 219 offenses, including
multiple counts of rape of an unconscious person.1 On March 3, 2022,
Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence obtained
from the search of his residence. The trial court denied Appellant’s
suppression motion on July 20, 2022. That same day, Appellant waived his
right to a jury and proceeded to a bench trial before the Honorable Jill E.
Rangos.
Following a one-day bench trial, Appellant was found guilty of the
following 174 charges: 25 counts of rape of an unconscious person; 15 counts
of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with an unconscious person; 27
counts of sexual assault; 6 counts of aggravated indecent assault of an
unconscious person; 24 counts of indecent assault of an unconscious person;
8 counts of endangering welfare of children; 7 counts of corruption of minors;
16 counts of photographing, videotaping, depicting on computer or filming
sexual acts; 8 counts of possession of child pornography; 8 counts of unlawful
____________________________________________
1 45 counts were later withdrawn.
-2-
J-S41035-23
contact with a minor; and 30 counts of invasion of privacy.2 On January 6,
2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 50 to 100
years’ imprisonment, to be followed by 85 years’ probation. This timely appeal
followed on February 1, 2023.3
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it denied
[Appellant’s] pretrial motion to suppress
evidence when the Commonwealth failed to
demonstrate that the search warrant contained
sufficient probable cause?
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying
[Appellant’s] request for a Franks[4] hearing?
3. Whether the [trial court] erred in denying
[Appellant’s] motion to recuse?
Appellant’s brief at 3.
I. Probable Cause to Support the Search Warrant
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress the evidence found in his residence because the search warrant was
not supported by the requisite level of probable cause. Id. at 11. We
disagree.
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(3), 3123(a)(3), 3124.1, 3125(a)(4), 3126(a)(4),
4304(a)(1), 6301(a)(1)(i), 6312(b)(1) and (2), 6312(d), 6318(a)(1), and
7507.1(a)(1), respectively.
3 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
4 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
-3-
J-S41035-23
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a denial of a
suppression motion is well settled.
[Our] standard of review in addressing a challenge to
the denial of a suppression motion is limited to
determining whether the suppression court’s factual
findings are supported by the record and whether the
legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.
Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the
suppression court, we may consider only the evidence
of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence
for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read
in the context of the record as a whole. Where the
suppression court’s factual findings are supported by
the record, [the appellate court is] bound by [those]
findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal
conclusions are erroneous.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation
omitted; brackets in original), appeal denied,
135 A.3d 584 (Pa. 2016).
“Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee an individual’s
freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v.
Bostick, 958 A.2d 543, 550 (Pa.Super. 2008) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted), appeal denied,
987 A.2d 158 (Pa. 2009); see also U.S.
Const. amend. IV.
Under the federal and state constitutional prohibitions
of unreasonable searches and seizures, both the
United States Supreme Court and this Court have
consistently held that, subject to certain exceptions, a
search is constitutionally invalid unless it is conducted
pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and
detached magistrate and supported by probable
cause. Probable cause exists where, based upon a
totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit
-4-
J-S41035-23
of probable cause, including the reliability and veracity
of hearsay statements included therein, there is a fair
probability that ... evidence of a crime will be found in
a particular place. In reviewing an issuing authority’s
decision to issue a warrant, a suppression court must
affirm unless the issuing authority had no substantial
basis for its decision. On appeal, this Court affirms
the decision of the suppression court unless it
commits an error of law or makes a factual finding
without record support.
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1063–1064 (Pa. 2013) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
572 U.S. 1048 (2014).
In Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208 A.3d 497, 499 (Pa.Super 2019),
this Court “emphasize[d] that ‘the totality of the circumstances’ set forth in
the affidavit must be considered when examining whether probable cause
supports the issuance of the search warrant.”
Id. at 505. The Harlan Court
noted:
[T]he question of whether probable cause exists for
the issuance of a search warrant must be answered
according to the totality of the circumstances test
articulated in Commonwealth v. Gray, [503 A.2d
921 (Pa. 1985)], and its Pennsylvania progeny, which
incorporates the reasoning of the United States
Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, [462 U.S. 213
(1983)]…. The task of the magistrate acting as the
issuing authority is to make a practical, common
sense assessment of whether, given all the
circumstances set forth in the affidavit, a fair
probability exists that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place. A search
warrant is defective if the issuing authority has not
been supplied with the necessary information. The
chronology established by the affidavit of probable
cause must be evaluated according to a common
sense determination.
-5-
J-S41035-23
Further, probable cause is based on a finding of the
probability, not a prima facie showing, of criminal
activity, and deference is to be accorded a
magistrate’s finding of probable cause. We must limit
our inquiry to the information within the four corners
of the affidavit submitted in support of probable cause
when determining whether the warrant was issued
upon probable cause.
Harlan, 208 A.3d at 505 (internal citation formatting amended; some
citations omitted).
In both his March 3, 2022 suppression motion and subsequent Rule
1925(b) statement, Appellant detailed his claim of error relating to the
insufficiency of the application for the search warrant. See Motion to
Suppress, 3/3/22 at ¶¶ 12(a)-(c); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement,
2/21/23 at 2-3. The trial court addressed Appellant’s claim of error in its May
18, 2023 opinion, rejecting his assertion that the time between the upload of
the child pornography image and the search of his residence was too far apart
for the warrant to be supported by probable cause.
The trial court noted that the affidavit of probable cause included a
nauseatingly-detailed description of the child pornography image uploaded
from a specific IP address, along with verification from Verizon that this IP
address was assigned to Appellant’s home. The trial court stated:
[T]he warrant in question indicated that Microsoft
reported an image of child pornography to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
which was uploaded from a specific IP address on
February 2, 2021. The file was a photograph of a nude
female approximately 5-8 years old, being penetrated
by two adult males. A second nude female child,
-6-
J-S41035-23
approximately 3-5 years old, appears in the
background of the same photo. The IP address is
assigned to Verizon. On March 12, 2021, Verizon
identified the subscriber as Appellant, and the physical
address corresponding to the IP address as
[redacted], an address confirmed to be that of
Appellant. The affidavit of probable cause further
states that, based upon the officer’s experience and
training, one image of child pornography is typically
indicative of a larger collection, which is often secreted
in a secure and private location, and may be contained
in devices as small as a micro-SD card. The affiant
signed the affidavit on April 19, 2021, a period of
approximately two-and one-half months from the date
the image was uploaded.
Trial court opinion, 5/18/23 at 3-4.
The court then concluded that unlike in drug possession cases,
“[i]mages of child pornography … are rarely disposed and often retained on
computers or other storage devices for prolonged periods of time. Thus,
evidence of child pornography sent nine and a half months earlier supported
a search of a residence.” Id. at 4. Based on our review, we find the trial
court’s factual findings are supported by the record and its legal conclusions
are free of error. Therefore, we shall not disturb the trial court’s ruling.
II. Franks Hearing
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his request
for a Franks hearing, based upon his assertion that “[t]he affiant intentionally
included a characterization of the internet user [at his residence] as a collector
of child pornography[,]” despite having no evidence of such. Appellant’s brief
at 30-31. This claim is belied by the record.
-7-
J-S41035-23
As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized in Commonwealth v.
Iannoccio, 480 A.2d 966 (Pa. 1984):
[Franks] held that, where a defendant makes a
substantial preliminary showing that a false statement
was knowingly and deliberately, or with reckless
disregard for the truth, included by an affiant in his
application for a search warrant and where the alleged
false statement was necessary to a finding of probable
cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing
be held at defendant’s request so that he might
challenge the veracity and integrity of the warrant.
Id. at 974 n.4. In Franks, the United States Supreme Court further held
that, “[t]o mandate an evidentiary hearing … [t]here must be
allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the
truth[.]” Franks,
438 U.S. at 171 (emphasis added).
Following our independent review of the record, we agree with the trial
court’s determination that a Franks hearing was not warranted in this matter.
See trial court opinion, 5/18/23 at 4-5. The record establishes that the
affidavit in question does not contain a material misstatement of fact, let alone
a knowingly false statement. On the contrary, the affidavit makes a general
statement based on the experience and training of the affiant, Trooper Thomas
J. Maloney, regarding the typical behavior of individuals who possess child
pornography. Namely, Trooper Maloney noted that it is often the case that
someone who has uploaded one image of child pornography will typically have
additional images of child pornography in their possession, which are often
secured in private location or on a micro-SD card. See Application for Search
-8-
J-S41035-23
Warrant - Affidavit of Probable Cause, 4/19/21 at 7-8. Accordingly,
Appellant’s second claim of trial court error must fail.
III. Motion to Recuse
In his final claim, Appellant argues that the Honorable Jill E. Rangos was
biased against him and erred by denying his motion that she recuse herself.
Appellant’s brief at 32. For the reasons that follow, we find that Appellant has
waived this claim.
Our standard of review of a trial court’s determination
not to recuse from hearing a case is exceptionally
deferential. We recognize that our trial judges are
honorable, fair and competent, and although we
employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so
recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to
gauge his ability to preside impartially.
Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387, 391–392 (Pa.Super. 2009)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
It is well settled that “[j]udicial bias may not be raised for the first time
during post-trial proceedings.” Crawford v. Crawford, 633 A.2d 155, 160
(Pa.Super. 1993) (citation omitted). On the contrary, a party seeking recusal
or disqualification on the basis of judicial bias or impartiality “must raise the
objection at the earliest possible moment, or that party will suffer the
consequence of being time barred.” Commonwealth v. Stafford,
749 A.2d
489, 501 (Pa.Super. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted),
appeal denied,
795 A.2d 975 (Pa. 2000). The failure to timely move for a
judge’s recusal after the facts allegedly establishing bias come to a
-9-
J-S41035-23
defendant’s attention renders the judicial bias claim waived. See
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778, 790 (Pa.Super. 1998), appeal
denied,
739 A.2d 1056 (Pa. 1999).
Instantly, we find that Appellant failed to raise his claim of judicial bias
at the earliest possible opportunity. The record reflects that Appellant’s
counsel made an oral recusal motion on Appellant’s behalf on January 6, 2023,
the date of the sentencing hearing, and Appellant filed a pro se “Petition for
Disqualification (Recusal) of Judge [Rangos]” the prior day. Both of these
motions were made over a year after Judge Rangos entered her first order in
this matter, and nearly 6 months after the conclusion of Appellant’s non-jury
trial, on July 20, 2022. Accordingly, Appellant’s recusal claim was clearly time-
barred and its denial by the trial court was warranted.
For all the forgoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s January 6, 2023
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
12/20/2023
- 10 -
J-S41035-23
- 11 -
