Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

A driver appealed from the August 26, 2016 judgment of sentence entered in the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas following his bench trial conviction for driving under the influence — highest rate of alcohol. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed.

In disposing of the driver’s motion to suppress, the trial court set forth the following facts. On October 3, 2015, at around 4:00 a.m., an officer received a dispatch of a possible accident in Jackson Township. He arrived, and a second marked cruiser arrived on the scene. Upon arrival, the troopers discovered a Jeep Grand Cherokee that had gone off the road and had skidded into a small wooded area.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A defendant appealed from the judgment of a sentence of nine to 16 months’ imprisonment entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas following his bench trial convictions of DUI, possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension, DUI-related. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his possession of a small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia convictions. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his conviction.

The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient because the Commonwealth failed to establish he constructively possessed the marijuana or drug paraphernalia found in the vehicle he was driving. He contended that the evidence did not prove that he knew the drugs or drug paraphernalia were in the vehicle or that he intended to possess or exercise dominion over the drugs. He emphasized that the vehicle in question belonged to his wife, and, as a passenger at the time in question, she was within arm’s reach of the contraband. Therefore, he claimed the evidence failed to establish that he was responsible for the drugs and drug paraphernalia in the car. Thus, he argued that the court should vacate his judgment of sentence. The Pennsylvania Superior Court found to the contrary that no relief was due.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently affirmed a driver’s two-count DUI conviction resulting from a DUI checkpoint.

In September 2013, police officers from the West Hills DUI Task Force conducted a sobriety checkpoint on Steubenville Pike in Robinson Township, Pennsylvania. A sergeant was present at the September 28, 2013 DUI checkpoint on Steubenville Pike in Robinson Township. At 12:25 a.m., he was filling in on the road because the line had become depleted of manpower. At this time, he came into contact with the driver. After introducing himself, he asked for her driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. She initially handed him her Target credit card. While she was obtaining her documentation, he noticed an odor of alcoholic beverages coming from the vehicle and that she had slurred speech. In addition, she admitted that she had a shot and a beer.  The officer then escorted her to the testing area, explained the testing procedure, and handed her over to another officer of the Robinson Township Police Department.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A defendant appealed from a sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following the revocation of his probation. He argued the Pennsylvania Superior Court should vacate his sentence due to the revocation court’s abuse of discretion in fashioning it. The intermediate court disagreed.

On May 17, 2010, following a bench trial, the lower court convicted him of firearms offenses, theft, and receiving stolen property. The court sentenced the defendant to two to four years’ incarceration and up to six years of probation. While he was still serving his probationary term, he was convicted of DUI.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A driver appealed his March 2016 DUI conviction from the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas. Specifically, he contested the court’s denial of his motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol content (“BAC”) test, and he challenged the constitutionality of section 1543(b)(2) of Pennsylvania’s vehicle code. The Pennsylvania Superior Court disagreed and affirmed the driver’s convictions.

A state trooper was responding to the reported theft of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when he was notified that the complainant had stopped the alleged thief on a nearby road. When the trooper arrived, the driver was standing next to an ATV in the roadway. The complainant was in a truck parked behind the driver’s ATV, and two other state troopers were also present.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A driver appealed from the March 3, 2016 judgment of sentence the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, finding him guilty of DUI. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in finding the arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe he was involved in criminal activity. The Pennsylvania Superior Court disagreed and affirmed the judgment.

On June 24, 2015, an officer was on patrol with his car window down. It was around 1 a.m. when he saw a beige Buick parked in front of 920 High Street. As he drove past, he saw a man talking to the driver and heard a woman yelling and screaming. The woman was seated in the front passenger seat and seemed to be yelling at someone inside the car.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently reversed a driver’s DUI conviction and remanded to the trial court to determine whether his consent to a blood test was validly obtained in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota.

At around 3 AM in September 2015, an officer was on routine patrol in Allegheny County. He was driving on State Route 88 when he noticed the driver’s vehicle with both passenger side tires on the shoulder of the roadway with tires over the fog line. The vehicle appeared to be traveling over the speed limit, so the officer turned around in order to follow the driver and determine his speed. The driver made a left turn on Hamilton Road and traveled up Hamilton by driving up the middle of the road, his vehicle in both lanes of travel. There were no obstructions or road conditions that would cause the driver to take up both lanes of travel. The officer then activated his lights and conducted a traffic stop.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A defendant appealed from a judgment of sentence imposed in March 2016, after he was found guilty of two counts of DUI-controlled substance and one count of failing to drive on the right side of a roadway. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his conviction.

On January 11, 2015, at approximately 1:50 a.m., two Pennsylvania State Troopers were driving in the Canandohta Lake area. One of them was driving south on Lakeview Drive when he observed the defendant’s car approaching him. The officer testified that he saw that the defendant’s vehicle was somewhat in his lane of travel and that as the two vehicles approached each other, the defendant’s vehicle slowly moved back into its proper lane. The officer then turned left into a private driveway, backed out onto Lakeview Drive, and proceeded northbound to follow the defendant. He testified that he decided to follow the defendant based on the observation that he was not driving in his lane.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A driver appealed from his 2015 conviction of driving under the influence of a controlled substance (DUI), third offense. Concluding that his arguments lacked merit, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his conviction.

In October 2014, a police officer was on routine patrol at around 10:30 p.m. in a marked vehicle. He observed a vehicle traveling very slowly, and due to the number of thefts from vehicles in the area, he became suspicious and followed the vehicle. Based on his own speedometer, he determined that the vehicle was traveling at only about 10-15 miles an hour in an area in which the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. The officer observed that the license plate light was not functioning. Based on the suspicious manner of driving in an area with numerous vehicular thefts from vehicles, as well as the fact that the license plate was not illuminated, the officer stopped the vehicle. While speaking to the driver, he noticed that his eyes were glassy, and his pupils were dilated and did not react to light in a way that he, as a former trained EMT, determined to be appropriate. These were all indicators that the driver was possibly under the influence.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a defendant’s DUI conviction, rejecting his argument that he was merely sleeping in the car that his mother had driven.

At around midnight in July 2015, a woman was driving on Route 743. She noticed a car driving erratically in the right shoulder of the road. Ms. Kortwright followed the car for a while and then called 911 with the car’s license plate number. She stopped following the car when it turned into the Hollywood Casino.

Continue reading