Com. v. Hairston, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: 124 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S14007-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANTONIA ASHLEY HAIRSTON : : Appellant : No. 124 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 24, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0006340-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 14, 2025

Appellant, Antonia Ashley Hairston, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on July 24, 2023, in the Montgomery County Court of

Common Pleas following her conviction of Driving Under the Influence and

other summary traffic offenses.1 Appellant purports to challenge the weight

of the evidence supporting her convictions. After careful review, we affirm.

We glean the relevant factual and procedural history from the trial court

opinion. At approximately midnight on July 30, 2020, Appellant missed a turn

and drove onto a railroad track, causing her vehicle to become stuck. She

exited the vehicle and a short time later, a freight train came around the bend

and struck her vehicle. Lower Merion Township Police Officers Angelo Bove

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S. 3802(a)(1); 1543(a); 3714(a); and 1786(f), respectively. J-S14007-25

and Corwin Wasson arrived shortly after the collision and encountered

Appellant, who was “unsteady on her feet, smell[ed] strongly of alcohol, [had]

red, glassy eyes, [and was] giggling and behaving incongruously with the

gravity of the situation.” Trial Ct. Op., 12/13/24, at 1.

Police observed in plain view an empty plastic cup, an empty liquor

bottle, an empty malt-liquor bottle, and a full bottle of liquor in the vehicle

and a full bottle of liquor in the trunk. The interior of the vehicle also “smelled

strongly of alcohol.” Id. Appellant told the police officers that she had

consumed two beers earlier in the evening, and that other people had left the

bottles in the car. She explained that she was not familiar with the area and

was attempting to follow her phone’s GPS home from a party when her vehicle

became stuck on the tracks. When asked for identification, Appellant “fumbled

around in the car, brought out a raft of papers, dropping some on the ground,

and invited the officers to look through them. . . .[but] eventually admitted

she didn’t have[] a valid driver’s license, nor [] proof of insurance.” Id. at 2.

Appellant failed standard field sobriety tests. Accordingly, the officers

arrested her for DUI.

Following several delays, Appellant proceeded to a bench trial on July

24, 2023. Officers Bove and Wasson, as well as the train conductor and

engineer, testified consistently with the above facts. Appellant testified, inter

alia, that she had had only one beer that night.

-2- J-S14007-25

The court found Appellant guilty of the above charges. It sentenced her

to 72 hours to 6 months of incarceration, with credit for time served, for the

DUI conviction, with no further penalty for the remaining convictions.

On August 3, 2023, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion asserting

that “[t]he verdict rendered was against the weight of the evidence because

Petitioner’s consumption of alcohol was not a casual [sic] factor to the incident

in question.” Post-Sentence Motion, 8/3/23, at ¶ 2. The motion was denied

by operation of law on December 7, 2023.

Appellant timely appealed. Although she filed an untimely Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) Statement, the court issued a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence where the Commonwealth failed to prove that [] Appellant operated the vehicle under the influence.

Appellant’s Br. at 4.

Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claim, we must determine

whether she has preserved it for our review. It is well-settled that a Rule

1925(b) statement must “concisely identify each error that the appellant

intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the

judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii); see also Commonwealth v. Juray, 275

A.3d 1037, 1048 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating that “to preserve a challenge to

either the sufficiency or weight of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule

1925(b) concise statement must state with specificity the elements or verdicts

-3- J-S14007-25

for which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient or against

the weight of the evidence.”). It is axiomatic that “[i]ssues not included in

the Statement. . . are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

In her Rule 1925(b) statement, the only claim Appellant raised was that

“[t]he verdict was against the weight of the evidence because

[Appellant’s]consumption of alcohol was not a cause factor to the incident.”

Motion for Leave to File Concise Statement of Errors Nunc Pro Tunc, 3/19/24,

at ¶ 21. In her brief, however, the only claim Appellant raises is “[w]hether

the verdict was against the weight of the evidence where the Commonwealth

failed to prove that [she] operated the vehicle under the influence.”

Appellant’s Br. at 4. The issue raised in her brief challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence supporting her conviction and was not raised in her Rule 1925(b)

statement. Accordingly, we are constrained to find that Appellant has waived

the only claim she raises on appeal. We, thus, affirm her judgment of

sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 5/14/2025

-4-