J-S13044-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : DENNIS LOUIS MAZZAGETTI : : Appellant : No. 1110 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 21, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0003789-2020
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: May 30, 2024
Dennis Louis Mazzagetti appeals from the judgment of sentence of six
months’ probation and $1,500 in fines, after the trial court convicted him of
driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and a related offense.1
Mazzagetti contends there was legally insufficient evidence to prove that he
was incapable of safely driving to convict him of DUI. We disagree and affirm.
In 2020, Mazzagetti was working in the kitchen of Twin Lakes Nursing
Home, which was an eight minute drive from his house. While at work, around
11:00 a.m., on May 22, 2020, Mazzagetti’s manager contacted the V.P. of
Human Resources, Eric Huttenlocher, who had training to identify the
indicators of intoxication. Mr. Huttenlocher met with Mazzagetti in a
conference room near the kitchen. Mazzagetti “was slurring his speech, . . .
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1543(b)(1)(i) and 3802(a)(1). J-S13044-24
making odd commentary regarding government conspiracy, and appeared to
be under the influence of some substance.” N.T., 8/21/23, at 5.
Suspecting that Mazzagetti was intoxicated at work, Mr. Huttenlocher
offered Mazzagetti the chance to take a urinalysis to prove that he was sober.
Mazzagetti refused. Mr. Huttenlocher told him that, if he refused urinalysis,
the nursing home would fire him. He still refused, and Mr. Huttenlocher began
escorting Mazzagetti from the building. As they walked, Mazzagetti’s “gait
was broken; his stability was off.” Id. at 6.
Mr. Huttenlocher then offered to call someone to drive Mazzagetti home.
Mazzagetti declined the offer, and Mr. Huttenlocher told him, “if he insisted on
driving, we would call the state police . . . .” Id. at 7. Mazzagetti ignored this
warning, got in his blue van, and drove away. Mr. Huttenlocher called the
police.
An hour later, the state police located Mazzagetti’s van in the driveway
of his home; the vehicle was still running. When two troopers approached the
van, they saw Mazzagetti slumped over the steering wheel, fast asleep. They
knocked on the window. He awoke dazed; disheveled; smelling of alcohol;
slurring his speech; and having bloodshot, glassy eyes. In Mazzagetti’s lap,
he cradled a half-consumed bottle of Tequilla.
The troopers asked him to exit the vehicle. Mazzagetti fell from the
driver’s seat, and the troopers had to catch Mazzagetti and help him to stand.
When the troopers asked if he had driven from the nursing home, Mazzagetti
lied to them. Next, Mazzagetti failed a field sobriety test, and the troopers
-2- J-S13044-24
arrested him. At the state police barracks, Mazzagetti refused blood testing
and a breathalyzer test, despite a trooper reading the DL-26 warnings to him.
The case proceeded to a bench trial. The court convicted and sentenced
Mazzagetti as described above. This timely appeal followed.
Mazzagetti raises one issue: “Whether the Commonwealth produced
sufficient evidence that [he] was incapable of safe driving, [because] the only
evidence of [Mazzagetti] being in a state that he could not safely operate his
[van] was gathered when he was safely parked at his private residence?”
Mazzagetti’s Brief at 2.
As Mazzagetti’s statement of the issue indicates, his argument rests
upon the false premise that the Commonwealth only presented evidence that
he was incapable of safely driving after he parked his van in his driveway and
passed out behind the wheel. Mazzagetti bases his claim on Mr. Huttenlocher’s
failure to testify directly that Mazzagetti “could not safely control his vehicle
or [that he] committed any traffic violations” as he left the nursing home. Id.
at 10-11. That testimonial gap is inconsequential to the legal sufficiency of
the evidence; it goes to the weight of Mr. Huttenlocher’s testimony.
When “reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine whether
the evidence presented and admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
the verdict winner, support the [conviction] beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137, 150–51 (Pa. 2013). This issue
-3- J-S13044-24
presents “a question of law; our standard of review is de novo, and our scope
of review is plenary.” Id. at 151.
The Pennsylvania legislature has commanded that an individual shall not
“operate . . . a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that
the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving . . . the vehicle” upon a
highway of the Commonwealth. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1).
Admittedly, Mr. Huttenlocher did not directly testify that, in his opinion,
Mazzagetti was incapable of safely driving due to intoxication. Nevertheless,
the “Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the
crime by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v.
Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 306 (Pa. Super. 2017). As explained below, the
record reflects, through wholly circumstantial evidence, that Mr. Huttenlocher
held such an opinion after he observed Mazzagetti’s appearance and actions
on the morning of May 22, 2020.
First, based on his observations of Mazzagetti, Mr. Huttenlocher required
him to take a urinalysis if Mazzagetti wished to retain his employment at the
nursing home. When Mazzagetti refused to take the test, Mr. Huttenlocher
ordered him off the premise and terminated him soon thereafter.
Second, and even more tellingly, Mr. Huttenlocher offered to find
Mazzagetti a ride home and warned Mazzagetti that, if he drove himself, Mr.
Huttenlocher would call the police. This was clear circumstantial evidence that
Mr. Huttenlocher was of the opinion that Mazzagetti was incapable of safely
driving himself home. Otherwise, there was no rational basis for Mr.
-4- J-S13044-24
Huttenlocher to make such an offer to an employee that he believed was too
intoxicated to work that morning. Mazzagetti declined the offer of a ride and
immediately drove his van on the highways of the Commonwealth to reach
his home.
Therefore, there was circumstantial evidence from which the trial court
reasonably concluded that Mazzagetti was incapable of safely driving when he
left the nursing home in his van and drove home. Indeed, as the learned
Judge Timothy Krieger opined from the bench at the conclusion of Mazzagetti’s
trial:
it’s worth putting [this case] in the context - - this was May of 2020. We all remember the misery of May of 2020 [at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic], particularly in facilities like where Mazzagetti was working . . . they were desperate for employees . . .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S13044-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : DENNIS LOUIS MAZZAGETTI : : Appellant : No. 1110 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 21, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0003789-2020
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: May 30, 2024
Dennis Louis Mazzagetti appeals from the judgment of sentence of six
months’ probation and $1,500 in fines, after the trial court convicted him of
driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and a related offense.1
Mazzagetti contends there was legally insufficient evidence to prove that he
was incapable of safely driving to convict him of DUI. We disagree and affirm.
In 2020, Mazzagetti was working in the kitchen of Twin Lakes Nursing
Home, which was an eight minute drive from his house. While at work, around
11:00 a.m., on May 22, 2020, Mazzagetti’s manager contacted the V.P. of
Human Resources, Eric Huttenlocher, who had training to identify the
indicators of intoxication. Mr. Huttenlocher met with Mazzagetti in a
conference room near the kitchen. Mazzagetti “was slurring his speech, . . .
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1543(b)(1)(i) and 3802(a)(1). J-S13044-24
making odd commentary regarding government conspiracy, and appeared to
be under the influence of some substance.” N.T., 8/21/23, at 5.
Suspecting that Mazzagetti was intoxicated at work, Mr. Huttenlocher
offered Mazzagetti the chance to take a urinalysis to prove that he was sober.
Mazzagetti refused. Mr. Huttenlocher told him that, if he refused urinalysis,
the nursing home would fire him. He still refused, and Mr. Huttenlocher began
escorting Mazzagetti from the building. As they walked, Mazzagetti’s “gait
was broken; his stability was off.” Id. at 6.
Mr. Huttenlocher then offered to call someone to drive Mazzagetti home.
Mazzagetti declined the offer, and Mr. Huttenlocher told him, “if he insisted on
driving, we would call the state police . . . .” Id. at 7. Mazzagetti ignored this
warning, got in his blue van, and drove away. Mr. Huttenlocher called the
police.
An hour later, the state police located Mazzagetti’s van in the driveway
of his home; the vehicle was still running. When two troopers approached the
van, they saw Mazzagetti slumped over the steering wheel, fast asleep. They
knocked on the window. He awoke dazed; disheveled; smelling of alcohol;
slurring his speech; and having bloodshot, glassy eyes. In Mazzagetti’s lap,
he cradled a half-consumed bottle of Tequilla.
The troopers asked him to exit the vehicle. Mazzagetti fell from the
driver’s seat, and the troopers had to catch Mazzagetti and help him to stand.
When the troopers asked if he had driven from the nursing home, Mazzagetti
lied to them. Next, Mazzagetti failed a field sobriety test, and the troopers
-2- J-S13044-24
arrested him. At the state police barracks, Mazzagetti refused blood testing
and a breathalyzer test, despite a trooper reading the DL-26 warnings to him.
The case proceeded to a bench trial. The court convicted and sentenced
Mazzagetti as described above. This timely appeal followed.
Mazzagetti raises one issue: “Whether the Commonwealth produced
sufficient evidence that [he] was incapable of safe driving, [because] the only
evidence of [Mazzagetti] being in a state that he could not safely operate his
[van] was gathered when he was safely parked at his private residence?”
Mazzagetti’s Brief at 2.
As Mazzagetti’s statement of the issue indicates, his argument rests
upon the false premise that the Commonwealth only presented evidence that
he was incapable of safely driving after he parked his van in his driveway and
passed out behind the wheel. Mazzagetti bases his claim on Mr. Huttenlocher’s
failure to testify directly that Mazzagetti “could not safely control his vehicle
or [that he] committed any traffic violations” as he left the nursing home. Id.
at 10-11. That testimonial gap is inconsequential to the legal sufficiency of
the evidence; it goes to the weight of Mr. Huttenlocher’s testimony.
When “reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine whether
the evidence presented and admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
the verdict winner, support the [conviction] beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137, 150–51 (Pa. 2013). This issue
-3- J-S13044-24
presents “a question of law; our standard of review is de novo, and our scope
of review is plenary.” Id. at 151.
The Pennsylvania legislature has commanded that an individual shall not
“operate . . . a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that
the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving . . . the vehicle” upon a
highway of the Commonwealth. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1).
Admittedly, Mr. Huttenlocher did not directly testify that, in his opinion,
Mazzagetti was incapable of safely driving due to intoxication. Nevertheless,
the “Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the
crime by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v.
Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 306 (Pa. Super. 2017). As explained below, the
record reflects, through wholly circumstantial evidence, that Mr. Huttenlocher
held such an opinion after he observed Mazzagetti’s appearance and actions
on the morning of May 22, 2020.
First, based on his observations of Mazzagetti, Mr. Huttenlocher required
him to take a urinalysis if Mazzagetti wished to retain his employment at the
nursing home. When Mazzagetti refused to take the test, Mr. Huttenlocher
ordered him off the premise and terminated him soon thereafter.
Second, and even more tellingly, Mr. Huttenlocher offered to find
Mazzagetti a ride home and warned Mazzagetti that, if he drove himself, Mr.
Huttenlocher would call the police. This was clear circumstantial evidence that
Mr. Huttenlocher was of the opinion that Mazzagetti was incapable of safely
driving himself home. Otherwise, there was no rational basis for Mr.
-4- J-S13044-24
Huttenlocher to make such an offer to an employee that he believed was too
intoxicated to work that morning. Mazzagetti declined the offer of a ride and
immediately drove his van on the highways of the Commonwealth to reach
his home.
Therefore, there was circumstantial evidence from which the trial court
reasonably concluded that Mazzagetti was incapable of safely driving when he
left the nursing home in his van and drove home. Indeed, as the learned
Judge Timothy Krieger opined from the bench at the conclusion of Mazzagetti’s
trial:
it’s worth putting [this case] in the context - - this was May of 2020. We all remember the misery of May of 2020 [at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic], particularly in facilities like where Mazzagetti was working . . . they were desperate for employees . . . [I]t’s difficult for the [trial] court to believe that this facility would do anything to lose an employee. And . . . Mr. Huttenlocher . . . was credible. So, we have testimony the [trial] court can believe that Mazzagetti was at work that day and, at least [to] Mr. Huttenlocher, appeared to be intoxicated, and he was willing to say, “Submit to this test, or you’re terminated.” [Mr. Huttenlocher] also . . . saw Mazzagetti get in the vehicle and drive off.
We have testimony from two troopers that found, 40 minutes to an hour . . . later, that Mazzagetti was in his vehicle with . . . a half-drank bottle of Tequilla or alcohol . . . and that his speech was slurred.
[A]t both ends of this incident, we have [slurred] speech and stumbling, and we have indicia of alcohol consumption that convinces [the trial] court that there was significant impairment at both ends. It’s hard to come to any other conclusion, except that [Mazzagetti] was intoxicated while he drove his vehicle. It’s clear he drove the vehicle . . . from his place of employment to his residence.
-5- J-S13044-24
Based on that testimony . . . it’s clear that [Mazzagetti] was impaired, and he was impaired to the point where he was unable to drive safely.
N.T., 8/21/23, at 56-57.
We agree with the above, well-reasoned analysis of the trial court and
adopt it as our own. The Commonwealth offered sufficient evidence to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Mazzagetti was intoxicated to a degree that
rendered him incapable of safely driving when he departed the nursing home.
Hence, we agree with the trial court; the evidence sufficiently proved that
Mazzagetti violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) as he drove from the nursing
home.
Accordingly, we dismiss Mazzagetti’s claim of error as meritless.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
DATE: 05/30/2024
-6-