Com. v. Morton, L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 15, 2026
• Docket: 625 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Lazarus

Opinion

J-S40008-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LAMAR MORTON : : Appellant : No. 625 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 22, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0001036-2024

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: JANUARY 15, 2026

Lamar Morton appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, following his convictions of one

count each of driving under the influence (DUI)—controlled substance,1

careless driving,2 driving unregistered vehicle,3 driving while operator

privilege suspended or revoked,4 driving without a license,5 and failure to use

safety belt.6 After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the well-written

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2).

2 Id. at § 3714(a).

3 Id. at § 1301(a).

4 Id. at § 1543(a).

5 Id. at § 1501(a).

6 Id. at § 4581(a)(2)(ii). J-S40008-25

opinion authored by the Honorable Eric R. Linhardt. See Trial Court Opinion,

6/5/25, at 1-16.

We adopt the trial court’s factual summary set forth in its opinion, see

id. at 3-7, but provide a truncated version here. On March 18, 2024, at 3:47

a.m., Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Troopers Nicklas D. Coulston and

Matthew Patrick executed a vehicle stop on Morton’s vehicle at the intersection

of Walnut and Grace Streets in the City of Williamsport, Lycoming County.

Trooper Coulston spoke with Morton and observed that his eyes were glassy,

bloodshot, and dilated, and he detected an odor of burnt marijuana coming

from Morton’s breath. Morton did not have a driver’s license, his operating

privileges had been suspended, he was not wearing a seatbelt, his vehicle was

unregistered, and he did not have a medical marijuana card. As a result of

his observations, Trooper Coulston asked Morton if he had smoked marijuana

that night and Morton responded that he had smoked marijuana in the last

two hours. Trooper Coulston then performed Standardized Field Sobriety

Tests (SFSTs), Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE)

tests, and a modified Romberg test.

Trooper Coulston administered the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand

SFSTs,7 as well as ARIDE testing. During the walk-and-turn, Morton was

unable to maintain the starting position, started the test too soon, stopped ____________________________________________

7 We note that Trooper Coulston also performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) SFST, but the trial court did not rely on the HGN as evidence of impairment and, thus, we do not reference it further. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/5/25, at 6 n.31.

-2- J-S40008-25

walking during the test, raised his arms, missed the heel-to-toe movement,

stepped off the line, and made an improper turn. During the one-leg-stand

SFST, Morton swayed, put his foot down, and used his arms to balance.

During the ARIDE test, where a pen was circled around Morton’s head and

Morton was instructed to follow it with his eyes, Morton’s eyes did not

converge. Trooper Coulston also administered the modified Romberg test,

where Morton was directed to tilt his head back and close his eyes, count to

thirty and, when he believes thirty seconds have elapsed, to tilt his head

forward and say “stop.” During the modified Romberg, Morton exhibited

eyelid tremors, opened his eyes during the test, and took forty-eight seconds

to say “stop.” All of these clues exhibited that Morton was under the influence

of a controlled substance.

As a result of Morton’s performance on the SFSTs, ARIDE, and modified

Romberg, he was transported to UPMC Williamsport Hospital for a blood draw.

Trooper Coulston read Morton the DL-26B form, and Morton refused the blood

draw. Morton was released from custody and sent home.

On August 2, 2024, the Commonwealth charged Morton, via Criminal

Information, with the above-mentioned offenses. On January 27, 2025, the

trial court conducted a non-jury trial, after which it found Morton guilty of all

charges. The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report and

deferred sentencing. On April 22, 2025, the trial court sentenced Morton to

an aggregate sentence of two to six weeks’ imprisonment in the county jail,

-3- J-S40008-25

and fines totaling $1,610.00.8 Morton did not file a post-sentence motion.

Morton filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.9

Morton now raises the following claim for our review: “Was [the]

evidence sufficient to convict [Morton of DUI—controlled substance]?” Brief

for Appellant, at 8.

Morton challenges his DUI—controlled substance conviction and

contends that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that he ____________________________________________

8 The trial court imposed Morton’s term of imprisonment on his conviction of

DUI—controlled substance. The trial court imposed the fines as follows: $100.00 Act 198 Fee and a $1,000.00 fine for Morton’s conviction of DUI— controlled substance; $25.00 fine for Morton’s conviction of careless driving; $75.00 fine for Morton’s conviction of driving unregistered vehicle; $200.00 fine for Morton’s conviction of driving while operating privileges suspended or revoked; $200.00 for Morton’s conviction of driving without a license; and $10.00 fine for Morton’s conviction of failure to use safety belt.

9 On September 24, 2025, this Court remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether Morton’s appellate counsel had abandoned him for failure to file the appropriate number of brief copies. See Remand Jurisdiction Retained Order, 9/24/25, at 1-2; see also Order, 418 Judicial Administration Docket, at II(I) (Pa. 2014) (per curiam) (“Within seven days of the submission of any electronic filing, the electronic filer shall submit to the court a paper version of the electronic filing with as many copies as the court requires.”).

On September 30, 2025, the trial court issued an order and opinion finding that Morton’s appellate counsel had not abandoned him, but that the Lycoming County Public Defender’s office was experiencing technical issues with PACfile. See Order and Opinion, 9/30/25, at 2-3. The trial court found that appellate counsel had not received notices from this Court requiring hard copies of Morton’s brief. See id. Additionally, appellate counsel, on October 1, 2025, filed an application to reinstate Morton’s appeal and submitted the requisite number of paper copies. See Application, 10/1/25. On October 14, 2025, this Court granted appellate counsel’s application and reinstated Morton’s appeal. See Order, 10/14/25. This case is now properly before us.

-4- J-S40008-25

was impaired. See Brief for Appellant, at 13-21. Morton argues that the

Commonwealth failed to show he was unable to operate his vehicle safely

where Trooper Coulson only testified to the outcome of the SFSTs but had

observed no driving infractions. See id. at 14-19. Morton posits that merely

failing SFSTs with no evidence of unsafe driving cannot satisfy the elements

of DUI—controlled substance. See id. Morton further asserts that the

Commonwealth failed to present any expert testimony regarding “how long

the effects of marijuana last or if it was plausible [Morton] would be under the

influence at the time of the stop.” Id. at 19. Additionally, Morton posits that

his blood draw refusal can only be considered as a “consciousness of guilt,”

not a “presumption of guilt.” Id. at 19-21. Morton acknowledges that he was

operating the vehicle. See id. at 13.

We adhere to the following standard of review:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether[,] viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test, we may not [re- ]weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact- finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that[,] as a matter of law[,] no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated[,] and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the [trier] of fact[,] while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the

-5- J-S40008-25

evidence produced, is free to believe all, part[,] or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 790 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted).

The Vehicle Code defines DUI—controlled substance as follows:

§ 3802. Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance.

***

(d) Controlled substances.--An individual may not drive, operate[,] or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances:

(2) The individual is under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual’s ability to safely drive, operate[,] or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2).

Expert testimony is not mandatory in every prosecution to establish that

a defendant’s inability to drive safely was caused by the ingestion of a

controlled substance. Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231, 1238-39

(Pa. 2011). The need for expert testimony in a subsection 3802(d)(2)

prosecution must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account

not just the specific drug at issue, prescription or otherwise, but also the

nature and overall strength of the Commonwealth’s evidence. See id. at

1239.

-6- J-S40008-25

“In any . . . criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with

a [DUI] . . ., the fact that the defendant refused to submit to chemical testing

. . . may be introduced in evidence along with other testimony concerning the

circumstances of the refusal.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(e). “While no presumption

of guilt automatically arises from the refusal, the [fact finder] may consider

the refusal along with other factors concerning the charge.” Commonwealth

v. Caraballo, 325 A.3d 1025, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citation and quotation

marks omitted). To permit otherwise would allow a person to “use drugs,

drive under the influence of those drugs, and avoid prosecution entirely simply

by refusing a blood test. We refuse to countenance this absurd result.” Id.

(citing Commonwealth v. DiPanfilo, 993 A.2d 1262, 1268 (Pa. Super.

2010)).

Instantly, as set forth by the trial court, the Commonwealth presented

sufficient evidence to demonstrate Morton’s impairment. See Trial Court

Opinion, 6/5/25, at 8-10.10 Indeed, the Commonwealth presented Trooper

Coulston’s observations including, but not limited to: the odor of burnt

marijuana coming from Morton, failed SFSTs, failed ARIDE, failed modified

Romberg, Morton’s statements that he used marijuana one to two hours prior

to driving, and his refusal to submit to a blood draw. See id. These factors,

when considered together, reflect that the Commonwealth presented ____________________________________________

10 The trial court also addressed the weight and sufficiency of Morton’s other

five convictions, but he has not raised those claims on appeal. See id. at 10- 16.

-7- J-S40008-25

sufficient evidence that Morton was incapable of safe driving. See id.; see

also Caraballo, supra; Smith, supra. Further, as conceded by Morton, he

was the operator and sole occupant of the vehicle. See id.; see also Brief

for Appellant, at 13.

Mindful of the record, the applicable standard of review, the relevant

case law, and Morton’s brief,11 we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s

thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/5/25, at 1-

16. Consequently, we afford Morton no relief. The parties are directed to

attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/15/2026

11 The Commonwealth did not file a brief on appeal.

-8- Circulated 12/23/2025 C1n:ull!lted 1U:56 AM 12/23/20�56•

IN THE IN COURT OF THE COURT OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH, COMMONWEALTH, : No. No. CR 1036-2024 CR 1036-2024 0_ vs. e- • � ci LAMAR LAMAR MORTON, MORTON, : OPINION OPINION PURSUANT PURSUANT TOj T0 Defendant. Defendant

OPINION Pa. R.A.P. TO Pa. PURSUANT TO : PA. PA. RAP.

1925la) > RA.P, 1925(a)2 1925(3)^ RULE 1925(a) R.A.P. RULE o.0 c- u. c,

AND AND NOW, NOW, this this 5 5" th day OPINION PURSUANT

day of of June, 2025, the June, 2025, Court issues the Court issues this this Opinion Opinion pursuant pursuant /

- to to Rule Rule 1925(a), 1925(a), Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rules Rules of of Appellate Appellate Procedure. Procedure.'1 On On May 9, 2025, May 9, 2025,

Defendant Lamar Defendant Lamar Morton Morton filed filed his Notice of his Notice of Appeal Appea2to to the Superior Court the Superior Court from from this this

Court’s Court's Sentencing Sentencing Order Order dated dated and entered April and entered April 22, 22, 2025 2025°3 and and the the Verdict of Guilt Verdict of Guilt

dated dated January January 27 27 and and entered January 29, entered January 29, 2025. 2025. 4 On On May 12, 2025, May 12, 2025, the the Court Court

issued an Order issued an Order pursuant pursuant to Rule 1925(b), to Rule 1925(b),°5 and and Defendant Defendant filed filed his his Concise Concise

Statement of Statement Matters Complained of Matters Complained of on Appeal of on on May Appeal on May 28, 28, 2025® 2025.° In In his his Concise Concise

Statement, he Statement, he raises raises the the following following issues issues for for appeal: appeal'7

a. a Appellant Appellant avers avers that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth did not provide did not sufficient provide sufficient evidence at evidence at trial trial to prove him to prove him guilty guilty beyond beyond aa reasonable reasonable doubt, doubt, I whether whether based based on on his his driving, driving, based based on signs of on signs of impairment impairment after after the the stop, or based stop, or based on on his his refusal refusal to to submit submit to to aa blood draw. blood draw 1! b. The b. Commonwealth failed The Commonwealth failed to prove that to prove that the the Appellant Appellant was under was under 1 the the influence of aa drug, influence of drug, furthermore, furthermore, to a degree to a degree which which would would impair impair

Pa. R.A.P. 1 Pa RAP. 1925(a) 1925(a) (“[U]pon receipt of ([Upon receipt notice of the notice of the of appeal, appeal, thethe judge judge who entered the who entered order giving the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, rise to the notice of appeal, if if the the reasons reasons for for the the order order do do not not already already appear appear of of record, record, shall ... file shall •. of file of record record atat least least aa brief opinion of brief opinion of the the reasons reasons for for the order....”). the order..) 2 Defendant’s Notice Defendant's “Notice ofof Appeal,” Appeal, filed May 9, fled May 9, 2025 2025. ' Sentencing 3 Sentencing Order,Order, dated dated and entered April and entered Apr 22, 2025. 22, 2025 •4Verdict Verdict ofof Guilt, Guilt, dated dated January January 27 27 and and entered entered January January 29, 29, 2025. 2025 5 Order Pursuant ' Order Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), dated and 1925(b), dated and entered entered May May 12,12, 2025. 2025. See See also also Pa. Pa. RAP. R.A.P 1925(b)(1) 1925(b(1) (If (“If the the judge entering the judge entering the order giving rise order giving rise to to the notice of the notice of appeal appeal ... desires clarification . . desires clarification ofot the errors complained the errors complained of of on on appeal, appeal, the the judge judge may may enter enter an an order order directing directing the the appellant appellant to to file file of of record ... aa concise record statement of concise statement of the the errors complained of errors complained of on on appeal appeal....”).") 6 Defendant’s Defendant's “Concise Concise Statement Statement of of Matters Matters Complained Complained of of on on Appeal Appeal Pursuant to Pursuant Rule 1925(B) to Rule 1925(8) Order,” filed Order filed May May 28, 2025. 28,2025. Defendant’s Defendant's Concise Concise Statement Statement was was filed filed within within 21 21 days days after after entry of entry of this this Court’s Court's Rule Rule 1925(b) 1925(b) Order, Order, and, and, thus, thus, itit was was filed filed timely. timely. Pa. Pa. R.A.P. RA.P. 1925(b)(2)(i). 1925(b)(2)0) Pa. RAP. 7Pa. R.A.P. 1 925(b)(4)(vii) ("Issues 1925(b)(4)¥vii) (“Issues not not included included in in the the [appellants' [appellants’ Concise] Concise] Statement Statement [of [of Matters Matters Complained of Complained on Appeal] of on Appeal]..... areare waived.”). waived.) his ability to his ability to safely drive, operate, safely drive, or be operate, or be in actual physical in actual physical control control of of the movement of the movement of aa vehicle. vehicle°8

These These amount to challenges amount to to the challenges to the sufficiency and weight sufficiency and weight of the evidence of the evidence

adduced by adduced by the Commonwealth to the Commonwealth to convict convict the the Defendant. For the Defendant. For the reasons reasons

explained below, explained the Court below, the Court believes believes that the Commonwealth that the presented sufficient Commonwealth presented sufficient

evidence to evidence to convict the Plaintiff convict the Plaintiff of of the crimes with the crimes with which he was which he charged and was charged and that that

the Court properly the Court properly found found that that the weight of the weight of the the evidence supports its evidence supports its verdict verdict of of

GUILTY. GUILTY.

I.I. BACKGROUND. BACKGROUND.

By By Information Information filed August 2, filed August 2, 2024, 2024,°9the Commonwealth charged the Commonwealth charged the the

Defendant Defendant with with DUI DUI controlled controlled substance—impaired -impaired ability—1 substance offense (Count ability-1stoffense (Count 1), 1),°10

Careless Driving (Count Careless Driving 2), 11 driving (Count 2)," driving an unregistered vehicle an unregistered vehicle (Count (Count 3),' 3), 12 driving driving

while while operating privileges suspended operating privileges suspended or or revoked revoked (Count 4), 13 driving (Count 4),'> driving without without aa

license license (Count (Count 5), 5),"14 and and failure to use failure to use safety safety belt—driver and front belt-driver and front seat occupant seat occupant

8 Defendant’s Concise 4 Defendant's Concise Statement. Statement • “Information," 9 Information," filed fled August August 2, 2, 2024. 2024. . 10 75 Pa C S § 3802(d)(2) (“An individual 976Pa.CS.$3802(0)2)(An individual may not drive, may not drive, operate or be operate or be in in actual physical control actual physical control of of the movement of the movement vehicle ... [when] of aa vehicle [when] [t]he [t]he individual individual is under the is under the influence influence of of aa drug drug or or combination combination of 0l drugs drugs to to a a degree degree which which impairs impairs the the individual's individual's ability ability to to safely safely drive, drive, operate operate or or be be in in actual actual physical physical control of control of the the movement movement of of the the vehicle"). vehicle"). This This isis an ungraded misdemeanor. an ungraded misdemeanor, 75 Pa. C.S. S§ 75Pa.C.S. 3803(b)(2) 3803(b)(2) (An (“An individual individual who who.. ... violates violates section section 3802(c) 3802(c) or or (d) (d) and and who who has has no no offenses prior offenses prior commits aa misdemeanor commits misdemeanor for which the for which the individual individual may may be be sentenced sentenced to to aa term term of of imprisonment imprisonment of of not not more than more than six six months months and and to pay aa fine to pay under [75 fine under [75 Pa. C.S.] section Pa. C.S.] section 3804”). 3804) 11 75 Pa. C.S. § 3714 (“Any person 1175pa.CS.$3714(Any person who who drives drives aa vehicle vehicle in careless disregard in careless disregard for for the safety of the safety of persons or property persons or property guilty is is guilty of of careless careless driving, driving, aa summary summary offense"). offense"). This This is is a a summary summary offense. offense. Id. Id 12 75 Pa. C.S. § 1775Pa.CS.$1301(a) (No 1301(a) ("No person person shall shall drive drive or or move move and and no no owner owner or or motor motor carrier carrier shall shall knowingly permit knowingly permit to to be driven or be driven moved upon or moved upon any highway any any highway which is vehicle which any vehicle is not registered in not registered in this this Commonwealth unless Commonwealth unless the the vehicle vehicle is is exempt exempt from registration”). This from registration"). This isis aa summary summary offense.offense. 75 Pa. 75 Pa CSS 1301(d) (“Any person CS$1301(d)(Any violating the person violating the provisions provisions of of subsection subsection (a) (a) is is guilty guitty of of a a summary summary offenseoffense and shall upon upon conviction, conviction, be be sentenced to pay pay aa fine fine of of $75 $75 oror double the registration reg,strabon fee fee, whichever

I', and shall, sentenced to doubte the whichever s greater, is greater, except except whenwhen the vehicle was the vehicle previously registered was previous/y registered in this Commonwealth in this Commonwealth within within 6060 days days of of the commission of the offense whereupon the fine shall be $25"). the commission of the offense whereupon the fine shall be $25) 13 75 Pa. C.S. § 1 13759a.CS.$1643(Except 543 ("Except as as provided provided in in subsection subsection (b), (b), any any person person who who drives drives aa motor motor vehicle vehicle on any on highway any highway or or trafficway tratfioway of of this this Commonwealth Commonwealth after after the the commencement commencement of of a a suspension, suspenson, revocation or revocation or cancellation cancellation of of the operating privilege the operating privilege and before the and before the operating privilege has operating privilege has been been restored is restored is guilty of aa summary guilty of summary offenseoffense and and shall, upon conviction shall, upon conviction or or adjudication adjudication of of delinquency, delinquency, be De sentenced sentenced to to pay pay aa fine fine of of $200”). $200). This This is is a a summary summary offense. offense. Id. d , „ . . . ■ . 14 75 Pa. C.S. § 1501(a) (“No person, 476pa.CS.$1501(a)(No person, except except those those expressly expressly exempted, exempted, shall shad drive drive anyany motor vehicle motor vehicle upon a a highway upon highway or or public public property property in in this this Commonwealth Commonwealth unless unless the the person person has has a a driver's driver's license license 22 (Count 6).% (Count 6). 15 The Court considered The Court considered these these charges charges at at aa bench bench trial trial held on January held on January

27, 27, 2025, 2025,"16 at at which which time time the Court found the Court Defendant GUILTY found Defendant GUILTY of of all all charges. charges.17 On On

April 22, April 22, 2025 2025 the Court sentenced the Court sentenced Defendant to pay Defendant to pay aa $100.00 Act 198 $100.00 Act 198 Fee, to an Fee, to an

indeterminate term indeterminate term of imprisonment of of imprisonment of two (2) to two (2) to six six (6) (6) months in the months in the County Prison County Prison

and to and pay aa $1,000.00 to pay as to fine as $1,000.00 fine Court 1, to Court 1, and and to to pay pay fines fines in in various amounts various amounts

totaling $510.00 totaling as to $510.00 as to Counts Counts 2 2 through through 6. 6.118

The charges The charges arose arose out out of of aa traffic traffic stop stop of of Defendant’s vehicle at Defendant's vehicle at 3:47 347 a.m. on a.m. on

March 18, 2024 March 18, 2024 by by Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State State Police Police (“PSP”) Troopers Nicklas (PSP") Troopers Nicklas D. D. Coulston Coulston

and and Matthew Patrick at Matthew Patrick or near at or near the the intersection intersection of Walnut and of Walnut and Grace Grace Streets in the Streets in the

City City of of Williamsport, Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. 19 Tpr. Tpr. Coulston Coulston was was the the

arresting arresting officer and testified officer and testified for the Commonwealth for the Commonwealth at Defendant’s trial. at Defendant's trial. At At the the time time

of of his his testimony, he had testimony, he had been been stationed stationed at at the Montoursville PSP the Montoursville PSP Barracks Barracks for for

approximately approximately five five years. He was years. He was trained trained to to conduct DU I investigations conduct DUI investigations and and to to

valid under valid under thethe provisions provisions of of this chapter. This this chapter. This is is aa summary summary offense, offense. 75 Pa. C.S. $1501()(A 75Pa. § 1501(d) (“As used in used in this this subsection, subsection, the the term “public property"includes, term public property” includes, but but isis not not limited limited to, driveways and to, driveways and parking parking lots lots owned owned or leased leased by by the the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, a a political political subdivision subdivision or or an an agency agency or Of instrumentality instrumentality of of either. either. Any person violating Any person violating subsection subsection (a) (a) is is guilty guilty ofof aa summary summary offense offense and shall, and shall upon conviction, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay be sentenced pay a a fine fine of of $200, except that, $200, except that, f if the the person charged furnishes person charged furnishes satisfactory proof satisfactory proof of having held of having held aa driver's license valid driver's license valid onon the the last day of last day of the preceding driver's the preceding driver's license period license period and and no no more more than than one one year year has has elapsed elapsed from from the the last last date date for for renewal, renewal, the the fine shall be fine shall be $25”). $25) 4 .... 15 175Pa.CS. § 4581(a)(ii)(A) (Except 75 Pa. C.S. 5$4581(a)i)(A) ("Except for for children children underunder 18 18 years years of of age age and and except except as as provided provided in in paragraphs paragraphs (1) (1) and and (1.1) (1.1) and and subparagraph subparagraph (i) (i) ... [e]ach [elach driver driver and and front front seat seat occupant occupant of of aa passenger passenger car, car, Class Class II truck, truck, Class Class IIll truck, classic motor vehicle, truck, classic vehicle, antique motor vehicle antique motor vehicle or or motor motor home operated in home operated in this this Commonwealth Commonwealth shall wear a shall wear a properly properly adjusted adjusted and and fastened fastened safetysafety seat belt seat belt system”). This is a system"). This is a summary summary offense. offense. 75 Pa. 75Pa.C.S. C.S. § S 4581(b) 4581(b) (“Anyone (Anyone who who violates violates subsection subsection (a)(2) (a)(2) or (3) commits or (3) commits summarya a summary offense offense and and shall, shal, upon upon conviction, conviction, be be sentenced sentenced to to pay pay a a fine fine of of $10 $10. No No person person shall shall be be convicted convicted of of a a violation violation of of subsection subsection (a)(2)(ii) (a)(2(ii) unless unless the the person person is is also also convicted convicted of of another another violation violation ofof this title which this title which occurred occurred at at the same time") the same time”). o Transcript 16 Transcript of of proceedings proceedings held held onon January January 27, 2025 (the 27, 2025 “Transcript ), filed (the Transcript), fled May May 16, 2025. 16, 2025 n Verdict 17 Verdict and Order, entered and Order, entered January January 27, 2025. 27, 2025 * w Sentencing Order, w Sentencing entered April Order, entered 22, 2025 Aprt 22, (sentencing Defendant 2025 (sentencing Defendant to pay aa $100.00 to pay $100.00 Act Act 198 198 Fee, to Fee, to a term of imprisonment a term of imprisonment of of 2-6 2-6 months months and and to to pay pay aa $1,000.00 $1,00.0 fine fine as as to Count Count 1 1, to to pay pay a a fine fine of of $25.00 as $25.00 as to to Count Count 2, 2, $75.00 $75.00 as to Count as to Count 3, 3, $200.00 $200.00 as as toto Count Count 4, $200.00 as 4, $200.00 as to Count 5, to Count 5, and and $10.00 $10.00 as as to to Count Count 6).6) Transcript, at 19Transcript, at 5-13. 5-13 33 administer Standardized administer Field Sobriety Standardized Field Tests (SF9T) Sobriety Tests (“SFST’) 20 at at the PSP Academy. he PSP Academy. As of As of

he time the time of trial, he of trial, he estimated estimated that that he he had been involved had been involved in in approximately approximately 130 130 DUI DUE

investigations, approximately investigations, approximately 75 of which 75 of which had had occurred occurred as as of the time of the time of Defendants of Defendant's

arrest. Some arrest. of the Some of investigations involved the investigations involved drivers drivers allegedly allegedly under under the the influence of influence of

alcohol, alcohol, and and some some involved involved controlled substances. He controlled substances. also administered He also field administered field

sobriety or ARI sobriety or DE 21 tests ARIDE tests or or procured procured blood tests in blood tests connection with in connection with some of the some of the

investigations. investigations. 22

While the While Defendant’s vehicle the Defendant's was stopped vehicle was stopped at at a a stop sign at stop sign at the the intersection intersection

of Walnut of Walnut and and Grace Grace Streets, Tpr. Coulston Streets, Tpr. Coulston checked the vehicle's checked the vehicle’s registration and registration and

determined that determined that it it was expired and was expired and had been expired had been expired since since May, May, 2023. 2023. Accordingly, Accordingly,

Tprs. Coulston Tprs. and Patrick, Coulston and Patrick, who were operating who were a marked operating a marked PSP PSP vehicle, vehicle, initiated a initiated a

traffic stop traffic stop of of Defendant’s vehicle. 23 Tpr. Defendant's vehicle.33 Tpr. Coulston Coulston approached approached the Defendant’s the Defendant's

vehicle and vehicle identified Defendant and identified Defendant as as the vehicle operator the vehicle operator by means of by means of Defendant Defendant's

state issued PA state issued PA ID ID card. It later card. It later emerged emerged that that Defendant Defendant did did not not have have a a driver’s driver's

llicense, icense, his operating privileges his operating privileges having been suspended, having been suspended, effective effective April April 25, 25, 2024 2024 and and

not reinstated not reinstated as as of of May 18, 2024, May 18, 2024, for for aa chemical chemical test test refusal pursuant to refusal pursuant to Section Section

20 20SFSTs are aabattery SFSTs are battery of tests used of tests used to determine determine whether whether an to an individual is under individual is the influence under the influence of of alcohol or alcohol or other other drugs. drugs . ? ARIDE 21 ARIDE (“Advanced (Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement”) Enforcement") tests involve screening tests involve screening for the for the observable effects observable effects of drug impairment of drug impairment. 22 Transcript, Transcript, at at 5-7. 5-7. . 23 21d, at 9-12. A Id at9-12. A police officer has police officer has the the authority authority to stop aa vehicle to stop vehicle upon upon reasonable suspicion that reasonable suspicion that aa violation of violation of the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Vehicle Vehicle Code Code is is occurring occurring or or has occurred. 75 has occurred. Pa. C.S. 75 Pa. C.S. §$ 6308(b) 6308(b0) (“Whenever aa police (Whenever officer .... has police officer has reasonable reasonable suspicion suspicion that that aa violation violation ofof this this title title is occurring or is occurring or has has occurred, he occurred, he may stop aa vehicle, may stop vehicle, upon upon request request or or signal, signal, for for the purpose of the purpose of checking checking the vehicle the vehicle's registration proof of registration, proof of financial responsibility, vehicle financial responsibility, identification number vehicle identification number or or engine engine number number or the or the driver’s license, driver's license, or or to to secure secure such such other other information information as as the the officer officer may may reasonably reasonably believe believe to to be De necessary to necessary enforce the to enforce provisions of the provisions of this this title”). title"), AnAn officer may always officer may stop aa vehicle always stop vehicle uponupon probable probable cause; cause, however, reasonable suspicion however, reasonable suspicion will justify aa stop will justify under certain stop under certain circumstances. circumstances. Com. Com. v. v Salter, Salter, 121 121 A 3d 987, A.3d 992-93 (Pa. 987, 992.93 (Pa. Super, Super. 2015)(citing 2015) (citing Com. Com. v.v. Feczko, Feczko, 10 10 A.3d A3 1285,1285, 1290-91 1290.91 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2010) (en baric)). 2010) (en banc)). Here, Here, Tprs. Tprs. Coulston Coulston and and Patrick Patrick hadhad probable cause to probable cause to stop stop the the Defendants Defendant's vehicle, vehicle, asas they they had had determined determined that his registration that his registration had had been been expired for almost expired for almost aa year. year 4 4 1547 of 1547 he Vehicle of the Code 24 on Vehicle Code? on January January 5, 2024. 25 In 5, 2024.° In addition addition to to driving an driving an

unregistered unregistered vehicle vehicle while his operating while his operating privileges privileges were were suspended, suspended, Defendant, Defendant, who who

was the operator was the operator of the vehicle, of the vehicle, was not wearing was not wearing his seatbelt at his seatbelt at the time of the time the traffic of the traffic

stop stop." 26

Upon interacting with Upon interacting with the the Defendant, Defendant, Tpr. Tpr. Coulston Coulston suspected suspected that that the the

Defendant was Defendant under the was under influence of the influence of aa controlled controlled substance. substance. Tpr. Coulston testified Tpr. Coulston testified

that that his his suspicions suspicions were were aroused by Defendant’s aroused by Defendant's appearance appearance and and behavior. behavior, With With

respect respect to to Defendant’s appearance, Tpr. Defendant's appearance, Tpr. Coulston identified Coulston identified

General General observations observations of of [Defendant] when II was [Defendant] when was talking to him talking to him at at the the driver’s side [of his vehicle], he had glassy, bloodshot eyes, driver's side [of his vehicle], he had glassy, bloodshot eyes, a low,a low, raspy voice, dilated raspy voice, dilated pupils, marked reddening pupils, marked reddening ofof the the conjunctivae, conjunctivae, and and he he had had a[n] a[n] odor odor of of burnt burnt marijuana marijuana on on is is breath breath when when he he was was talking talking to me. to me.227

With respect With respect to to Defendant’s Defendant's behavior and demeanor, behavior and demeanor, Tpr. Tpr. Coulston Coulston identified identified

Defendant’s Defendant's mood mood swings during the swings during interaction 28 the interaction.

Upon Upon smelling smelling the the odor of burnt odor of burnt marijuana, Tpr. Coulston marijuana, Tpr. Coulston asked Defendant asked Defendant

whether he whether had smoked he had smoked marijuana. marijuana. Defendant responded that Defendant responded that he he had had smoked smoked

marijuana marijuana one-two hours previously. one-two hours previously. When When Tpr. Tpr. Coulston Coulston asked asked whether whether Defendant Defendant

had a had a medical medical marijuana card, Defendant marijuana card, Defendant responded responded that he did that he did not. not."29

As As aaresult result of of his his suspicions, Tpr. Coulston suspicions, Tpr. Coulston requested requested that that Defendant perform Defendant perform

SFSTs, SFSTs, and and Defendant agreed to Defendant agreed do so. to do so. 30 Tpr. Coulston’s body Tpr. Coulston's body camera camera was was active active

during during the he administration administration of of all of the all of he tests, tests, and and the the video video supported his testimony. supported his testimony.

Tpr. Coulston administered Tpr. Coulston administered the the horizontal horizontal gaze nystagmus (“HGN”), gaze nystagmus walk-and-turn (HGN"), walk-and-turn ',,,. 24 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547. 475Pa.CS.$1547 s Transcript, 25 Transcript, at at 13-17. 13-17 26 Id., at 17. e [,at 17 27 Id., at pd. at 18. 18 28 Id. 1 29 Id., 7 1., at 24. at 24 30 Id. 91 55 and one-leg and stand SFSTs, one-leg stand as well SFSTs, as well as ARIDE testing. as ARIDE testing. Tpr. Coulston first Tpr. Coulston first

administered the administered the HGN HGN test, test,"31 and and the the result result caused him to caused him administer further to administer further

SF STs. 32 SF9Te.32 During the During HGN test, the HGN test, Tpr. Tpr. Coulston Coulston asked asked Defendant Defendant whether whether there there was was

anything anything wrong wrong with his eyes, with his as Defendant’s eyes, as eyes appeared Defendant's eyes to be appeared to be red red.33

When performing the When performing the walk-and walk-and turn turn SFST, Defendant exhibited SFST, Defendant exhibited atypical mood atypical mood

swings during swings the instruction during the instruction phase phase of of the the test, test, and and he exhibited more he exhibited more than than two two clues clues

of impairment during of impairment during the the test—including test-including an an inability to maintain inability to maintain the the starting starting position, position,

starting too starting too soon, raising his soon, raising arms, stopping his arms, stopping walking during the walking during the test, test, missing the missing the

heel-to-toe heel-to-toe movement, stepping off movement, stepping off the the line, line, and making an and making an improper improper turn. turn. As two As two

clues indicate impairment clues indicate impairment and and as Defendant exhibited as Defendant exhibited more more than than two two clues of clues of

impairment, Tpr. impairment, Tpr. Coulston Coulston determined determined Defendant likely was Defendant likely impaired. 34 was impaired.

Next, Next, Tpr. Coulston administered Tpr. Coulston administered the one-leg stand the one-leg stand SFST. SFST He He testified testified there there

are four are four clues of impairment—sways, clues of impairment--sways, hops, puts foot hops, puts foot down down and and uses uses arms arms to to

balance. balance. Defendant exhibited three Defendant exhibited three of of those those clues, clues, all all except hopping. Exhibition except hopping. Exhibition of of

two two or or more more clues clues constitutes constitutes evidence evidence of of impairment, impairment, so so he determined again he determined again that that

Defendant likely Defendant was impaired. likely was impaired.°35

He He administered administered the the ARIDE ARIDE test, test, " which involves 36 which involves moving moving a a pen pen in in aa circle circle

around around the the Defendant’s head and Defendant's head and checking checking whether whether the the Defendant’s Defendant's eyes converge. eyes converge.

31 he Court 1 The Court did not rely did not rely on on testimony testimony concerning concerning Defendant’s performance on Defendant's performance on the HGN test the HGN test as as to to evidence evidence of of Defendant’s Defendant's impairment, impairment, or or lack lack thereof, but itit permitted thereof, but permitted thethe testimony testimony to establish what to establish what Tpr. Coulston Tpr. Coulston did did as as aa consequence consequence of performance. The Defendant's performance. of Defendant’s The results results of of the the HGN HGN test test are are inadmissible inadmissible at at trial as substantive trial as proof of substantive proof of impairment; however, those impairment; however, those same same results results can can establish establish probable cause probable cause to to arrest arrest the defendant for the defendant driving under for riving under the the influence influence, as cause to probable cause as probable arrest to arresl can be supported can be supported by by evidence evidence that that is is inadmissible inadmissible at at trial. trial. Com. Com, v. , Weaver, Weaver, 76 76 A.3d A,3 562 562, 566-67 566.67 (Pa. (Pa Super 2013) (citing Brinegar Super, 2013) (citing Brinegar v. v. United United States, States, 69 69 S. S. Ct. CL 1302 1302 (1949); (1949); Com. Com, v. • Devlm, Devlin, 289 289 A.2d A2d 237 237 (Pa. Super. (Pa. Super. 1972)). 1972)) 32 Transcript, at transcript, 20-21 . at 20-21 33 j.,Id., at 25. at 25. 34 Id., at Id., at 27-29. 27-29 -Id., 35 j., at at 29-30. 29-30 t , m * on qi 36 4 4e testified to He testified the special to the training he special training received to he received administer this to administer this test. test. Id., at 30-31. ld., at 30-31 66 They They did did not not in in this instance, demonstrating, this instance, demonstrating, according according to Tpr. Coulston, to Tpr. further Coulston, further

evidence of evidence impairment. 37 of impairment.

The final The final test he administered test he administered was was the the modified modified Romberg Romberg test, test, where where the the

Defendant Defendant is directed to is directed to tilt tilt his his head head back back and close his and close eyes, then his eyes, count to then count to thirty thirty

and, when Defendant and, when believes thirty Defendant believes seconds have thirty seconds elapsed, he have elapsed, he is is to move his to move head his head

forward, forward, open his eyes open his eyes and say, "stop." and say, “stop.” Defendant Defendant exhibited exhibited aa number number of of clues clues of of

possible possible marijuana use, including marijuana use, eyelid tremors, including eyelid tremors, opening opening his his eyes eyes during during the the test test

and taking and taking forty-eight forty-eight (48) seconds to (48) seconds complete the to complete the test. test. Tpr. Tpr. Coulston Coulston testified testified that that

these clues these clues specifically indicated possible specifically indicated marijuana use. possible marijuana use. 38

In light In light of Defendant’s performance of Defendant's performance on on the roadside tests, the roadside tests, the the noted odor of noted odor of

marijuana, marijuana, and and Defendant’s Defendant's admission admission that that he had recently he had recently smoked smoked marijuana, marijuana, Tpr. Tpr

Coulston concluded Coulston Defendant was concluded Defendant was under under the influence of the influence of one or more one or more controlled controlled

substances, rendering him substances, rendering him incapable incapable of of operating operating a a motor motor vehicle vehicle safely. He placed safely. He placed

Defendant under Defendant under arrest arrest and and transported him to transported him to UPMC UPMC Williamsport Williamsport Hospital’s Hospital's

Emergency Room Emergency Room for for aa blood blood draw. draw. Tpr. Coulston read Tpr. Coulston Pennsylvania Department read Pennsylvania Department of of

Transportation Transportation form form DL-26B DL-26B to Defendant. The to Defendant. The form form informs informs a defendant of a defendant his right of his right

to submit to submit or or to refuse aa blood to refuse blood draw. He signed draw. He the form signed the certifying that form certifying he read that he read the the

form to form to Defendant Defendant in in its its entirety and signed entirety and again indicating signed again Defendant refused indicating Defendant refused to to

sign sign the the form. Defendant also form. Defendant refused to also refused to submit submit to to a a blood blood draw, draw, whereupon whereupon he he was was

released from released from custody custody and sent home. and sent home."39

No No further further witnesses witnesses testified testified at at the the trial, and counsel trial, and counsel for for the Commonwealth the Commonwealth

and the and the Defendant Defendant argued argued their respective positions their respective positions to the Court. to the Count4 40 The Court found The Court found

7 Id. 371d 33 Id., at 31-33. at31-33 39 j.,Id., at 33-37. at 33-37. 40 Id.,at id, at 43-49. 43-49 77 the testimony the of Tpr. testimony of Coulston to Tpr. Coulston to be be credible and, based credible and, based upon upon the the testimony and the testimony and the

exhibits exhibits presented presented by the Commonwealth, by the Commonwealth, the the Court found the Court found the Defendant guilty of Defendant guilty of all all

charges. 41 The charges." The Court also indicated Court also indicated itit would would ask for aa pre-sentence ask for pre-sentence investigation investigation

and would scheduling and would scheduling sentencing sentencing 60-90 days in 60-90 days in the the future. future.42 On On April April 22, 22, 2025, 2025, the the

Court Court sentenced sentenced the Defendant as the Defendant previously indicated as previously indicated.

II. II. LAW LAW AND AND ANALYSIS. ANALYSIS.

A. The A. Commonwealth adduced The Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence at sufficient evidence at trial trial to to support support Defendant’s Defendant's convictions convictions of of the the offences offences charged. charged.

Sufficient Sufficient evidence evidence supports supports aa criminal criminal conviction conviction ifif "the “the evidence admitted at evidence admitted at

trial and all trial and all reasonable reasonable inferences inferences drawn therefrom, viewed drawn therefrom, viewed in the light in the most light most

favorable favorable to to the Commonwealth as the Commonwealth verdict winner, as verdict winner, ... [was] sufficient • [was] sufficient to to prove prove every every

element element of of the the offense beyond aa reasonable offense beyond reasonable doubt43 doubt.”43 The The Commonwealth need not Commonwealth need not

preclude preclude every every possibility possibility of of innocence, innocence, and and itit may sustain its may sustain its burden entirely with burden entirely with

circumstantial evidence. circumstantial evidence 44 “Evidence "Evidence will will be deemed to be deemed to support support the the verdict verdict when when itit

establishes establishes each each element of the element of the crime charged and crime charged and the the commission thereof by commission thereof by the the

accused, accused, beyond beyond aa reasonable reasonable doubt.” doubt 45 ° As As the Superior Court the Superior Court has has explained, explained,

The The standard standard we we apply apply inin reviewing reviewing thethe sufficiency sufficiency of of the the evidence evidence isis whether viewing all whether viewing all the the evidence evidence admitted admitted at at trial in the trial in the light light most most favorable favorable to the verdict to the winner, there verdict winner, there isis sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to enable enable the the fact-finder fact-finder toto find every element find every element of the crime of the crime beyond beyond aa reasonable reasonable doubt. In doubt. applying the In applying above test, the above we may test, we may not not weigh weigh the evidence and the evidence and substitute substitute our our judgment judgment for the fact-finder. for the fact-finder. In In addition, addition, we note that we note that the the facts and circumstances facts and circumstances established established by the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth need need not not preclude every possibility preclude every possibility ofof innocence. innocence. Any Any doubts doubts regarding regarding aa defendant's guilt may defendant's guilt may be be resolved resolved by by the the fact-finder fact-finder unless unless the the

------- 41 Id., at "id, at 49-52. 49-52 42 ,at 50-550-51 43 Com. v. Com. v. Keister, 292 A.3d Keister, 292 A.3 1138, 1141 (Pa. 1138, 1141 (Pa. Super. 2023) (quoting Com. 2023) (quoting Com. v. Palmer, 192 • Palmer, 192 A.3d 85, 89 A.3d 85, 89 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super, 2018)). 2018)) Id 44yd «com. v. Teems, 45 Com. v. Teems, 74 A.3d 142, 74 A.3 142, 144 (Pa. Super. 144 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Super. 2013) (quoting Com, Com. v. Toland, 995 • Toland, 995 A.2d A2 1242, 1242, 1245 1245 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted)), alloc, (citations omitted)), alloc. denied 79 A.3d denied 79 1098 (Pa. A 36 1098 2013). (Pa. 2013) 88 evidence evidence is is so weak and so weak and inconclusive that as inconclusive that as aa matter matter of of law law nono probability probability of of fact fact may may be be drawn drawn from from the the combined combined circumstances. circumstances ... Finally, the Finally, the finder finder of fact while of fact while passing passing upon upon the the credibility of witnesses credibility of witnesses and the and the weight weight of of the the evidence evidence produced, produced, is is free free to to believe believe all, all, part or part Or none none ofof the evidence. 46 the evidence."

Count Count 11 of of the the information information charged Defendant with charged Defendant with operation operation of of aa motor motor

vehicle while vehicle while under under the the influence influence of of aa controlled substance. Section controlled substance. Section 3802(d)(2) 3802(d)(2) of of

the the Vehicle Code provides Vehicle Code provides that that "[a]n “[a]n individual individual may may not not drive, operate or drive, operate be in or be in actual actual

physical control physical control of of the movement of the movement of aa vehicle vehicle [when] [when] ... ... [the [t]he individual individual is is under under the the

influence of influence of aa drug drug or or combination of drugs combination of drugs to to aa degree degree which impairs the which impairs the individual's individual's

ability to safely ability to drive, operate safely drive, operate or or be be in in actual physical control actual physical control of of the the movement movement of of the the

vehicle.’’47 vehicle ! The The Commonwealth Commonwealth must must prove prove “that [the defendant] that [the defendant] was ‘under the was 'under the

influence of aa drug influence of drug to to aa degree degree that impairs’ his that impairs' or her his or her ability to safely ability to safely drive or drive or

operate a operate a vehicle.” vehicle." 48 It is not It is not required to prove required to prove that the driver that the driver had had aa specific amount specific amount

of aa drug of drug or combination of or combination drugs in of drugs in his his system. system."49 The The Commonwealth does not Commonwealth does not

need to need to introduce introduce expert expert testimony testimony to to establish establish impairment impairment due due to to aa controlled controlled

substance; substance; itit may may introduce introduce other independent evidence other independent of impairment, evidence of and aa lay impairment, and lay

witness witness may may testify testify to to someone's someone's readily readily observable observable physical condition or physical condition or

appearance without appearance without formal medical training. formal medical training."50

Defendant Defendant did did not not submit to aa blood submit to draw here, blood draw but the here, but the Commonwealth Commonwealth may may

prove prove that that aa person person is is incapable incapable of of safe safe driving through failure driving through failure of of aa field field sobriety sobriety

test. test.' In Commonwealth 51 In Commonwealth vv. Mobley, the Superior Mobley, the Superior Court found that Court found that sufficient sufficient

46 Com. « Com. v. v. Jones, A.3d 452, 271 A.3d Jones, 271 457-58 (Pa. 452,457-58 (Pa. Super. Super. 2021) 2021) (quoting Com. v. (quoting Com, • Brockman, Brockman, 167 167 A.3d A.3d 29, 29, 38 (Pa. 38 (Pa. Super. Super, 2017) (quoting Com. 2017) (quoting Com. v.v. Antidormi, Antidormi, 8484 A.3d A,3 736 (Pa. Super. 736 (Pa. Super. 2014))). 2014))) 47 75 Pa CS 8 3802(d)(2). See, 076Pa.CS.$3802(02) See, supra, supra,n.1n.1. 4« Com •v Williamson, Com. Williamson, 962 962 A.2d A 1200, 1200, 1204 (Pa. Super. 1204 (Pa. 2008) (quoting Super. 2008) (quoting 75 75 Pa. C.S. § Pa.C.S. $ 3802(d)(2) an 3802()2) and citing citing Com. Com. v. Collins, Collins, 810 810 A.2d A.2 698 698 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super 2002)), 2002)) alloc, aoc. denied, denied, 980 980 A.2d A 608 608 (Pa. (Pa. 2009) . 2009 « Com v. 4Com. Tarrach, 42 v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d A 341, 345 (Pa. 341,345 (Pa. Super. Super. 2012) (citing Williamson, 2012) (citing supra, 962 Williamson, supra, A.2d at 962 A2d 1204 at 1204 and Com. v. and Com. v. Griffith, Griffith, 32 A.2d 1231, 32 A.2d 1238 (Pa 1231, 1238 (Pa. 2011)). 2011)) 50 Griffith, supra, so Griffith, supra, 32 32 A.2d A at 1239-40. at 1239-40 51 Com. v. 'Com. • Mobley, Mobley, 1414 A.34 887, 890 A.3d 887, 890 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Super 2011) (citing Com. Com. v. v. Palmer, Palmer, 751 751 A.2d A.2d 223 (Pa. 223 (Pa Super.2000)). Super.2000)) 99 evidence supported evidence supported the defendant’s conviction the defendant's conviction for for DUI-General Impairment where DUI-General Impairment where

the defendant failed the defendant failed four four field field sobriety sobriety tests, smelled of tests, smelled of alcohol alcohol and and coasted coasted through through

stop sign aa stop sign with police officer with police officer in plain view. in plain .5? view 52 In In so holding, the so holding, Court stated the Court stated that that

“[t]his evidence [t]his evidence viewed in aa light viewed in light most most favorable favorable to to the Commonwealth cannot the Commonwealth cannot be be

considered considered so weak and so weak and inconclusive inconclusive that that no no probability probability of of fact can be fact can drawn from be drawn from

the he circumstances. circumstances. Accordingly, Accordingly, Appellant's Appellant's sufficiency claim must sufficiency claim must fail. fail."°° 53

Here, Here, the the Defendant failed five Defendant failed five field field sobriety tests, smelled sobriety tests, smelled of of burnt burnt marijuana, marijuana,

exhibited physical exhibited physical and behavioral signs and behavioral signs of of impairment, impairment, and and admitted to having admitted to having

smoked marijuana smoked one-two hours marijuana one-two hours before he was before he was arrested. In addition, arrested, In addition, as confirmed as confirmed

by the by the body body camera footage, 54 Defendant's camera footage," Defendant’s speech speech was was slurred slurred and and he he showed showed

signs of signs of impairment. impairment." As in 55 As in Mobley, supra, this Mobley, supra, this evidence, evidence, viewed in the viewed in the light light most most

favorable to favorable the Commonwealth, to the Commonwealth, cannot be considered cannot be considered so so weak weak and and inconclusive inconclusive

that no that no probability probability of fact can of fact can be be drawn drawn from from the circumstances. The the circumstances. The

Commonwealth indisputably Commonwealth indisputably submitted submitted sufficient sufficient evidence evidence that Defendant drove, that Defendant drove,

operated or operated was in or was in actual physical control actual physical control of of the movement of the movement of aa vehicle vehicle when when he he

was under was under the the influence of aa drug influence of drug or or combination combination of drugs to of drugs to aa degree degree which which

impaired impaired his ability to his ability to drive, drive, operate operate or or be be in in actual actual physical control of physical control the movement of the movement

of of the the vehicle vehicle safely. Thus, Count safely. Thus, Count 11 was was supported supported by by sufficient sufficient evidence. evidence.

Count 22 of Count the Information of the Information charged Defendant with charged Defendant with driveing driveing a a motor vehicle in motor vehicle in

careless disregard careless disregard for the safety for the of persons safety of persons or or property. Under the property. Under the Vehicle Code, aa Vehicle Code,

person is person is prohibited prohibited from from driving driving aa vehicle in careless vehicle in disregard for careless disregard for the safety of the safety of

52 52 Id. 1d 53 Id. +Id 54 Commonwealth’s Trial s4 Commonwealth's Trial Exh. Dxh. 4. 4 . 55 A defendant A defendant may may be be found guilty of found guilty of operating operating aa motor motor vehicle vehicle under under the influence of the influence of aa controlled controlled substance substance when when he he is is under under the the influence influence of of marijuana, marijuana, even even if if the the marijuana marijuana was was consumed consumed lawfully. lawfully See, e.g., See, e.g., Com. Com v. v. Smith, Smith, 320 320 A.3d A 674 674 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2024), 2024), alloc, alloc. denied, denied, 333 333 A.3d A.3d 301 301 (Pa. (Pa. 2025). 2025) 10 10 persons persons or or property. property."56 The rea requirement The mens tea requirement for for conviction conviction of of this this offense is offense is

operation of operation of aa vehicle in careless vehicle in careless disregard disregard for for the the rights and safety rights and safety of of others. The others. 57 The ° Commonwealth Commonwealth adduced evidence showing adduced evidence showing that Defendant operated that Defendant operated aa motor motor vehicle vehicle

while under the while under the influence influence of of marijuana. marijuana. Operation of aa motor Operation of motor vehicle vehicle under under those those

circumstances is, at circumstances is, at least, careless, which least, careless, which equates equates to operation of to operation of aa vehicle vehicle in in

careless disregard for careless disregard for the the rights rights and and safety of others. safety of others." In order 58 In order to to secure secure aa

conviction of conviction of careless driving, the careless driving, the Commonwealth Commonwealth “need only demonstrate need only demonstrate that that aa

defendant's defendant's actions actions showed showed aa 'careless ‘careless disregard of the disregard of the rights or safety rights or of others.' safety of others.’ ” "" 59

As As indicated above, the indicated above, the Commonwealth Commonwealth adduced adduced substantial evidence of substantial evidence of that. that. Thus, Thus,

Count 22 was Count was supported by sufficient supported by sufficient evidence. evidence

Count 33 of Count of the the Information Information charged charged Defendant Defendant with with operation operation of of an an

unregistered motor vehicle. unregistered motor vehicle. Under Under the the Vehicle Vehicle Code, Code, aa person is prohibited person is prohibited from from

driving or driving or moving upon any moving upon any highway highway any vehicle which any vehicle is not which is not registered registered in in this this

Commonwealth, unless Commonwealth, unless the vehicle is the vehicle is exempt exempt from from registration. registration 60 Here, the Here, the ."? Commonwealth introduced aa copy Commonwealth introduced of the copy of the vehicle vehicle registration information from registration information from the the

Department of Department Transportation showing of Transportation that Defendant’s showing that vehicle was Defendant's vehicle was not not registered registered

at the at the time he was time he was stopped stopped on on May 18, 2024 May 18, 2024 and and that that itit had had not not been been registered registered

since May, since May, 2023. The vehicle 61 The 2023.°1 vehicle was was aa conventional automobile, and conventional automobile, and there is no there is no

suggestion suggestion itit was was exempt exempt from from registration. Thus, Count registration. Thus, 3 was Count 3 was supported supported by by

sufficient evidence. sufficient evidence.

56 75 Pa. C.S. § 3714 +765Pa.CS.$3714 4 r u, 57 Com. v. Bullick, ·Com. v. 830 A.2d Bullick, 830 A.2d 998, 998, 1001-03 (Pa. 1001.-03 Super. 2003). (Pa. Super, 2003). "The“The mens rea requirement mens rea requirement applicable applicable to Section to Section 3714, 3714, careless disregard, implies careless disregard, implies less less than than willful willful or wanton conduct but wanton conduct but more than ordinary negligence ordinary negligence or the the mere mere absence absence of of care care under under the the circumstances.” circumstances." Com. Com. v. Sanders, v. 259 Sanders, 259 A.3 524, A.3d 524, 529 (Pa. Super. 529 (Pa. Super. 2021) 2021) (en (en banc) banc) (quoting (quoting Com. Com. v. v. Gezovich, Gezovich,7 7 A.3d A.3d 300, 300, 301 301 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super 2010) (internal quotations 2010) (internal quotations and and citations citations omitted)). omitted)). Bulick, 58 Bullick, supra, 830 A.2 supra, 830 A.2d at 1003 (citing at 1003 (citing Com. Com. v. Huggins, Huggins, 790790 A.2d A.2d 1042, 1042, 1047 1047 (Pa. Super. 2002)). Super. 2002)) 59 Com. v. Com. v. Glassman, 518 A2 Glassman, 518 A.2d 865, 865, 869869 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1986). 1986) 076 60 75Pa.CS. Pa. C.S. §$1301(a) 1301(a). 61 See Commonwealth’s Trial gee Commonwealth's Trial Exh. Dxh. 22. 11 11 Count 4 Count 4 of the Information of the charged Defendant Information charged with driving Defendant with driving aa motor motor vehicle vehicle

while while his his operating privileges were operating privileges were suspended suspended or or revoked. Under the revoked. Under the Vehicle Vehicle Code, Code,

aa person person is is prohibited prohibited from driving aa motor from driving motor vehicle vehicle on any highway on any highway or trafficway of or trafficway of

this Commonwealth this Commonwealth after the commencement after the commencement of of aa suspension, suspension, revocation revocation or or

cancellation cancellation of of the operating privilege the operating privilege and and before before the the operating privilege has operating privilege been has been

restored. restored. Here, the 62 Here, Commonwealth introduced the Commonwealth introduced aa copy copy of of the the Defendant’s Defendant's drivers driver's

record from record from the the Department of Transportation Department of Transportation showing showing that that Defendant’s license was Defendant's license was

suspended in suspended in April, April, 2024 and had 2024 and had not not been restored as been restored as of of the the time time he he was was stopped stopped

on on May May 18, 18, 2024. 2024.363 Thus, Thus, Count Count 4 4 was was supported by sufficient supported by sufficient evidence. evidence.

Count Count 5 5 of the information of the information charged charged the the Defendant Defendant with driving aa motor with driving motor vehicle vehicle

on a on a highway highway without without aa valid driver’s license. valid driver's license. Under the Vehicle Under the Vehicle Code, Code, a a person, person,

unless unless expressly expressly exempted, is prohibited exempted, is prohibited from driving any from driving motor vehicle any motor vehicle upon upon a a

highway highway or or public property in public property in this this Commonwealth Commonwealth without without aa valid valid driver's drivers license. license." 64

As As indicated indicated above, above, the the Commonwealth introduced aa copy Commonwealth introduced copy of of the the Defendant’s Defendant's

driver’s record driver's record from the Department from the Department of Transportation showing of Transportation showing that that at at the the time time

Defendant was Defendant was stopped on May stopped on May 18, 18, 2024, he did 2024, he did not not have have aa valid valid driver’s driver's license. license."° 65

There was There was no suggestion that no suggestion he was that he was exempt exempt from from the requirement of the requirement having aa valid of having valid

license. Thus, license. Count 55 was Thus, Count was supported supported by sufficient evidence. by sufficient evidence.

Count 6 of Count 6 of the the information information charged charged the the Defendant Defendant with with driving driving aa passenger passenger

car without car without a a properly adjusted and properly adjusted and fastened fastened safety seat belt safety seat belt system. system. Under Under the the

Vehicle Vehicle Code, each driver Code, each driver and and front front seat seat occupant occupant of of aa passenger passenger car car must must wear wear aa

properly adjusted properly adjusted and and fastened safety seat fastened safety belt system seat belt system.° Tpr. Coulston 66 Tpr. Coulston testified testified

62 75 Pa. C.S. § 1543. 75Pa.CS.$ 1543 63 See es Commonwealth’s Trial see Commonwealth's Trial Exh. 3. Exh. 3 64 75 Pa. 475 C.S. § 1501(a). Pa.C.S.$1501(a) es See 65 See Commonwealth’s Trial Exh. Commonwealth'g Trial 3. Exh. 3 66 75 « 75 Pa. C.S. §$4581(a)0i0A) Pa. CS. 4581 (a)(ii)(A). 12 12 Defendant was Defendant was not wearing aa seat not wearing belt, and seat belt, the Defendant and the Defendant admitted admitted the same. Also, the same. Also,

the the body camera footage body camera footage shows shows he he was was not not wearing wearing aa seatbelt at the seatbelt at the time time he was he was

stopped. Thus, stopped. Count 6 Thus, Count 6 was supported by was supported by sufficient sufficient evidence. evidence

Accordingly, the Court Accordingly, the believes that Court believes that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth introduced sufficient introduced sufficient

evidence to evidence he Court, enable the to enable Court, as as finder of fact, finder of fact, to find the to find the Defendant Defendant guilty beyond aa guilty beyond

reasonable doubt reasonable doubt of of the charges levied the charges levied in in Counts Counts 11 through through 6 6 of of the the Information. Information.

B. B. The The weight weight of the evidence of the evidence adduced by the adduced by the Commonwealth Commonwealth supports supports Defendants’ Defendants' conviction of the conviction of offenses charged. the offenses charged.

A claim by A claim by the the Defendant Defendant that that the the verdict is against verdict is against the weight of the weight of the the evidence evidence

concedes that there concedes that is sufficient there is sufficient evidence evidence to sustain the to sustain the verdict verdict"67 and and is is addressed to addressed to

the discretion of the discretion the court. of the count 868 Accordingly, the trial Accordingly, the trial court is not court is not obliged obliged to to view the view the

evidence evidence in in the the light light most most favorable to the favorable to the verdict verdict winner. winner."69 Nevertheless, Nevertheless, “the "the finder finder

of fact of fact while while passing upon the passing upon the credibility credibility of of witnesses witnesses and and the weight of the weight of the evidence the evidence

produced, is free produced, is to believe free to all, part believe all, or none part or of the none of the evidence evidence.”79 Thus, aa court 70 Thus, court may may

not find not find that he verdict that the verdict was against the was against the weight weight of of the evidence “because the evidence "because of of aa mere mere

conflict in the conflict in the testimony or because testimony or because the the judge judge on the same on the facts would same facts have arrived would have arrived

at at aa different different conclusion.” conclusion.7171 Rather, Rather, aa challenge to the challenge to the weight of the weight of the evidence should evidence should

be granted only be granted only where “the trial where the trial judge judge .... determine[s] determine[s] that that ‘notwithstanding all the 'notwithstanding all the

facts, certain facts facts, certain are so facts are clearly of so clearly of greater weight that greater weight to ignore that to ignore them them or to give or to give

them equal them equal weight weight with all the with all the facts facts is is to deny justice.’” to deny justice 72 72 “[A] trial should new trial {A] new be should be

awarded [only] awarded [only] when when the the jury's jury's verdict verdict is is so so contrary to the contrary to evidence as the evidence as to to shock shock

Com. 67 Com. v. • Widmer, Widmer,744 745, 751-52 A2 745, 744 A.2d 751-52 (Pa. 2000) (citing (Pa. 2000) (citing Com. Com. v. Whiteman, 485 v. Whiteman, 485 A.2d A.2d 459 (Pa. 459 (Pa Super 1984) ^Widme^supra, Widmer, supra, 744 744 A.2d A.2 at at 751-52 (citing Com. 751-52 (citing Com. vv. Brown, Brown, 648 648 A.2d 1177, 1189 A2d 1177, 1189 (Pa. (Pa 1994)). 1994)) e Tibbs Tibbs v’Florida, • Florida, 102S. 102 $. Ct. Ct 2211,2216 2211, n.n. 11 (1982). 11 (1982) 70 Jones, supra, Jones, 271 A.3d supra, 271 A.3d at (quoting Brockman, 457-58 (quoting at 457-58 Brockman, supra, 167 A.3d supra, 167 A.3d at at 38 38 (quoting (quoting Antidormi, Antidormi, supra, 84 A.3d at 736)) ' Widmer, supra, 744 ^Widmer}supra, 744 A at 752 A.2d at 752 (citing (citing Thompson Thompson • v. City City of of Phila., Phiia.,493 493 A.2d A24 669, 673 (Pa. 1985)) 669, 673(Pa. 1985)). 72 id. (citation omitted) id. (citation omitted). 13 13 one's sense of one's sense of justice justice and the award and the of aa new award of new trial trial is is imperative imperative so that right so that may be right may be

given another given another opportunity opportunity to prevail.” to prevail.">73

With respect to With respect Counts 3-6 to Counts 3-6 of of the Information, the the Information, the evidence evidence is uncontradicted is uncontradicted

that Defendant that operated an Defendant operated an unregistered unregistered vehicle, vehicle, operated operated aa vehicle vehicle while while his his

operating operating privileges privileges were were suspended, operated aa vehicle suspended, operated vehicle without without aa valid drivers valid driver's

license, and license, and operated operated aa vehicle vehicle without without wearing his seatbelt. wearing his Thus, the seatbelt. Thus, Court the Court

believes that believes the weight that the weight of of the evidence supports he evidence supports Defendant’s Defendant's convictions convictions of of those those

counts. With counts. With respect respect to to Count Count 2, 2, Defendant’s admission that Defendant's admission that he he smoked smoked marijuana marijuana

one-two hours one-two before being hours before being stopped, coupled with stopped, coupled with the the visual signs of visual signs of his his impairment impairment

revealed revealed by by the the bodycam bodycam footage footage from from the stop, establishes the stop, that he establishes that he operated operated aa

vehicle “carelessly.” 74 Thus, vehicle "carelessly74 Thus, the the Court believes that Court believes that the the weight weight of of the the evidence evidence

supports the Defendant’s supports the Defendant's conviction of that conviction of that offense offense.

With With respect to Count respect to Count 11 of the Information, of the Information, charging charging Defendant Defendant with with operation operation

of aa motor of motor vehicle vehicle while under the while under the influence influence of of aa controlled controlled substance, the Court substance, the Court also also

finds finds that that the weight of the weight of the the evidence supports his evidence supports his conviction conviction of of that that offense. offense. The The

Court Court sat sat as as fact-finder fact-finder during the Defendant's during the Defendant’s trial, trial, which means that which means that the the Court was Court was

responsible responsible for for passing passing on on the the credibility credibility of the witnesses of the witnesses and and the the weight weight of the of the

evidence produced, while evidence produced, remaining free while remaining free to to believe believe all, part or all, part or none none of of the the evidence evidence

presented. 75 As presented."° As the the Superior Court has Superior Court has explained explained

Although Although the the finder finder of of fact may make fact may make reasonable inferences from reasonable inferences from the the testimony presented, testimony presented, the the “inferences "inferences must must flow flow from from facts facts and and

73 Brown, supra, 648 Brown, supra, 648 A.2d A2d at 1189 (citing at 1189 (citing Thompson, Thompson, supra, 493 493 A.2d A.2d at at 672). supra, 672) 4 Our 74 Supreme Court Our Supreme Court has has held that driving held that driving while intoxicated is while intoxicated is not not "reckless” per per se for purposes purposes of reckless" se for of the aggravated the aggravated assault assault statute, statute, while while noting noting that that it it is is “a a gross gross deviation deviation from from the the standard standard of of care care a a reasonable person reasonable person would would observe.” Com. v. observe." Com. O'Hanlon, 653 v. O'Hanlon, 653 A.2d 616, 617 A.2d 616, 617 (Pa. (Pa. 1998). 1998). TheThe Court Court finds that finds that this this “gross deviation from gross deviation from the the standard standard of care aa reasonable of care reasonable person would observe, person would observe,"whenwhen coupled coupled the the visible visible evidence evidence that that Defendant Defendant was was impaired, impaired, establishes establishes that, that when when Defendant Defendant chose chose to drive his vehicle drive his while under vehicle while under the the influence of marijuana, influence of marijuana, he he acted acted in in aa manner manner that that was “more than was more than ordinary negligence ordinary negligence or or the mere absence the mere absence of care under of care under the the circumstances. circumstances.” See See Bulhck, Bulfick, supra, 830 supra, 830 A.2d A.2d 1001-03 1001-03 (setting (setting forth forth the the mens for careless mens rea for driving). careless driving) 75 Com. v. Spence, Com. Spence, 290290 A.3d A.3d 301, 309 (Pa. 301, 309 (Pa. Super Super 2023) 2023). 14 14 circumstances proven circumstances proven inin the the record, record, and must be and must be ofof such such volume volume and and quality as quality as to to overcome overcome the the presumption presumption of of innocence innocence and and satisfy the satisfy the [fact-finder] [fact-finder] of of an an accused's accused's guilt guilt beyond beyond a a reasonable reasonable doubt. doubt" "The trier of trier of fact fact cannot cannot base base aa conviction conviction onon conjecture conjecture andand speculation speculation and and aa verdict which is verdict which is premised premised on on suspicion suspicion will fail even will fail even under under the the limited scrutiny limited of appellate scrutiny of appellate review.” review.""°76

At At the time of the time trial, the of trial, the Court Court found the testimony found the testimony of of Tpr. Tpr. Coulston, Coulston, the the sole sole

witness who witness who testified testified at at trial, trial, to be credible. to be credible.'77 The Court has The Court received any not received has not new any new

evidence that evidence that would cause itit to would cause reconsider its to reconsider its assessment assessment of of the the witnesses’ witnesses'

credibility, and credibility, and itit is not inclined is not inclined to do so. to do Tpr. Coulston’s so. Tpr. testimony and Coulston's testimony and the the

documentary evidence documentary evidence introduced by the introduced by the Commonwealth Commonwealth establish establish that that the the

Defendant Defendant failed failed five five field field sobriety sobriety tests, smelled of tests, smelled of burnt burnt marijuana, marijuana, exhibited exhibited

physical and physical behavioral signs and behavioral signs of impairment, and of impairment, and admitted admitted to to having smoked having smoked

marijuana one-two marijuana hours before one-two hours he was before he was arrested. Moreover, the arrested. Moreover, Court viewed the Court viewed Tpr. Tpr.

Coulston’s body camera Coulston's body camera footage footage of of the the interaction interaction with with the the Defendant, Defendant, which which

led that revealed the Defendant’s that the Defendant's speech speech was was slurred and that slurred and that he he showed showed signs of signs of

impairment. impairment.

From the From the evidence evidence presented, presented, the Court made the Court made aa reasonable inference that reasonable inference that

the Defendant the Defendant was driving while was driving while under under the the influence of aa controlled influence of controlled substance. substance. This This

“inference! ]... flow[s] inference[]... flow[s] from from facts facts and circumstances proven and circumstances in the proven in the record, record, and and .... [is] . [is]

of such of such volume volume and and quality as to quality as to overcome overcome the the presumption presumption of of innocence innocence and [as to] and [as to]

satisfy satisfy the [Court] of the [Court] of [the [the Defendant’s] Defendant's] guilt guilt beyond beyond aa reasonable doubt.”78 reasonable doubt."°

Understanding that Understanding that the Commonwealth need the Commonwealth need not not preclude preclude every every possibility possibility of of

innocence and innocence and may sustain its may sustain its burden burden of proving Defendant of proving Defendant guilty guilty beyond beyond aa

reasonable doubt reasonable entirely with doubt entirely with circumstantial circumstantial evidence," evidence, 79 the the Court Court found found at at the the time time

I• 76 id. (quoting (quoting Com. Com. v.v. Scott, Scott, 597 597 A.2d A.2d 1220, 1221 (Pa. 1220, 1221 (Pa. Super. Super. 1991). 1991) 77 Transcript, at mean.script, at 49. 78 Spence, supra, Spence, supra, 290 A.3d at at 309. T Keister, 73 supra, 292 Keister, supra, 292 A.3d A.3d at 1141 1141 (quoting (quoting Palmer, Palmer, supra, supra, 192 192 A.3d at 89). A.3d at 89) 15 15 of of trial trial that that the the weight weight of the evidence of the evidence supports supports Defendant's Defendant’s conviction conviction of of the the offense offense

charged in Count charged in Count 11 of of the the Information Information and and that its decision that its decision was was not not based based on on

conjecture and conjecture speculation. Thus, and speculation. Thus, the Court believes he Court believes that that the the weight weight of of the the evidence evidence

supports supports the the Defendant’s conviction of Defendant's conviction of that that offense. offense.

Accordingly, the Accordingly, the Court believes that Court believes that the the weight weight of of the the evidence evidence introduced introduced at at

trial supports trial supports the the Court, as finder Court, as of fact, finder of fact, finding finding the Defendant guilty the Defendant guilty beyond beyond aa

reasonable doubt reasonable of the doubt of charges levied the charges levied in in Counts Counts 11 through through 6 6 of of the the Information. Information.

III. III. CONCLUSION. CONCLUSION.

For For the reasons explained the reasons explained above, above, the Court believes the Court believes that that itit properly convicted properly convicted

Defendant of Defendant of the the crimes with which crimes with which he he was charged. was charged.

BY BY THE COURT, THE COURT, ()

ERL/bel ERL/bel .d... Eric R. Linhardt, Judge \

cc: cc: Lindsay Sweeley, Esq., Lindsay Sweeley, Esq. , Lycoming County District Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office Attorney's Office Giovanna Daniele, Giovanna Daniele, Esq., Esq., Lycoming Lycoming County County Public Defender’s Office Public Defender's Office Lamar 729 w Morton, 729 Lamar Morton, W44 St, 2nd th St, 2nd FL, Fl, Williamsport, Williamsport, PAPA 17701 17701

16 16