Com. v. Morton, L.

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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

3

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,

4

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.

5

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

6

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.

7

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.

8

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.

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.)

22

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

33

(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

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

55

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.

66

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

77

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

88

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)

99

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))

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)

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.

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).

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).

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).

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)

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