Com. v. Patel, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Patel, D.

DecidedDecember 8, 2017

Docket682 MDA 2017

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Patel, D. (Com. v. Patel, D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Patel, D., (Pa. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S64007-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : DHRUV PATEL : No. 682 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001435-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 08, 2017

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from an order

suppressing the results of a blood test administered after Appellee, Dhruv

Patel, was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. The

Commonwealth argues Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160

(2016), does not invalidate Pennsylvania’s doctrine of implied consent when

the defendant is charged with driving under the influence of narcotics.1

However, the Commonwealth concedes that Commonwealth v. Ennels,

____________________________________________

1 The factual record before the suppression court consisted entirely of a six sentence stipulation of facts and the DL-26 (Chemical Testing Warnings) form signed by Patel. Neither of these documents reference the narcotics which were revealed in the blood test.

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S64007-17

167 A.3d 716 (Pa. Super. 2017), controls the outcome in this case. See

Appellant’s Brief, at 4. The Commonwealth indicates that it desired to

preserve the issue while its petition for reargument en banc in Ennels was

pending.

That petition was denied, and Ennels thus stands as controlling

precedent in this case. See Sorber v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 680

A.2d 881, 882 (Pa. Super. 1996). As the Commonwealth recognizes, Ennels

rejected the argument it raises in this appeal. We therefore conclude that no

relief is due.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/10/2017

-2- J-S64007-17

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI