OPINION BY PANELLA

Shawn M. Dorward, Harrisburg, for appellant. Amber Lane, Assistant District Attorney, Gettysburg, for Commonwealth, appellee. BEFORE: STEVENS, P.J., PANELLA and STRASSBURGER, JJ.

OPINION BY PANELLA, J.:

Appellant, Scott A. Shaffer, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 2, 2011, in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County. After careful review, we affirm.

On March 7, 2010, at approximately 2:16 a.m., Trooper James R. David of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) was on duty patrolling with his partner, Trooper Schrader, in the area of Bon–Ox Road. See N.T., Non–Jury Trial, 3/18/11, at 9. Trooper David effectuated a traffic stop of Shaffer's vehicle for erratic driving when he observed Shaffer's vehicle “cross the fog line with his passenger side tires four times and while—on one occasion, while he was negotiating a left-hand curve in the roadway, ... thought [Shaffer] was going to run off the roadway....” Id., at 9. Trooper David “noticed that [Shaffer's] eyes were bloodshot and glassy” and that a strong odor of alcohol was emanating from his breath and person. See id., at 10. Trooper David instructed Shaffer to exit his vehicle so he could administer field sobriety tests. See id., at 11. Shaffer failed the field sobriety tests and Trooper David placed Shaffer under arrest. Shaffer was transported to Gettysburg Hospital for blood testing. Shaffer had a BAC of 0.15%.

Following a non-jury trial, the trial court convicted Shaffer of DUI–High Rate of Alcohol in violation of 75 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 3802(b), and acquitted him of the remainder of the charges. Subsequent thereto, the trial court sentenced Shaffer on June 2, 2011, to the intermediate punishment program for a period of six (6) months, plus fines and costs. Shaffer filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Shaffer raises the following issues for our review:

I. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AND GUARANTEED RIGHT TO CONFRONT ANY WITNESS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO CALL AS A WITNESS THE PHLEBOTOMIST WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD AND WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PACKAGING AND SUBMITTING THE BLOOD SPECIMEN TO THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE LABORATORY FOR FINAL ANALYSIS.

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF 75 PA.C.S.A. § 3802(b) BECAUSE SAID VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Appellant's Brief, at 6.

In his first issue raised on appeal, Shaffer alleges that the admission of the results of his BAC test violated his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Appellant's Brief, at 11–17. Shaffer relies on the United States Supreme Court's holding in Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009). In Melendez–Diaz, the Court held that lab reports admitted to establish a defendant's guilt constituted testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and that such reports were inadmissible unless the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the lab analyst at trial.

Here, Shaffer argues that pursuant to Melendez–Diaz, he should have been given the opportunity to confront the phlebotomist, Rachel McGlaughin, who was responsible for drawing Shaffer's blood at Gettysburg Hospital. We disagree.

At the time of the non-jury trial, the Commonwealth presented witness testimony from Trooper David and Christina Zurad, a forensic scientist and lab analyst for the Pennsylvania State Police. See N.T., Non–Jury Trial, 3/18/11.