Opinion
J-S71042-16 No. 507 EDA 2016
10-28-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC N. JACKSON, JR. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 28, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001065-2015 BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, and FITZGERALD, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Eric N. Jackson, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after a jury trial and convictions for driving under the influence of a controlled substance. He challenges the sufficiency of evidence. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/18/16, at 1-2. Appellant filed a successful appeal nunc pro tunc and a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant contends that the Commonwealth required more than the odor of fresh, burnt marijuana in Appellant's vehicle and Appellant's bloodshot eyes to convict him. He notes that the Commonwealth did not (1) recover any drugs or paraphernalia, (2) conduct any field sobriety tests, (3) solicit testimony that he was uncoordinated or unable to follow instructions, and (4) introduce any evidence that he was unable to drive his vehicle safely. Appellant's Brief at 7-8.
Section 3802(d)(2) states in pertinent part:
(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:
75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2).
* * *
(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.
"A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law." Commonwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000).
[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction . . . does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it must determine simply whether the evidence believed by the fact-finder was sufficient to support the verdict. . . .Commonwealth v. Ratsamy , 934 A.2d 1233, 1235-37 (Pa. 2007) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
* * *
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .
After careful consideration of the parties' briefs, the record, and the decision of the trial court, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's decision. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3-5 (summarizing evidence as follows: (1) police smelled odor of fresh, burnt marijuana from passenger side of Appellant's vehicle although passenger window was closed; (2) Appellant spoke slowly and sluggishly and had bloodshot eyes; and (3) after the police signaled him to pull over, Appellant slowly drove his vehicle and stopped in between the travel lane and the shoulder). Accordingly, after viewing the record in the Commonwealth's favor, see Ratsamy 934 A.2d at 1235-37, we discern no error of law and affirm the judgment of sentence. See Widmer , 744 A.2d at 751.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/28/2016
Image materials not available for display.