Opinion
J-A02004-16 No. 1055 MDA 2015
05-17-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ALAN J. NEALLY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-CR-0000972-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Alan J. Neally, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after the trial court convicted him of driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"). Neally argues that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he had operated his motorcycle on the night in question. After careful review, we affirm.
Neally was found late at night passed out on the side of a curve in the road next to his motorcycle. The motorcycle had scratches on its left side, and Neally had visible injuries to his left arm. After responding officers were able to bring him to consciousness, Neally was sluggish and had slurred speech, along with a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Officers transported him to a local hospital, where Neally refused a blood test.
After a non-jury trial, the trial court found Neally guilty of DUI, general impairment as well as driving under suspension. Neally filed post-sentence motions challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. The trial court subsequently denied Neally's motions, and this timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Neally once again raises challenges to the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. In both arguments, Neally focuses on the Commonwealth's burden to establish that he had operated his motorcycle. Neally argues that the Commonwealth's witnesses contradicted each other regarding the condition of Neally's motorcycle, and further, that they did not find the motorcycle running, or even the keys to the motorcycle.
Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom are sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged is established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale , 836 A.2d 150, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003). "The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence." Commonwealth v. Bruce , 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. See id. Any doubt raised as to the accused's guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder. See id. As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record. See Commonwealth v. Kinney , 863 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. Super. 2004). Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict "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." Bruce , 916 A.2d at 661 (citation omitted).
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the certified record, we conclude that the trial court opinion, authored by the Honorable Thomas R. Campbell, fully and thoroughly addresses this argument. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/17/15, at 1-12 (finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Neally had been involved in a low speed, single vehicle accident, and that his location, inconsistent statements, and the absence of the claimed third-party driver were sufficient circumstantial evidence that he had operated the motorcycle while intoxicated). We therefore affirm on this basis.
Turning to Neally's weight of the evidence claim, we observe the following standard of review. A challenge to the weight of the evidence "concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the ground that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Orie , 88 A.3d 983, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied , 99 A.3d 925 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).
When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court's decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable on appellate review. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.Commonwealth v. Gibbs , 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the certified record, we conclude that the Honorable Thomas R. Campbell's opinion ably and comprehensively disposes of Neally's weight claim. We discern no abuse of discretion in his reasoning, and therefore affirm based on that opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/7/15, at 12-14.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/17/2016
Image materials not available for display.