Commonwealth v. Priovolos

Full title: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ERNEST H. PRIOVOLOS Appellant

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 1, 2016

No. J-S30006-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 1, 2016)

Opinion

J-S30006-16 No. 1122 EDA 2015

06-01-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ERNEST H. PRIOVOLOS Appellant

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002581-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:

Appellant, Ernest H. Priovolos, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions of accidents involving damage to attended vehicle or property and six summary traffic offenses.¹ We affirm.

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3743(a), 3714(a), 3736(a), 3717(a), 3323(b), 3323(b), and 3744(a), respectively.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

WAS APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT TO AN ATTENDED VEHICLE AGAINST

THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL DUE TO APPELLANT'S COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT OF POST-CONCUSSION [SYNDROME], MILD NEURO-COGNITIVE BRAIN DISORDER DUE TO TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER DUE TO THE ACCIDENT AND RELATED EVIDENCE REVEALED THAT [APPELLANT] DID NOT KNOW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE CODE?

(Appellant's Brief at 4).

Our standard of review for a challenge to the weight of the evidence is as follows:

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the lower court's verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. 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. Champney , 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (internal citations omitted).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey L. Finley, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 22, 2015, at 6-9) (finding: court considered testimony of victims and police officers, who testified consistently to events which occurred on night in question; both victims testified that Appellant rear-ended their car, did not stop, and left scene of accident; victims had to chase Appellant through residential neighborhood to get Appellant's information; Officer Kozuch testified about his observations during accident investigation, attempts to locate Appellant, attempt to arrest Appellant, and Appellant's resistance to arrest; court also considered testimony of defense expert witness Dr. Mack, who diagnosed Appellant nine months after accident; court determined that Appellant slammed his van into back of victims' truck, drove away from accident scene, led victims on chase through residential neighborhood, abandoned his van, and then fled on foot; court also noted that Appellant gave police three different stories attempting to explain his actions that evening; based on evidence presented at trial, court concluded Appellant might have been intoxicated or he just panicked when he violated Vehicle Code, but he was not dazed or confused on night of incident; thus, Appellant's conviction of accidents involving damage to attended vehicle or property does not shock court's sense of justice, and Appellant's weight of evidence claim has no merit). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/1/2016

Image materials not available for display.