Opinion
J-S69008-15 No. 327 EDA 2015
03-03-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ROBERT E. COUSAR Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 3, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003053-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Robert E. Cousar, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his conviction of accidents involving death or personal injury. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER APPELLANT'S "SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE" WITH THE HIT-AND-RUN STATUTES[?]
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S VERDICT[?](Appellant's Brief at 4).
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE[?]
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Giovanni Campbell, we conclude Appellant's issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those questions. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed April 7, 2015, at 5-10) (finding: (issues 1 and 2) evidence established Appellant was driver of vehicle that struck and injured victim, and Appellant failed to remain at scene of accident until he fulfilled requirements of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3744; Appellant's argument that he met his statutory obligation because his father called police to report Appellant's involvement in accident fails because Appellant's own conduct did not constitute substantial compliance with hit-and-run statute; specifically, Appellant did not supply his name, address, and vehicle registration number to anyone at scene, or provide anyone opportunity to request Appellant's driver's license and information relating to financial responsibility; further, Appellant failed to render reasonable assistance to victim or make arrangements for transport of victim to hospital when it was apparent that victim required medical treatment; Appellant also did not wait for police to arrive at accident scene, even though Appellant knew police were responding to 911 call placed by victim's friend; additionally, Appellant, failed to report his involvement in accident promptly and give his pertinent information to police by phone or in person; under these circumstances, evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant's non-compliance with hit-and-run statute and to support Appellant's conviction of accidents involving death or personal injury; (issue 3) Appellant was non-compliant with hit-and-run statute in several ways; Appellant fled scene of accident and while he might have experienced remorse, this did not compel Appellant to return to scene of accident, present himself promptly to police, or call police to report accident as required by hit-and-run statute; instead, Appellant left his father to call police while Appellant went to sleep and then went to work in morning; Appellant's actions demonstrated complete disregard of duties imposed on drivers by law; based on these facts, court finds no basis to conclude that verdict was against weight of evidence). 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: 3/3/2016
Image materials not available for display.