Opinion
J-A22036-16 No. 339 MDA 2016
11-21-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EBERHARD FABER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 10, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-SA-0000333-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Eberhard Faber, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, following his conviction of the summary offense of reckless driving. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, police cited Appellant for reckless driving after he disregarded an accident scene on December 8, 2015. On December 11, 2015, Appellant pled guilty to reckless driving, and the district judge imposed a $303.50 fine. Appellant timely filed a summary appeal for trial de novo in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas on December 29, 2015. On February 10, 2016, the court held a summary appeal hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court convicted Appellant of reckless driving and imposed a $200.00 fine plus costs. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on February 19, 2016. On February 29, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on March 14, 2016.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING [APPELLANT] GUILTY OF RECKLESS DRIVING WHERE THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS DRIVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?(Appellant's Brief at 2).
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence implicates the following legal principles:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder 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. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually
received must be considered. Finally, the [finder] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullick , 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa.Super. 2003)).
The Vehicle Code defines reckless driving as follows:
§ 3736. Reckless driving75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3736. The offense of reckless driving has two elements: (1) an actus reus of driving a vehicle; and (2) a mens rea of willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Bullick , supra at 1001. To satisfy the elements of reckless driving, the offender's driving must be a gross departure from prudent driving standards. Commonwealth v. Greenberg , 885 A.2d 1025, 1027-28 (Pa.Super. 2005). "[R]eckless driving requires driving that not only grossly deviates from ordinary prudence but also creates a substantial risk that property damage or personal injury will follow. It is also necessary that the driving reflect a conscious disregard for the danger being created by the reckless driving." Id. at 1029-30 (emphasis in original).
(a) General rule.—Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.
(b) Penalty.—Any person who violates this section commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $200.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Fred A. Pierantoni, III, we conclude Appellant's issue on appeal merits no relief. The trial court opinion fully discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed April 7, 2016, at 6-8) (finding: court resolved issue of credibility in favor of Commonwealth witnesses; evidence established that Appellant drove up to accident scene where police had blocked traffic by positioning emergency vehicles in roadway with lights activated; when Appellant arrived at scene, two uniformed police officers stood near emergency vehicles and directed traffic away from accident scene; under these circumstances, presence and purpose of emergency vehicles and police officers should have been obvious to Appellant; nevertheless, Appellant ignored emergency vehicles blocking traffic and directives yelled by police officers; Appellant proceeded into intersection, drove his vehicle over median strip in roadway, and narrowly avoided collision with emergency responders; Appellant's conscious disregard of police directives at accident scene established requisite mens rea of recklessness; thus, sufficient evidence existed to sustain Appellant's conviction of reckless driving). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/21/2016
Image materials not available for display.