Opinion
J-S79026-16 No. 3590 EDA 2015
12-16-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JOSHUA MANNERS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 25, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0004304-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.:
Joshua Manners appeals from the August 25, 2015 judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County following Manners' convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"), unauthorized use of automobiles, and various summary offenses. We affirm.
In his notice of appeal, Manners purports to appeal from the order denying his post-sentence motions. However, an "order denying post-sentence motions acts to finalize the judgment of sentence for purposes of appeal. Thus, the appeal is taken from the judgment of sentence, not the order denying post-sentence motions." Commonwealth v. Chamberlain , 658 A.2d 395, 397 (Pa.Super. 1995).
Manners was convicted of one count each of DUI, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), and unauthorized use of automobiles, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3928. He was also convicted of the following summary offenses: driving on roadways laned for traffic, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1); following too closely, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3310(a); driving on divided highways, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3311(a); driving vehicle at safe speed, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361; and careless driving, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714(a).
On October 4, 2014, Manners and Eugene Goeser attended a mutual friend's wedding in Delaware. After the wedding reception, Manners obtained the keys to Goeser's vehicle from the valet at the venue without Goeser's knowledge. While driving Goeser's vehicle northbound on Route 1 in Pennsylvania, Manners lost control of the vehicle, which crossed the median and struck a southbound-traveling vehicle operated by Susan Cornett. When Pennsylvania state troopers arrived at the scene, the vehicle operated by Manners was lying on its side on the right shoulder of the southbound lane, and Cornett's vehicle was resting against the guardrail. Manners refused field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. The trial court further found:
[Manners] admits he was driving Dr. Goeser's vehicle [on] the night in question . . . [but] Dr. Goeser testified that [Manners] did not have permission to drive his car that night. . . .Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, 4/29/16, at 4 ("1925(a) Op.").
. . . Dr. Goeser testified that the plan was for Dr. Goeser to pick [Manners] and his date up from the hotel, drive to their friend's wedding, leave the car there, take a taxi cab home, and then pick up his car the next morning. They made these plans because all parties were planning on drinking that night.
The trial court misidentified the applicable rule as "Pa.R.C.P. 1925" rather than Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
Following a two-day bench trial, the trial court convicted Manners of DUI, unauthorized use of automobiles, and related offenses. On August 25, 2015, the trial court sentenced Manners to 1 to 6 months' incarceration followed by 2 years' probation and made him work-release eligible after serving 14 days of his prison sentence. The trial court also ordered Manners to pay restitution as follows: $300.42 to Cornett; $5,000 to Blue Cross Blue Shield; $9,627 to State Farm Insurance Company; and $4,300 to Goeser.
On September 3, 2015, Manners timely filed post-sentence motions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and requesting a modification of his sentence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the post-sentence motions on November 2, 2015. Manners timely appealed to this Court.
On appeal, Manners raises the following issues:
A. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that [Manners] did not reasonably believe that the owner of the vehicle in question would have consented to the operation of the vehicle had he known of it pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §3928(b).
B. When [Manners] made application for appeal bail at sentencing, was it vindictive and/or based on impermissible sentencing factors to increase the amount of jail time [Manners] would have to serve from three days to fourteen days to become work release eligible?
C. Did the trial court rely on impermissible sentencing factors or considerations
i) when it informed [Manners] it was bad timing [for him] because of an unrelated homicide;
ii) when the court commented how its college students were embarrassed of [Manners] and thought he testified poorly.
D. Whether the trial court's restitution order was illegal in that it was:
Manners' Br. at 3-4.i) speculative and unsupported by the record as to the $4300 ordered to Eugene Goeser; and
ii) unsupported by the record and violated [Manners'] due process rights as to the $4500 to Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Manner first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for unauthorized use of automobiles because the evidence established that Manners reasonably believed that Goeser would have consented to Manners' use of his vehicle had he known about it. When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, there was "sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. DiStefano , 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hennigan , 753 A.2d 245, 253 (Pa.Super. 2000)). In applying this standard, "we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for [that of] the fact-finder." Id.
The trial court addressed Manners' sufficiency claim in its opinion and properly concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Manners' conviction for unauthorized use of automobiles. In particular, in light of the testimony of the vehicle's owner and surrounding circumstances, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to prove that Manners did not reasonably believe the owner would have consented to Manners' operation of the vehicle had the owner known about it. We agree with and adopt the trial court's reasoning. See 1925(a) Op. at 3-5.
Next, Manners argues that the trial court's decision to increase Manners' prison sentence from 3 days to 14 days before he could become work-release eligible was vindictive and that the trial court relied on impermissible factors in imposing the sentence. We review a trial court's sentencing determination for an abuse of discretion. Allen , 24 A.3d at 1064. We will not find an abuse of discretion "unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will" or demonstrates "such lack of support . . . as to be clearly erroneous." Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Walls , 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007)).
Manners' claims challenge the discretionary aspects of sentencing. We will review these claims because Manners: (1) filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) raised the sentencing claims in his post-sentence motions; (3) included a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(f) statement in his brief; and (4) raised a substantial question that his sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code. See Commonwealth v. Batts , 125 A.3d 33, 43 (Pa.Super. 2015), app. granted in part, 135 A.3d 176 (Pa. 2016); see also Commonwealth v. Allen , 24 A.3d 1058, 1064-65 (Pa.Super. 2011) (recognizing that appellant's claim that sentence is excessive because trial court relied on impermissible factors raises substantial question).
The trial court thoroughly addressed Manners' discretionary aspects of sentencing claims in its opinion. We agree with and adopt the reasoning of the trial court, which properly concluded that it did not rely on impermissible factors or otherwise abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See 1925(a) Op. at 8-16.
Finally, Manners argues that the trial court's restitution order is illegal because the record does not support the restitution granted either to Goeser or to Blue Cross Blue Shield. A claim that a restitution order is unsupported by the record challenges the legality, rather than the discretionary aspects, of sentencing. Commonwealth v. Redman , 864 A.2d 566, 569 (Pa.Super. 2004). "[T]he determination as to whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence is a question of law; our standard of review in cases dealing with questions of law is plenary." Commonwealth v. Hughes , 986 A.2d 159, 160 (Pa.Super. 2009).
After our review of this issue, we conclude that the restitution order is supported by the record for the reasons stated in the trial court's opinion. We agree with and adopt the trial court's reasoning. See 1925(a) Op. at 16-20.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/16/2016
Image materials not available for display.