Opinion
J-A20031-19 No. 357 MDA 2019
09-25-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ALFRED GERARD NOEL Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0002724-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Alfred Gerard Noel, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for driving under the influence ("DUI")—controlled substance and possession of a small amount of marijuana. We affirm.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2) and 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(31)(i), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Procedurally we add, on November 6, 2018, Appellant proceeded to a bench trial, where Trooper Catherine Long, the arresting officer, testified. That same day, the court convicted Appellant of one count each of DUI—controlled substance and possession of a small amount of marijuana. The court sentenced Appellant on December 4, 2018, to an aggregate term of seventy-two (72) hours to six (6) months' incarceration, plus costs and fines. On December 12, 2018, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the court denied on February 25, 2019. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 27, 2019. The court ordered Appellant on March 1, 2019, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on March 7, 2019.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT AT EACH COUNT?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE VERDICT WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SO AS TO SHOCK ONE'S SENSE OF JUSTICE?
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).
The following principles apply to a weight of the evidence claim:
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...verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice.
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) (most internal citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Small ,559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d 666, 672-73 (1999). 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.
The Vehicle Code defines the offense of DUI, in relevant part, as follows:
§ 3802. Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance
* * *
(d) Controlled substances.—An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle under any of the following
circumstances:
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). Additionally, the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act defines the offense of possession of a small amount of marijuana, in relevant part, as follows:
* * *
(2) The individual is under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual's ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.
§ 780-113. Prohibited acts; penalties35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31)(i).
(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:
* * *
(31) Notwithstanding other subsections of this section, (i) the possession of a small amount of marihuana only for personal use....
For purposes of this subsection, thirty (30) grams of marihuana or eight (8) grams of hashish shall be considered a small amount of marihuana.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Edward E. Guido, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 26, 2019, at 3-4) (finding: (1-2) in light of Trooper Long's training and experience, Appellant's attempt to hide suspected marijuana, and Appellant's admission that he had smoked marijuana recently, evidence showed substance Trooper Long observed on vehicle window track was marijuana; regarding DUI—controlled substance charge, Appellant admitted to officers during stop he had smoked marijuana earlier that evening, and marijuana was present on driver-side window track of vehicle; additionally, evidence indicated Appellant was impaired at time of stop; Appellant was under influence of marijuana to degree that impaired his ability to drive safely; evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of DUI—controlled substance; moreover, evidence at trial provided no other reasonable explanation for multiple indications of Appellant's impairment; verdict did not shock conscience and was not against weight of evidence). The record supports the trial court's rationale. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 09/25/2019
Image materials not available for display.