Opinion
No. 1442 MDA 2020
06-22-2021
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Emily Elisabeth PROWANT, Appellant
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Appellant Emily Elisabeth Prowant appeals from the Judgment of Sentence imposed after the trial judge convicted her of Driving Under the Influence-Highest Rate (2nd offense). Appellant challenges the denial of her Motion to Suppress. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the suppression court's Opinion filed June 24, 2020.
We glean the underlying facts from the trial court's opinion denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress. At approximately 2:00 AM on September 9, 2019, Officer Joseph Scharf of the State College Police Department was monitoring traffic when he observed Appellant driving her vehicle very fast on High Street, in comparison to other vehicles travelling on the same road at the same time. Officer Scharf followed the vehicle as it continued on East College Avenue and observed the vehicle weaving in its lane and crossing over the fog line by a few feet at least twice. He initiated a traffic stop and upon approaching the vehicle, smelled alcohol. In speaking with Appellant, Officer Scharf noticed her face was flushed and her eyes were red and watery. Appellant admitted to having consumed alcohol thirty minutes prior to the stop. Officer Scharf conducted field sobriety tests, which Appellant failed. Officer Scharf arrested her and transported her to the hospital where a blood draw revealed a blood alcohol content ("BAC") of 0.212%. The Commonwealth charged her on November 14, 2019, with two counts of DUI and one count of Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309.
75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1) provides that a "vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane[.]"
Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress asserting that Officer Scharf did not have probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. The suppression court held a hearing on June 5, 2020, at which Officer Scharf testified that he saw Appellant cross over the fog line by three or four feet two times in less than a mile. The court admitted dash cam video from Officer Scharf's vehicle showing Appellant crossing over the fog line on four separate occasions. The court concluded that based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Scharf had probable cause to believe a violation of the traffic code had occurred. Accordingly, the court held that the traffic stop was constitutional, and any evidence obtained as a result of the stop would not be suppressed.
The court also concluded that the stop was supported by Officer Scharf's reasonable suspicion that Appellant was driving while intoxicated after he observed her vehicle's excessive speed, weaving, and crossing the fog line four times. Tr. Ct. Op., 6/24/20, at 5-6.
On August 27, 2020, Appellant proceeded to a stipulated bench trial at which, inter alia, the trial court admitted the dash cam video and the notes of testimony from the suppression hearing. The court explicitly found Appellant guilty of count 2, DUI-Highest Rate (2nd offense) after the Commonwealth indicated it was "not moving forward on" counts 1 and 3. N.T., 8/27/2020, at 9.
At the same August 27, 2020 proceeding, prior to the instant stipulated trial, the Commonwealth revoked ARD imposed in connection with a prior DUI-Highest Rate docketed at No. CP-14-CR-1919-2018, and Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to that offense.
On October 22, 2020, the court sentenced Appellant to a five-year term of probation with restrictive conditions, including 120 days' in-home detention, for DUI-Highest Rate (2nd offense). ,
At the sentencing proceeding, the court first sentenced Appellant on docket no. 1919-2018 to 72 hours' incarceration. See N.T. Sentencing, 10/22/2020, at 3, 7. The court imposed the sentence in the instant case to run consecutive to that prior sentence. Id. at 10.
Notwithstanding that the trial court's docket indicates the court found Appellant not guilty of Counts 1 and 3, the sentencing order explicitly states that there shall be no separate sentence for Counts 1 and 3. Order, filed 11/6/2020, at ¶14.
Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. The court responded by relying on its June 24, 2020 Opinion denying the Suppression Motion.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in denying [Appellant's] Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal stop?
Appellant's Br. at 6.
Appellant contends that the court erred in denying her suppression motion because there was no evidence that Appellant's "momentary deviations from [her] line of travel ... endanger[ed] public safety. Id. at 16. This argument fails to garner relief.
We review the suppression court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the record supports the court's factual findings and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007). In conducting this review, we consider "only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence of the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole." Id. We are bound by the facts as found by the suppression court, so long as they are supported by the record. Id. We "may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error." Id.
"It is within the suppression court's sole province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. The suppression court is free to believe all, some or none of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing." Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the record, including the notes of testimony from the suppression hearing. As summarized above, the suppression court thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented at the suppression hearing before filing a comprehensive Opinion setting forth statutory and case law pertaining to the constitutionality of traffic stops that are supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Tr. Ct. Op., at 1-4. Our review of the record and relevant case law supports the court's factual findings and legal conclusions. We, thus, affirm on the basis of the suppression court's Opinion.
The parties are directed to annex the suppression court's June 24, 2020 Opinion to any future filings.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
Appendix
?
?
?
?
?
?
?