Opinion
J-S61009-18 No. 106 EDA 2018
12-17-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. DARIN JON RILEY, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 24, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-13-CR-0000222-2016 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Darin Jon Riley, appeals from the judgment of sentence of six months' probation and fines, imposed after he was convicted, following a non-jury trial, of driving under the influence of alcohol - general impairment (DUI), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), and careless driving, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714. We affirm.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
I. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the [t]rial [c]ourt's finding of guilt[] on Count 1, DUI General Impairment, when [the] evidence failed to establish that [] Appellant was incapable of safe driving[?]Appellant's Brief at 4.
II. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the [t]rial [c]ourt's finding of guilt on Count 3, Careless Driving, when the evidence failed to establish that [] Appellant operated his vehicle with careless disregard for the safety of others or property?
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough opinion of the Honorable Roger N. Nanovic of the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County. We conclude that Judge Nanovic's well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 2/8/18, at 1-16. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Nanovic's opinion as our own and affirm the judgment of sentence on that basis.
We recognize, however, that Judge Nanovic incorrectly states that Appellant was stopped at 6:30 a.m., see TCO at 11 n. 7., when the record demonstrates that Appellant was stopped at 6:30 p.m., see N.T. Trial, 5/8/17, at 10. According to Appellant, this mistake calls into question the trial court's factual finding that "it was ... dusk outside" at the time of the stop. Appellant's Brief at 18. Appellant is incorrect. The arresting officer testified that it was dusk at 6:30 p.m. when he stopped Appellant's vehicle. See N.T. Trial at 17. Additionally, the video recording of the stop, taken by the officer's dashboard camera, corroborates the officer's testimony. Therefore, the record supports Judge Nanovic's conclusion that it was dusk when the stop occurred.
We do not adopt the portion of Judge Nanovic's opinion which addresses a third issue raised by Appellant in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement, but which Appellant has abandoned on appeal to this Court. See TCO at 17-20.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/17/18
Image materials not available for display.