Opinion
2372 EDA 2022 J-S23025-23
08-29-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEANDRE RAMEL TAYLOR, JR. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 15, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0000410-2022.
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM
KUNSELMAN, JUDGE
Deandre Ramel Taylor, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence imposing six months of probation after the trial court convicted him of driving under the influence (general impairment). We affirm.
In the early hours of August 29, 2021, Pennsylvania State Police stopped Taylor's vehicle on Interstate 95. During the stop, Trooper Seth Betancourt smelled alcohol in the vehicle and on Taylor. Taylor's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He failed two sobriety tests and refused a request to test his blood alcohol content. The troopers arrested him for DUI.
After a bench trial, the court convicted and sentenced Taylor as stated above. This timely appeal followed.
Taylor raises one appellate issue:
Whether the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the conviction for [DUI] where the evidence at
trial failed to establish that [Taylor] had imbibed a sufficient amount of alcohol such that he was rendered incapable of safely driving, operating, or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle?Taylor's Brief at 4. He claims insufficient evidence, because "there was no objective forensic evidence presented to support the [trooper's] testimony . . . that Taylor was incapable of safely operating his vehicle due to alcohol intoxication." Id. at 8.
The learned Judge Mary Alice Brennan of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County authored a detailed, well-reasoned, 1925(a) Opinion, which correctly disposes of Taylor's claim of error. We therefore adopt it as our own.
The trial court explained that, under this Court's precedents, forensic evidence is not needed to convict for the DUI count that the Commonwealth charged. Taylor's refusal of a blood-draw test deprived the Commonwealth of the evidence that could have supported its claim; Taylor now suggests that this lack of evidence means his conviction should be set aside. However, where, as here, a person refuses a blood-draw test, refusal "may be introduced in evidence along with other testimony concerning the circumstances of the refusal." 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(e). Hence, Taylor's refusal of blood-draw testing, rather than exculpating him, is a fact from which the trial court could (and did) infer his guilt. As the trial court noted, multiple indicia of substantial impairment were noted.
The parties shall attach the trial court's Opinion of November 9, 2022, to this decision in all future filings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.