Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1955 criminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT Of COMMON PlEaS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : RENEE MONIQUE INMAN : 98-1955 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J. May 18, 1999:-- On January 26, 1999, defendant, Renee Monique Inman, was found guilty by a jury of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S. 3731(a)(1) and (4)(i).1 On March 23, 1999, defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, a $300 fine, and undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for a term of not less than 48 hours nor more than twenty-three months.2 Defendant filed a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, defendant alleges two assignments of error: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she "[d]rove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle at the critical time in question," and (2) "[t]hat the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." 1. Subsection (1) is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders the person incapable of sale driving. Subsection (4)(i) is operating a motor vehicle while the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10 percent or greater. 2. The minimum sentence of imprisonment of 48 hours for this first offense was mandated by 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(e)(1)(i). 98-1955 CRIMINAL TERM The evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth was as follows.3 On August 21, 1998, at approximately 12:52 a.m., Patrolman William Cornelious of the Camp Hill Police made a traffic stop on the 3400 block of Market Street in the Borough of Camp Hill, Cumberland County. While there, Patrolman Cornelious saw a black Jeep going eastbound on Market Street. The taillights of the Jeep were out. The officer saw a white female driver and did not see anyone else in the Jeep. Officer Cornelious finished the traffic stop and drove in the direction the Jeep had gone. About ten minutes after having seen it he found the Jeep in the parking lot of a Friendly's restaurant in the 3200 block of Market Street. The officer drove into the parking lot and saw defendant, who is a white female, working on some wires under the dashboard. Defendant told the officer she had driven the Jeep into the parking lot because someone had said her brake lights were out and she wanted to check them. She said that no one else was with her. Defendant asked the officer if he had seen her when she passed him. Officer Cornelious saw that defendant staggered and had bloo~tshot eyes. He smelled an odor of alcohol about her. Defendant told the officer that she had drank approximately two beers at a friend's house from where she had come. The officer conducted one-leg stand and walk-and-turn field sobriety tests, both of which defendant failed. Officer Cornelious was of the opinion that defendant was under the influence of alcohol and incapable of safe driving. He arrested her for driving under 3. Commonwealth v. Reddix, 355 Pa. Super. 514 (1986). -2- 98-1955 CRIMINAL TERM the influence and took her to a booking center where they arrived at 1:27 a.m. Two breathalyzer tests were conducted, one at 1:55 a.m. and the second at 1:58 a.m. The lowest test was .172 percent. Two agents at the booking center were of the opinion that defendant was under the influence of alcohol and incapable of safe driving. DISCUSSION Defendant testified that on August 28, 1998, she went to the Wanda's restaurant between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. She had "two maybe three beers." She and some friends then went to the Sierra Madre restaurant where she drank several shots of Buttery Nipples. When they were ready to leave, Michelle Interi said that she would drive defendant home in defendant's Jeep. Heidi Gilbert followed in her own vehicle. Defendant testified that she was in the passenger seat of her Jeep, Interi was driving, and they pulled into the Friendly's restaurant after a driver at an intersection told them the taillights of the Jeep were out. Her friends left but defendant, who is a mechanic, could not fix the wires to activate the taillights. Defendant stated that she used a pay phone to call her roommate, Maryanne Gladfelter, to pick her up although she did not remember if she talked to Gladfelter or left a message on an answering machine. A few minutes later Officer Cornelious drove into the parking lot. Defendant admitted that she told Officer Cornelious that she had driven the Jeep to the parking lot, then she testified that she could not remember if she told him that and stated that "1 told him a lot of things." Defendant testified that she was too intoxicated to drive and that is why she called Gladfelter to pick her up. She testified that Gladfelter paged her a -3- 98-1955 CRIMINAL TERM couple of times while she was talking to the officer. Heidi Gilbert testified that Michelle Interi drove defendant's Jeep from the Sierra Madre to the parking lot of Friendly's restaurant. She drove her own vehicle behind the Jeep. Defendant told her that she would call a friend to pick her up so she and Interi left defendant at Friendly's. Gilbert testified that she knew defendant had been drinking too much to be driving. Officer Cornelious testified in rebuttal that the black Jeep was the only vehicle that passed him while he was at the traffic stop. He remembered that defendant had a pager but he did not hear it go off while he was talking to her. He never knew anything about Michelle Interi and Heidi Gilbert until he heard their testimony at trial. On the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was driving her black Jeep when Officer Cornelious saw it on Market Street, the jury, as the trier-of-fact, was free to believe all of, part of or none of the evidence presented. Commonwealth v. Metts, 447 Pa. Super. 275 (1995). Choosing to believe the police officer rather than defendant a~d her witnesses was its prerogative. The evidence proving that defendant was guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol was sufficient to support the verdict under 75 Pa.C.S. Section 3731(a)(1) and (4)(i). Commonwealth v. Montini, 712 A.2d 761 (Pa. Super. 1998); Commonwealth v. Yarger, 538 Pa. 329 ~.199~). ~ Edgar B. Bayley, J. [ -4- 98-1955 CRIMINAL TERM Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth William Braught, Esquire For Defendant :saa -5-