Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1955 criminal appeal3. S83026/99 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee V, RENEE MONIQUE INMAN, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PEN NSYLVANIA No. 710 MDA 1999 Appeal from the 3udgment of Sentence of March 23, 1999, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Criminal Division, at No. 98-1955. JUDGMENT ON CONSa)ag4~ON W'tt~ggOg, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County be, and the same is hereby AFFTRMED. BY THE COURT: D~: October 12, 1999 J. S83026/99 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee V. RENEE MONIQUE INMAN, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PEN NSYLVANIA No. 710 MDA 1999 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of March 23, 1999, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Criminal Division, at No. 98-1955. BEFORE: POPOVICH, ORIE MELVIN and HESTER, JJ. MEMORANDUM: Renee Inman appeals the March 23, 1999 judgment of sentence of forty-eight hours imprisonment, the cost of prosecution, and a $300 fine. Sentence was imposed following her conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. We affirm. Camp Hill Police Officer Warren Cornelious testified as follows at Appellant's trial. On August 21, 1998, at approximately 12:52 a.m., he was issuing a citation to a motorist in the 3400 block of Market Street in Camp Hill. Officer Cornelious observed a black jeep traveling eastbound on Market Street without taillights. He noted that the driver of the jeep was a white female and he did not observe any passengers. Officer Cornelious also testified that no other vehicles passed him. After concluding the traffic stop, Officer Cornelious proceeded eastbound on Market Street in the same direction of the black jeep. About ten minutes after having seen the jeep, Officer Cornelious spotted it in the F I L E O OCT 1 2 1~ J. S83026/99 parking lot of a local restaurant. The officer testified he saw Appellant walking near the jeep, and then she appeared to be working on some wires under the dashboard. Officer Cornelious 'approached Appellant and quickly noticed that she staggered, had bloodshot eyes, and had an odor of alcohol about her. The Officer further testified that upon speaking to Appellant, she stated she consumed two beers at a friend's house and subsequently drove her jeep from that house into the restaurant parking lot. Officer Cornelious conducted field sobriety tests, which Appellant failed. Since he believed Appellant to be intoxicated, he arrested her for driving under the influence. Appellant was transported to a booking center at 1:27 a.m. Two breathalyzer tests were conducted at 1:55 a.m. and 1:56 a.m., with the lower test revealing a .172% blood alcohol content. ]:n her defense, Appellant testified that she was not the driver of the jeep. Appellant stated that she was a passenger, and that her friend, IVlichelle ]:nteri, was driving the jeep to Appellant's home while a second friend, Heidi Gilbert, followed the jeep in her own vehicle in order to transport IVls. ]:nteri from Appellant's home. At some point en route, Appellant became aware that the taillights of her jeep were not working. She instructed Ms. ]:nteri to pull into a nearby restaurant parking lot so that Appellant might inspect the problem. Appellant testified that Ms. Gilbert continued to follow Appellant's jeep. -2- ]. S83026/99 Once in the parking lot, Appellant stated she told her two friends to proceed without her in Gilbert's auto and that Appellant would call her roommate to come and get her. Appellant, who is a mechanic, also stated that she was waiting for her roommate and attempting to fix the taillight when Officer Cornelious arrived. Ms. Gilbert and rvls. Tnteri also testified, and their testimony substantiated Appellant's testimony. Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilty of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The fact that Officer Cornelious never witnessed Appellant driving the vehicle, she argues, requires the jury to rely upon an excessive amount of circumstantial evidence. Tn reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Baez, 544 Pa. 66, 720 A.2d 711 (1998). The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt using wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Vetrini~ 734 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. 1999). The crime of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol requires that the Commonwealth prove two elements: (1) defendant was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the automobile (2) while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders him incapable of -3- ]. S83026/99 unsafe driving. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1). The second element, that Appellant was under the influence of alcohol and incapable of safe driving, is not contested in this case. Appellant contends that the Commonwealth failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove the first element: that she was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the vehicle. Based on our review of the record, we disagree. The most recent Superior Court cases indicate that something more than a defendant behind the wheel, with the motor running, is required to establish actual physical control of the vehicle; there must be evidence to support an inference indicating that the vehicle had been driven by the defendant while he was intoxicated. A determination of actual physical control of a vehicle is based upon the totality of the circumstances, includinq the location of the vehicle, whether the engine was running and whether there was additional evidence indicating defendant had driven the vehicle prior to the arrival of the police. Commonwealth v. Saunders, 691 A.2d 946 (Pa.Super. 1997) (citations omitted, emphasis added). Using the Saunders totality of the circumstances test, we are directed to consider all the factual and circumstantial evidence contained in the record. The facts, as testified to by the officer, are as follows: 1) Officer Cornelious saw Appellant's black jeep being driven on Market Street by a white female who appeared to be alone; 2) no cars followed that vehicle; 3) ten minutes later, Officer Cornelious found Appellant alone with -4- J. S83026/99 the vehicle while the engine was running in a restaurant parking lot; and 3) Appellant was intoxicated at that time. Taken in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, reasonable inferences could be drawn that Appellant drove her jeep: from the bar at which she admittedly was drinking, past Officer Cornelious, and into the parking lot in which her parked vehicle was found. The jury was not required to believe the testimony of Appellant or her witnesses, who claimed that Ms. ]:nteri was the only driver of the jeep that night. Tt is the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses. C, ommon~veall:h v, .4bu-.7,~mal, 553 Pa. 485, 527, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (1998). Judgment of sentence affirmed. -5-