HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-0000248-2010
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
RICHARD J. PATTERSON : CP-21-SA-0248-2010
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Masland, J., May 4, 2011:--
On February 15, 2011, following a de novo summary trial, this court found
the defendant guilty of violating 75 Pa.C.S. Section 3362(a)(2), in that he
travelled 80 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. After sentencing the
defendant to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine of $75.00, pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(G)(2), this court advised the defendant of his right to appeal to
the Superior Court within thirty days. The court emphasized the need to appeal
within thirty days in light of his failure to file a timely appeal from the judgment of
1
the Magisterial District Judge. The defendant did file a timely appeal on March
14, 2011, after which, this court directed the defendant on March 17, 2011, to file
a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal not later than 21 days
from the date of the order. The defendant has filed no statement. Although it
may be appropriate for the court to find that the defendant has waived his rights,
in an abundance of caution, we will proceed with a concise opinion under the
assumption that the defendant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
In re: Transcript of Proceedings, February 15, 2011, (transcript), p 4-7.
1
Following a lengthy discussion we permitted defendant’s untimely appeal to
proceed because the Commonwealth was not prejudiced.
CP-21-SA-0248-2010
Discussion
This case involved a citation for speeding under Section 3362(a)(2) of the
Vehicle Code. Specifically, the court heard credible testimony from Officer
Michael Keister of the Upper Allen Township Police Department to the effect that
at approximately 8:23 a.m., on August 29, 2010, while using a duly approved and
properly tested Tracker Speed Timing Device, the defendant was operating a
black Mercedes sedan at 82.5 miles an hour on U.S. 15. Conversely, the court
did not find the defendant’s testimony credible. In spite of his numerous
arguments regarding his opinion of the officer’s ability to properly perceive the
defendant’s vehicle, the court found Officer Keister’s familiarity with this section
of roadway, his experience with the Tracker device, and his observations on the
morning in question to be persuasive. Therefore, we respectfully suggest that if
the defendant’s appeal is not deemed waived, it be summarily denied as lacking
in merit.
By the Court,
(Date) Albert H. Masland, J.
Joseph A. Lockwood, Certified Legal Intern
Office of District Attorney
Richard J. Patterson, Pro se
th
345 9 Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
:saa
-2-