J-A15044-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MICHAEL J. DOTSKO

Appellant No. 2580 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 4, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-SA-0000279-2014

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and JENKINS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016

Michael J. Dotsko (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas following his 

conviction for vehicle turning left.1, 2 We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. 

On August 8, 2014, at approximately 7:55 p.m., Corporal Roger L. Miller of 

the Upper Saucon Township Police Department was stopped at a traffic light 

in an unmarked patrol vehicle at the intersection of Oakhurst Drive and 

Route 145. N.T., 8/4/2015, at 24-25. Corporal Miller observed a grey 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3322.

2 Appellant was originally represented by counsel, but fired his lawyer on 

February 5, 2015. The court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw on 

February 25, 2015.
J-A15044-16

- 2 -

Honda with a New Jersey license plate across the intersection from him. Id.

at 26. When the light turned green, the Honda turned left while Corporal 

Miller was beginning to cross the intersection. Id. This forced Corporal 

Miller to brake rather abruptly to avoid hitting the car. Id. Corporal Miller 

pulled over the vehicle and identified Appellant as the driver. Id. at 27. 

Corporal Miller had a camera on his vehicle (“dash cam”) at the time.3Id. at 

29. 

On October 13, 2014, after a hearing, District Justice Daniel Trexler 

found Appellant guilty of vehicle turning left. On October 20, 2014, 

Appellant appealed to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. On 

August 4, 2015, the court conducted a trial, in which Corporal Miller 

testified, the dash cam recording was admitted into evidence, and Chief 

Robert Coyle testified that he downloaded the video footage recorded from 

the dash cam. The court found Appellant guilty of vehicle turning left and 

sentenced him to pay the costs of prosecution, a $25.00 fine and a $10.00 

EMS fine. 

____________________________________________

3 The dash cam was designed so that it constantly recorded, then deleted 

video after 30 seconds had passed, unless the officer activated his 

emergency lights. This feature allowed Corporal Miller to save the recorded 

video of Appellant from 30 seconds before he activated his lights and 

onward. N.T., 8/4/2015, at 29.
J-A15044-16

- 3 -

On August 27, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The 

court did not order, and Appellant did not file, a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. DID THE COMMONWEALTH FAIL TO PRESENT 

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE 

DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF VIOLATING

“VEHICLE TURNING LEFT” GIVEN THAT:

A. THE FIRST TWENTY-FIVE SECONDS OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH’S OWN VIDEO DO NOT SHOW 

[APPELLANT], HIS VEHICLE’S FRONT LICENSE PLATE 

OR HIS VEHICLE’S OTHERWISE HIGHLY VISIBLE 

ORANGE AND WHITE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

WINDSHIELD INSPECTION STICKER?

B. THE SCREEN SHOT TAKEN OF THE ONE AND ONLY 

FRAME OF THE COMMONWEALTH’S VIDEO IN WHICH 

A FRONT LICENSE PLATE IS PARTIALLY LEGIBLE 

ESTABLISHES THAT IT IS NOT [APPELLANT’S] 

LICENSE PLATE?

C. THE APPELLANT TESTIFIED AT LENGTH AS TO 

SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THAT WHICH 

IS DEPICTED IN THE FIRST TWENTY-FIVE SECONDS 

OF THE VIDEO AND THAT WHICH ACTUALLY 

OCCURRED.

2. DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN 

DENYING [] APPELLANT’S BRADY[4] MOTION TO PERMIT 

HIS EXPERT TO OBTAIN THE UNCOMPRESSED VERSION 

OF THE POLICE VIDEO, THUS EFFECTIVELY DENYING 

APPELLANT’S USE OF HIS RETAINED EXPERT?

____________________________________________

4 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 

(1963).
J-A15044-16

- 4 -

Appellant’s Brief at 2-3.

In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

for his conviction. He claims that he is innocent of the charges against him, 

and that the video was fabricated and does not show his vehicle. His issue 

merits no relief.

When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, our 

standard of review is as follows:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at 

trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there 

is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In 

applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence 

and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In 

addition, we note that the facts and circumstances 

established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every 

possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless 

the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter 

of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the 

combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain 

its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial 

evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire 

record must be evaluated and all evidence actually 

received must be considered. Finally, the [trier] of fact 

while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the 

weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal 

denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa.2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 

A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super.2005)).

Appellant was convicted for violating the following statute:
J-A15044-16

- 5 -

§ 3322. Vehicle turning left

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left within an 

intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway shall 

yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the 

opposite direction which is so close as to constitute a 

hazard.

75 Pa.C.S. § 3322.

Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is devoid of 

merit. Corporal Miller’s testimony alone, even without the corroborative 

video, supports the trial court’s finding that Appellant turned left into an 

intersection without yielding to Corporal Miller, who was proceeding straight 

across the intersection. 

Viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to 

find every element of the crime “vehicle turning left” beyond a reasonable 

doubt, and the lack of clarity in the dash cam pictures does not render the 

evidence insufficient.

Next, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying 

his “Motion to Compel Commonwealth to Produce Exculpatory Material 

Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland.” He claims he needed an uncompressed 

Audio Video Interleave (AVI) format straight from the original recording so 

that his expert could conduct a forensic video examination to determine the 

authenticity of the video, but that he received instead a video object file 

(VOB) that did not contain all the data of the AVI.
J-A15044-16

- 6 -

Whether to grant a motion to compel discovery is within the discretion 

of the trial court:

Rule 573. Pretrial Discovery and Inspection

* * *

(B) Disclosure by the Commonwealth.

* * *

(2) Discretionary With the Court.

(a) In all court cases, except as otherwise provided in 

Rules 230 (Disclosure of Testimony Before Investigating 

Grand Jury) and 556.10 (Secrecy; Disclosure), if the 

defendant files a motion for pretrial discovery, the court 

may order the Commonwealth to allow the defendant’s 

attorney to inspect and copy or photograph any of the 

following requested items, upon a showing that they are 

material to the preparation of the defense, and that the 

request is reasonable:

* * *

(iv) any other evidence specifically identified by the 

defendant, provided the defendant can additionally 

establish that its disclosure would be in the interests of 

justice.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573.

Here, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s 

motion to compel the Commonwealth to produce a different version of the 

video he already had. The record reflects that Appellant wrote several 

letters to the district attorney and the chief of police to obtain the video. 

Assistant District Attorney Sarah Heimbach (“the ADA”) sent Appellant 2 

DVDs on February 5, 2015. In response to his letter in which he indicated 
J-A15044-16

- 7 -

he could not play the DVDs on his computer, the ADA wrote him a letter 

advising him to play them through “VLC media player” and offered for him to 

come to the district attorney’s office to play the DVDs, because she knew 

that they played on their computers. 

Appellant was eventually able to play the DVD. The court did not 

abuse its discretion in not compelling the police department to supply him 

with an AVI copy, especially considering that it did not know if it had such a 

copy. Further, Appellant only wanted this version to explore his theory 

about how the police department essentially framed him for something he 

did not do. Corporal Miller’s testimony alone would have been sufficient to 

support Appellant’s conviction.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/9/2016