J-A08018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRENDAN ALEXANDE LINTON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 747 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 26, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-10-CR-0001351-2021

BEFORE: STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: July 21, 2023

Brendan Alexande Linton (“Linton”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed following his conviction for pedalcycle operated at a safe 

speed not to impede traffic.

1

 We affirm.

The relevant factual and procedural history of this matter is as follows. 

On July 31, 2021, Linton was operating his bicycle well-below the posted 

speed limits on Evans City Road (Route 68) in Butler Township, and 

consequently impeding the flow of vehicular traffic. Trooper Joshua Osche

charged Linton with several summary offenses, and the matter proceeded to 

a summary trial. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3364(b)(2).
J-A08018-23

- 2 -

At trial, Trooper Osche testified that when he observed Linton riding his 

bicycle in the westbound traffic lane of Route 68, he recalled hearing 

complaints of slow-moving bicycles impeding traffic in the area. See N.T., 

5/26/22, at 6. The trooper moved into the westbound traffic lane to follow 

Linton’s direction of travel and activated his dashboard camera to record

Linton’s actions. Id. The trooper indicated that Route 68 is a “heavily 

traveled” two-lane roadway, and that “there were several vehicles queued in 

traffic following behind . . . Linton.” Id. at 8. The trooper noted that there 

was an “extremely wide” berm to the side of the roadway in this area;

however, Linton took no “steps to accommodate the flow of traffic, pull over 

onto the berm, or even acknowledge any other vehicles behind him.” Id. The 

trooper also explained that several vehicles tried to get around Linton, but 

there was oncoming traffic. Id. The trooper indicated that he also tried to 

get around Linton but was unable to do so due to oncoming traffic. Id. at 9.

Ultimately, the trooper initiated a traffic stop. Id. Upon being pulled 

over by the trooper, Linton refused to provide his identification and claimed

that he was not required to do so. Id. Although Linton refused to identify 

himself, the trooper recalled his name from prior similar offenses, and was 

able to pull up Linton’s name, address, and photograph on his computer. Id. 

at 10. The trooper returned from the vehicle and asked Linton to confirm his 

name and current address, which he did. Id. The trooper then informed 

Linton that a citation would be mailed to him. Id. Linton was charged with 
J-A08018-23

- 3 -

pedalcycle operated at a safe speed not to impede traffic, disorderly conduct, 

and investigation by police officers. 

The eight-minute video taken from the trooper’s dashboard camera was 

then played for the court. Id. at 12. The video showed that the trooper 

followed Linton for several miles on a clear sunny day. At times, Linton 

operated his bicycle in the middle of the westbound traffic lane, and at other 

times, he operated it near the right side of the lane, but always within the 

lane. Because of nearly continuous on-coming traffic, several cars (including 

the trooper’s vehicle) could not get around Linton. As the trooper was 

following him, Linton’s bicycle passed from a speed zone of 45 miles per hour 

(“mph”) into a speed zone of 55-mph zone. In the video, the trooper noted 

that Linton’s speed in the 55-mph zone was nineteen mph, and that it had 

been as slow as twelve mph in the 45-mph zone. The video showed that there 

was a wide berm on the right side of the road that Linton could have used but 

did not do so. See Commonwealth Exhibit 1; see also N.T., 5/26/22, at 12-

14 (wherein the audio portions of the video were transcribed into the record).

Linton took the stand and testified that the section of the road on which 

he was travelling had a berm that was “particularly hazardous.” N.T., 

5/26/22, at 25. According to Linton, there were “some cracks and piles of . . 

. gravel and rock and sand and items of that nature[,]” as well as “multiple 

potholes the size of my head.” Id. Linton also testified that at one point in 

the video, there is a construction vehicle parked on the side of the road with 
J-A08018-23

- 4 -

flashing lights, a pedestrian getting mail out of a mailbox, and rumble strips 

to the right of the roadway at an intersection. Id. at 26. Linton stated that 

he had no “obligation . . . to pull over when practical [so as not to impede 

traffic or] to provide vehicles a safe passage if they can’t pass [him].” Id. at 

32. Linton further stated that he had no obligation to look behind himself or 

take any actions to alleviate any motor vehicle traffic behind him. Id. at 34. 

Following the summary trial, the trial court found Linton guilty of pedalcycle 

operated at a safe speed not to impede traffic and imposed a twenty-fivedollar fine. Linton filed a timely notice of appeal, and both he and the trial 

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Linton raises the following issue for our review:

Was the evidence presented at trial insufficient to sustain 

Linton’s conviction for a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 3364(b)(2) 

because it was quantitatively and/or qualitatively insufficient to 

support a finding that Linton operated his pedalcycle at an unsafe 

or unreasonable speed, or that Linton failed to use reasonable 

efforts so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement 

of traffic and where it appears that liability was predicated on the 

mere fact that Linton was operating a pedalcycle in the road?

Linton’s Brief at 6.

Our standard of review when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of

the evidence is de novo, while “our scope of review is limited to considering

the evidence of record, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom,

viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict

winner.” Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 A.3d 416, 420-21 (Pa. 2014). 

“Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes
J-A08018-23

- 5 -

each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by

the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744

A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). The trier of fact is free to believe, all, part, or none

of the evidence presented when making credibility determinations. See

Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39, 45 (Pa. Super. 2016). “[T]his

Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder, and where

the record contains support for the convictions, they may not be disturbed.” 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257, 261 (Pa. Super. 2016).

Pursuant to section 3364(b)(2), “[a] pedalcycle may be operated at a 

safe and reasonable speed appropriate for the pedalcycle. A pedalcycle 

operator shall use reasonable efforts so as not to impede the normal and

reasonable movement of traffic.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3364(b)(2). 

Linton concedes that he was travelling between twelve and nineteen 

miles per hour on Route 68 but argues that he was not impeding traffic “as 

several vehicles were able to pass him.” Linton’s Brief at 17. Linton further 

claims that it was necessary for him to travel in the traffic lane to avoid 

hazards, including a parked construction vehicle, a pedestrian, potholes, and 

a set of rumble strips.2 Linton also relies heavily on the PennDot bicycle 

manual and contends that his bicycle is a vehicle. 

____________________________________________

2 Linton additionally claims that there was a sign saying, “keep off the 

shoulder.” Linton’s Brief at 17. However, at trial, Linton was cross-examined 

regarding the location of the sign and conceded that this sign was far off in 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A08018-23

- 6 -

The trial court determined that Linton’s issue was meritless. The court 

reasoned:

The trooper’s testimony and the [dashboard camera] video 

plainly point out the [Linton] was in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 

3364(b)(2). The roadway in question has posted 45 and 55 [mph] 

limits. [Linton] was traveling from 12 [mph] to 25 [mph]. Clearly, 

[Linton] was impeding “the normal and reasonable movement of 

traffic.” Additionally, the drivers of the motor vehicles who 

attempted to pass and who indeed did drive around [Linton] were 

potentially placing themselves, [Linton,] and the oncoming traffic 

in grave danger. Lastly, [Linton] should have moved to the berm 

area to the right of the white fog line when motor vehicles were 

behind him. 

Trial Court Opinion, 8/15/22, at 2-3. 

Based on our review, we conclude that the evidence of record was 

sufficient to support a conviction under section 3364(b)(2). The

Commonwealth was required to establish either that the bicycle or pedalcycle 

was not operated at a safe and reasonable speed appropriate for that 

pedalcycle, or that the pedalcycle operator failed to use reasonable efforts so 

as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. Here, the 

Commonwealth presented both the testimony of the trooper and the video, 

both of which established that Linton was impeding traffic on a busy two-lane 

roadway by traveling in the traffic lane at a speed of twelve mph in a 45-mph 

zone and nineteen mph in a 55-mph zone. The testimony and video also 

clearly establish that Linton failed to use reasonable efforts so as not to 

____________________________________________

the distance ahead on the roadway and had no bearing on the section of 

roadway at issue in this litigation. See N.T., 5/26/22, at 34.
J-A08018-23

- 7 -

impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic by using the wide 

berm next to him. Although Linton testified at trial that there were hazards 

on the berm (such as piles of cracks, gravel, rock, sand, and potholes the size 

of his head), he provided no evidence at trial of any such hazard (i.e., 

photographs). Indeed, neither Linton nor his counsel pointed out any such 

hazards in the eight-minute video which, at all times, showed the berm area. 

Thus, the only evidence of any such hazards on the berm area was Linton’s 

self-serving testimony which the trial court apparently found non-credible. 

Moreover, although the video does show a construction vehicle, a pedestrian, 

and rumble strips, Linton failed to demonstrate why he could not simply go 

around the single vehicle, the single pedestrian, and the rumble strips, and 

return to the berm over the remainder of the lengthy stretch of the roadway

on which he was travelling. Accordingly, Linton’s sufficiency challenge merits 

no relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/21/2023