J-S42009-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

VICTOR BRIDESON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1207 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 17, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-13-CR-0000017-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 09, 2020

Appellant, Victor Brideson, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas on January 17, 2020, 

sentencing him to an aggregate of six months to five years’ imprisonment for 

convictions of driving under the influence (“DUI”) of a controlled substance 

and three summary offenses1. Brideson challenges the weight of the evidence 

supporting his DUI conviction. We affirm. 

The trial court thoroughly set forth the factual and procedural 

background of this matter as follows: 

On the night of August 16, 2018, [Brideson] was stopped in the 

parking lot of Ametek, Inc. ("Ametek") by Officer Richard Neikham 

____________________________________________

1 Careless Driving, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a); Driving on Right Side of Roadway, 

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(a); and Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic, 75 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3309(1). 
J-S42009-20

- 2 -

("Neikam") of the Nesquehoning Police Department for erratic 

driving. Neikam was first alerted to [Brideson]’s erratic driving 

through a dispatch from the Carbon County Communications 

Center. Jennifer Dempsey ("Dempsey"), an off-duty officer with 

the Mahanoy City Police Department, earlier witnessed [Brideson] 

driving erratically and reported his vehicle registration and make 

and model of the vehicle in question to the "Comm. Center.” 

Dempsey then continued to follow [Brideson]’s vehicle until 

Neikam's arrival, at which point Dempsey followed both 

[Brideson]’s vehicle and Neikam into the Ametek parking lot. 

Dempsey had followed behind [Brideson] from the Dunkin Donuts 

in Lehighton, through Jim Thorpe, and to Ametek in 

Nesquehoning, a distance of approximately 7.5 miles. At trial, 

Dempsey described what she observed as she was driving behind 

[Brideson]. She described how [Brideson] drove at widely varying 

speeds - stretches of very slow speeds and then stretches of very 

high speeds, multiple incidences of [Brideson]’s vehicle crossing 

both the fog line and double yellow line, as well as a number of 

near accidents caused by [Brideson]’s erratic driving. Dempsey 

testified that she observed at least three incidences where 

[Brideson]’s vehicle nearly collided with vehicles in the opposite 

lane, causing those vehicles to cross over the fog lines in their 

lane of traffic to avoid hitting [Brideson]. After responding to the 

dispatch, Neikam followed [Brideson] for approximately twotenths of a mile, during which time he also observed erratic driving 

of the same type described by Dempsey, causing him to stop 

[Brideson] after [Brideson] turned into the Ametek parking lot. 

After activating his overhead lights, Neikham approached 

[Brideson]’s vehicle and spoke with [Brideson]. Neikham reported 

that [Brideson] appeared disheveled, had constricted pupils, and 

described [Brideson]’s behavior as being upset and 

argumentative. The appearance of [Brideson], his behavior, and

his constricted pupils led Neikham to believe that [Brideson] may 

have been under the influence of an illegal substance. Neikham 

then had [Brideson] perform two separate field sobriety tests, the 

walk-and-turn and one-legged stand tests. During the walk-andturn test, [Brideson] took the wrong number of steps, missed heel 

to toe placement on several occasions, and did not count out his 

steps aloud as instructed. [Brideson] also failed to keep his arms 

lowered at his side during this test, indicating a loss of balance. 

During the one-legged stand test, [Brideson] again failed to keep 

his arms at his side as instructed, swayed and hopped around, 
J-S42009-20

- 3 -

and could not keep his foot off the ground. Following [Brideson]’s 

performance of these tests, Neikham placed [Brideson] under 

arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled 

substance and other charges, and transported him to the police 

station. At the police station, [Brideson] agreed to a portable 

breath test (PBT), which indicated the absence of alcohol. 

Neikham requested a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to assess 

whether [Brideson] was under the influence of a controlled 

substance. Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael Sofranko 

("Sofranko") was the DRE who responded to conduct this 

evaluation. After meeting with [Brideson] and explaining that the 

evaluation was voluntary, [Brideson] refused to consent to the 

examination. [Brideson] also refused to consent to a blood draw. 

Sofranko testified that, even though his interaction with 

[Brideson] was brief, he did witness that [Brideson]’s eyes were 

bloodshot and glassy, and his pupils constricted. Additionally, 

Sofranko testified to his qualifications, and the Court recognized 

him as a drug recognition expert. As an expert witness, Sofranko 

testified that constriction of the pupils is indicative of controlled 

substance use.

A jury trial was held on June 4, 2019, wherein the Commonwealth 

established the previously laid-out facts. [Brideson] testified in his 

defense that his impairment on the night in question was the 

result of personal difficulties he was having at the time and not 

due to a controlled substance. [Brideson] testified that a few days 

before the incident he was evicted from his apartment and had 

become homeless. Additionally, he was working as a temporary 

employee at Ametek, Inc. and was trying to turn that employment 

into a permanent position.[] At the time, [Brideson] was living in 

his van, and his girlfriend, Terry Stettler ("Stettler"), who had 

previously resided with him prior to being evicted, had been living 

with a friend. [Brideson] testified that because of his 

homelessness, his concern for Stettler, and his need to turn his 

temporary employment into permanent employment, he had not 

slept for three days prior to the incident. Furthermore, [Brideson] 

testified to a problem with his eyes. He explained that he was born 

cross-eyed, and that as a child he was hit by a car, causing 

damage to his eye. [Brideson] described this damage as 

amounting to a "lazy eye, moving back and forth." 

[Brideson] further testified that his crossing the center line while 

driving and nearly striking several vehicles was done intentionally 

to alert the vehicle behind him (i.e., Dempsey) that she was 
J-S42009-20

- 4 -

driving too close. He claimed that he was trying to "move the 

vehicle so that the lights would hit my mirror and would reflect 

back on the vehicle behind me letting them know to back off; 

you're too close.” [Brideson] claimed to have learned this strategy 

from his high school driving instructor. Moreover, [Brideson] 

testified that his bouts of slow driving were due to cautious 

observation for construction zones and fear of deer and other 

wildlife crossing the road. 

[Brideson] claimed his impairment on the night of the incident was 

due to his stress and lack of sleep, as well as being cross-eyed, 

and not due to a controlled substance. In addition, Stettler 

testified that she had spent the day of the incident with [Brideson] 

and had not seen [Brideson] take any drug or controlled 

substance, but did notice that [Brideson] was stressed and tired, 

and even suggested that [Brideson] not go into work that night. 

Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/2020, at 1-5 (citations to the record omitted). 

On June 4, 2019, the jury convicted Brideson of all charges filed against 

him. On January 17, 2020, he was sentenced to six months to five years’ 

imprisonment. Brideson filed a timely post-sentence motion in which he 

argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court 

denied the motion. This timely appeal followed. 

On appeal, Brideson again argues the jury’s verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence. A challenge to the weight of the evidence “concedes 

that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on 

the ground that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of 

acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth 

v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). A verdict is 

said to be contrary to the evidence such that it shocks one’s sense of justice 

when “the figure of Justice totters on her pedestal,” or when “the jury’s 
J-S42009-20

- 5 -

verdict, at the time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath, 

temporarily, and causes him to almost fall from the bench, then it is truly 

shocking to the judicial conscience.” Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 

575, 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).

When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on 

the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court's 

decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is so 

unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based 

thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable 

on appellate review. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on 

the weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider 

the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the 

weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to 

whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on 

the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal 

quotes and citations omitted). 

Brideson challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his conviction 

under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). Pursuant to that statute:

(d) Controlled substances—An individual may not drive, operate 

or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle under 

any of the following circumstances:

* * *

(2) The individual is under the influence of a drug or 

combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual's 

ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control 

of the movement of the vehicle.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). We have emphasized that “Section 3802(d)(2) 

does not require that any amount or specific quantity of the drug be proven 

in order to successfully prosecute under that section.” Commonwealth v. 
J-S42009-20

- 6 -

Williamson, 962 A.2d 1200, 1204 (Pa. Super. 2008) (emphasis in original). 

Rather, the Commonwealth must simply prove that, while driving or operating 

a vehicle, the accused was under the influence of a drug to a degree that 

impaired his or her ability to safely drive that vehicle. See id.

We conclude that there is no merit to Brideson’s sole issue on appeal. 

Brideson argues that the Commonwealth did not present any evidence capable 

of identifying a controlled substance Brideson was impaired by. Further, he 

claims that his own testimony and that of his girlfriend adequately explained 

his erratic driving and other visible symptoms of impairment.

While the evidence presented at trial certainly was missing any 

identification of a controlled substance in Brideson’s blood, it is also true that 

Brideson refused to submit to an examination by the DRE. Further, while the 

jury could have credited Brideson’s evidence explaining his apparent 

impairment, it clearly did not do so. The trial court reviewed this testimony 

and concluded that it was “not so overwhelmingly supportive of [Brideson’s] 

innocence as to cast doubt on whether justice was served.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 6/2/2020, at 8. 

After reviewing the transcript, we cannot conclude the court’s reasoning 

was an abuse of its discretion. As such, Brideson’s sole claim on appeal merits 

no relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S42009-20

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/9/20