J-S80015-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

COLEMAN KEARY SMITH.

Appellant No. 184 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 6, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0000664-2015

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and RANSOM, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 05, 2016

Coleman Keary Smith appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, after being convicted of 

one count each of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) – high rate of alcohol1

and DUI – general impairment.2 Smith was sentenced to 30 days to 6 

months’ incarceration. After careful review, we affirm.

On appeal, Smith presents the following issue for our consideration:

Did the suppression court err[] in denying Appellant’s motion to 

suppress evidence when the arresting officer filed to administer 

and correctly score the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] 

standard field sobriety test, falsified his police report, provided 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(b).

2 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1).
J-S80015-16

- 2 -

false testimony and cross examination and acknowledged he did 

not know how to administer the field sobriety test.3

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

In essence, Smith attacks the trial court’s credibility determination 

with regard to the testimony of his arresting officer, Trooper Hanko. 

Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“It is 

within the suppression court's sole province as factfinder to pass on the 

credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony[; t]he 

suppression court is free to believe all, some or none of the evidence 

presented at the suppression hearing.”). Smith asserts that because the 

trooper did not administer the HGN test according to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Student Manual and that he “falsified the police report and 

[that] his testimony [was] intended to deceive,” we should reverse the 

suppression court. Appellant’s Brief, at 9. We disagree. 

Based on a totality of the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence 

to support the trooper’s stop of Smith’s vehicle and his subsequent arrest for 

suspected DUI. Trooper Hanko testified that he stopped Smith’s silver Ford 

truck after he observed it cross the double-yellow center lines of the road 

two times. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 12/7/15, at 11. Upon stopping 

Smith’s vehicle, the trooper testified that Smith had difficulty locating his 

____________________________________________

3 An appellate court does not reverse the suppression court's denial of an 

accused's motion to suppress if the factual findings and legal conclusions 

drawn therefrom by the suppression court are supported by the record. 

Commonwealth v. Bracey, 662 A.2d 1062 (Pa. 1995). 
J-S80015-16

- 3 -

driver’s license, slurred speech, bloodshot and glassy eyes, smelled of 

alcohol, and admitted to drinking multiple beers prior to driving. Id. at 12, 

19-21. Moreover, Trooper Hanko was trained in the detection of impaired 

drivers, id. at 5-8, and, in his career, had stopped approximately 40 drivers 

suspected to be under the influence, some of which led to DUI arrests. Id.

at 8-9.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, relevant law and certified record on 

appeal, we affirm Smith’s judgment of sentence based on the April 5, 2016, 

opinion authored by the Honorable Carol L. Van Horn. See Commonwealth 

v. Seguida, 985 A.2d 871, 879 (Pa. 2009) (types of evidence 

Commonwealth may proffer in section 3802(a)(1) prosecution include, but 

are not limited to, “offender's actions and behavior, including manner of 

driving and ability to pass field sobriety tests; demeanor, including toward 

the investigating officer; physical appearance, particularly bloodshot eyes 

and other physical signs of intoxication; odor of alcohol, and slurred 

speech”); see also Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887, 890 (Pa. 

Super. 2011) (sustaining conviction for DUI where defendant failed to stop 

at stop sign, smelled of alcohol, and failed four separate field sobriety tests).
J-S80015-16

- 4 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 4

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/5/2016

____________________________________________

4 We instruct the parties to attach a copy of President Judge Van Horn’s 

opinion in the event of further proceedings in the matter.
Circulated 11/10/2016 08:24 AM