J - A23043
- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. WILLIAM A. MOULIS Appellant No. 1674 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 3 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP
- 02
- CR
- 0002584
- 2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2015 Appellant, William A. Moulis, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for dr iving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (“DUI”), stop signs and yield signs, and careless driving. 1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On the morning of November 2, 2013, Lisa Jacob s called 911 to report an erratic driver. Ms. Jacobs informed the 911 dispatcher she had observed the driver of a tan/brown Chevy Cavalier sedan driving erratically, swerving, and failing to stop at multiple stop signs. Ms. Jacobs said the driver of the

____________________________________________ 1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(d)(2); 3323(b); 3714(a), respectively.J - A23043
- 15

- 2
-

vehicle almost hit her car. Ms. Jacobs believed the driver might be intoxicated and posed a threat to others on the road. Ms. Jacobs subsequently supplied police with a written statement of the events as well. Officer Eric Maga responded to the 911 dis patch and pulled over the vehicle Ms. Jacobs had described. Appellant was the driver of the vehicle and Mary Mattei, Appellant’s girlfriend, was the passenger. When Officer Maga approached Appellant’s vehicle, he noticed Appellant spoke very slowly and h ad pinpoint pupils. Appellant took longer than usual to produce his insurance card and failed to produce his driver’s license and registration card the first time Officer Maga requested those documents, requiring the officer to ask a second time. Based o n the 911 dispatch and Officer Maga’s observations, the officer suspected Appellant might be under the influence of pills or narcotics. Officer Maga asked Appellant to exit the vehicle so the officer could perform field sobriety tests. Officer Maga initi ally conducted a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (“HGN”) test; Appellant displayed six out of six signs of impairment during this test. Officer Maga also administered a Portable Breath Test (“PBT”), which did not detect alcohol on Appellant’s breath. Officer M aga began giving instructions for the walk
- and
- turn test thereafter, but due to the heavy flow of traffic and Officer Maga’s observations that Appellant was unsteady on his feet, the officer decided for safety reasons to continue the field sobriety testing at the police station. At the police station, Officer Maga conducted the walk
- and
- turn testJ - A23043
- 15

- 3
-

and the one
- leg stand test. Appellant failed both tests. Based on Appellant’s deficient performance on the field sobriety tests, and the officer’s observations , Officer Maga concluded Appellant was under the influence of narcotics. A subsequent blood draw showed Appellant had Xanax and Valium in his system. Appellant said he had a prescription for Xanax, but Appellant did not produce the prescription to the of ficer. The Commonwealth charged Appellant with DUI and other summary offenses. On August 8, 2014, Appellant filed a suppression motion claiming, inter alia , Officer Maga lacked probable cause to arrest Appellant. Specifically, Appellant disputed that h e failed the field sobriety tests and requested the Commonwealth to produce video footage from Officer Maga’s police dashboard camera and video surveillance from the police station where Officer Maga had later conducted field sobriety tests. The court hel d a suppression hearing on August 11, 2014. At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth presented testimony/evidence from Lisa Jacobs and Officer Maga. Ms. Jacobs testified about her observations of Appellant’s erratic driving on the morning in question , which prompted her to call 911. Officer Maga testified about his observations of Appellant and his administration of the various field sobriety tests. Officer Maga also explained that the dashboard camera in his police cruiser had been disconnected and was non functioning on the morning of November 2, 2013. Thus, Officer Maga maintained there was no video footage of Appellant’s performance of theJ - A23043
- 15

- 4 -

HGN test. Officer Maga further testified that there is a surveillance camera in the hallway of the police station where the officer conducted the later field sobriety tests, but Officer Maga was unsure whether the camera was functioning on the date in question. The Commonwealth also moved into evidence, without objection, an e
- mail dated June 25, 2014, from t he Assistant District Attorney to defense counsel, confirming there was no video footage of any of the field sobriety tests. The defense presented testimony from Ms. Mattei. Ms. Mattei’s version of events directly contradicted the events as described by Ms. Jacobs and Officer Maga. Ms. Mattei testified that Ms. Jacobs was the person driving erratically, and Appellant only swerved to move out of Ms. Jacobs’ way. Ms. Mattei said Ms. Jacobs was “flying down the road” and almost caused a big accident. Add itionally, Ms. Mattei thought Appellant successfully completed the HGN test. Ms. Mattei admitted she did not see Appellant perform the walk
- and
- turn test or one - leg stand test because she was seated in the lobby of the police station at that time, but Ms. Mattei maintained she saw video surveillance in the lobby. Ms. Mattei guessed that, if Officer Maga had conducted field sobriety tests at the police station, then there would be video footage of those tests. Ms. Mattei also indicated Appellant has a pre scription for Xanax and Valium. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Appellant’s suppression motion. The court expressly stated it found Ms. Mattei’s testimony incredible.J - A23043
- 15

- 5 -

Appellant proceeded directly to a bench trial. The parties incorp orated by reference all testimony/evidence from the suppression hearing with the exception of testimony and evidence concerning the HGN test and the PBT. 2 The Commonwealth recalled Officer Maga. Officer Maga testified that Appellant admitted at the time of his blood draw he had consumed two Xanax, but Appellant did not recall if he had taken those pills the night before the traffic stop or two nights prior. Based on the officer’s observations of Appellant, Officer Maga opined Appellant was incapable of
s afe driving. The parties stipulated that the levels of Xanax and Valium detected in Appellant’s blood were consistent with therapeutic values for those drugs. The Commonwealth also presented testimony from Jennifer Janssen, an expert in forensic toxicol ogy. Ms. Janssen testified that Appellant’s blood results showed the presence of Xanax and Valium. Ms. Janssen explained Xanax can cause drowsiness, lightheadedness, and impaired coordination. Ms. Janssen stated Valium can cause sedation, muscle relaxat ion, and lethargy. Ms. Janssen also indicated that pinpoint pupils are more indicative of opiate use, which was not detected in Appellant’s system. Nevertheless, Ms. Janssen explained that just because a drug is below the detection limit does not necessa rily mean the individual did not consume that particular

____________________________________________ 2 Thus, Appellant’s performance during the HGN test and the results of the PBT are relevant only to Appellant’s suppression challenge.J - A23043
- 15

- 6
-

drug. Ms. Janssen concluded there were therapeutic concentrations of Xanax and Valium in Appellant’s system at the time of the blood draw, and Appellant was “under the influence” of those substances . The defense did not present any additional testimony or evidence. At the conclusion of trial, the court found Appellant guilty of DUI, stop signs and yield signs, and careless driving. The court specifically said it deemed Ms. Jacobs’ testimony credi ble and Ms. Mattei’s testimony incredible. On September 3, 2014, the court sentenced Appellant to time served plus six (6) months’ probation for DUI; the court imposed no further penalty for the summary offenses. Appellant timely filed a post
- sentence
mo tion on Monday, September 15, 2014, which the court denied the next day. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2014. On October 16, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuan t to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant subsequently filed a motion for extension, which the court granted until November 25, 2014. On November 25, 2014, Appellant timely filed his concise statement. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED IN REFUS ING TO GRANT APPELLANT’S MO TION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE OF THE ARRE ST FOR LACK OF PROBA BLE CAUSE? WHETHER APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS W ERE VIOLATED BY THE COMM ONWEALTH’S FAILURE T O PRODUCE VIDEOTAPE TE STIMONY OF THE TRAFFIC STOPJ - A23043
- 15

- 7 - AND SOBRIETY TESTS? WHETHER THE TRIAL CO URT ERRED IN ARGUING THAT APPELLANT’S CLAIMS R ELATED TO SUFFICIENC Y OF THE EVIDENCE AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WERE WAIVED FOR REVIEW BY THIS C OURT FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENTLY DETAILE D [R ULE] 1925(B) STATEME NT? WHETHER THE TRIAL CO URT ERRED IN DETERMI NING THAT THERE WAS SUFFI CIENT EVIDENCE ON TH E RECORD TO SUPPORT APPELLANT ’S CONVICTION FOR DU I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ? WHETHER THE VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT O F GUILTY FOR DUI
- CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDEN CE? ( Appellant’s Brief at xi). “Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the r ecord and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Williams , 941 A.2d 14, 26 (Pa.Super. 2008) ( en banc ) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 115 (Pa.Super. 2005) ).

[W]e may consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts. Williams, supra at 27 (quoting Jones, supra ). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well
- reasoned opinion of the Honorable An thony M.J - A23043
- 15

- 8
-

Mariani, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 2, 2014, at 4
- 9) (finding: (issue 1) Officer Maga pulled over Appellant’s vehicle based on 911 dispatch that Appellant was driving erratically; 3 Officer Maga administered HGN test at scene of traffic stop; Officer Maga testified at suppression hearing that Appellant exhibited six out of six signs of impairment during that test; Officer Maga also conducted walk
- and
- turn test and one
- leg stand test, both of which Appellant failed; court found incredible Ms. Mattei’s testimony about her observations of Appellant’s performance on field sobriety tests; bas ed on Officer Maga’s observations and Appellant’s failure of field sobriety tests, Officer Maga had probable cause to arrest Appellant; 4 (issue 2) Commonwealth did not possess materials requested

____________________________________________ 3 In its opinion, the trial court initially analyzed whethe r police had reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant’s vehicle. ( See Trial Court Opinion at 2
- 4). Appellant does not contest the validity of the traffic stop on appeal, so we need not address it.
4 To the extent Appellant claims on appeal that he was u nder arrest before the additional field sobriety testing at the police station, Appellant did not preserve that specific complaint at the suppression hearing or in his Rule 1925(b) statement, so it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Castillo , 585 Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (2005) (holding any issue not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement is waived on appeal); Commonwealth v. Little , 903 A.2d 1269 (Pa.Super. 2006) (explaining appellate review of order denying suppression is limited to examination of precise basis under which suppression was initially sought; court will not consider new theories of relief on appeal). Moreover, even if Appellant was under arrest before the additional field (Footnote Continued Next Page)J - A23043
- 15

- 9
-

by Appellant; Officer Maga testified that dashboard camera i nside his police cruiser was not operational on date in question; Officer Maga further testified he had no knowledge regarding whether any video existed depicting Appellant’s performance of field sobriety tests at police station; Appellant provided no evid ence that videos of his field sobriety tests actually exist; even if Appellant could show existence of videos, Appellant demonstrated no bad faith by Commonwealth in relation to preservation of alleged videos; 5 (Footnote Continued)

_______________________ sobriety testing, Officer Maga had probable cause to arrest Appellant at the scene of the traffic stop based on: (1) Ms. Jacobs’ report that Appellant was driving erratically; (2) Officer Maga’s observations of Appellant’s very slow speech and pinpoint pupils; (3) Appellant’s failure to produce his driver’s license and registration when initially asked; (4) Appellant’s slow production of his insurance card; (5) Appellant’s failure of the HGN test, in which Appellant exhibited six out of six signs of impairment; and (6) Appellant’s unsteadiness on his feet during the instructional phase o f the walk
- and
- turn test. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Weaver , 76 A.3d 562 (Pa.Super. 2013) (explaining probable cause exists if facts and circumstances within personal knowledge of police officer are sufficient to warrant person of reasonable caution in be lief that offense has been committed; holding officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI where concerned citizen called police to report defendant’s erratic driving, officer initiated traffic stop, defendant appeared sluggish and responded slow ly to commands, defendant failed HGN test, and police recovered Suboxone and Valium from defendant’s vehicle).
5 Appellant also claims the Commonwealth’s failure to disclose the alleged videotapes constitutes a violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (holding suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to accused upon request violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, regardless of good or bad faith by prosecut ion). To succeed on a Brady challenge, the defendant must show: (1) the evidence was favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the Commonwealth suppressed the evidence; and (3) the defendant suffered prejudice. Commonwealth v. (Footnote Continued Next Page)J - A23043
- 15

- 10
-

(issues 3 - 5) Appellant’s bald allegations in Rule 1925(b) statement concerning challenges to sufficiency and weight of evidence are too vague to permit review; Appellant’s claims provide no guidance as to which elements of DUI offense Commonwealth allegedly failed to prove, and how weight of evidence did not support verdict; Appellant’s sufficiency and weight of evidence claims are waived for vagueness). Moreover, when examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence: 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 wei gh 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 resol ved 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 reas onable 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 w itnesses and the (Footnote Continued)

_______________________ Feese , 79 A.3d 1101 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied , 626 Pa. 674, 94 A.3d 1007 (2014). Here, Appellant offered only the testimony of Ms. Mattei to support his proposition that the videotapes existed and would contain “favorable evidence” ( i.e. , t hey would show Appellant did not fail the field sobriety tests). The trial court found Ms. Mattei’s testimony incredible. Thus, Appellant cannot demonstrate a Brady violation. See id.J - A23043
- 15

- 11 - 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 , 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Jones, supra at 120
- 21). The Vehicle Code defines the offense of DUI, in relevant part, as follows: § 3802. Driving under influence of alcohol or

controlled substance * * * (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 impair s 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). Additionally:

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the...verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’ s sense of justice. 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 theJ - A23043
- 15

- 12
- weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limit ed to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. Commonwealth v. Champney , 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied , 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (internal citations omitte d). Instantly, the Commonwealth presented the following testimony/evidence at trial: (1) Ms. Jacobs testified she was driving her children to a doctor’s appointment on the morning of November 2, 2013, when she observed the driver of a nearby vehicle dri ving erratically; the driver failed to stop at multiple stop signs, swerved all over the road, drove across both lanes of traffic without signaling, and almost caused an accident; other drivers were honking their horns; Ms. Jacobs called 911 and described the vehicle and the driver’s actions; (2) Officer Maga responded to the 911 dispatch and pulled over the vehicle Ms. Jacobs had described; Appellant was the driver of the vehicle and Ms. Mattei was the passenger; Appellant spoke very slowly and took longer than Officer Maga had expected to produce his insurance card; Appellant failed to comply with the officer’s initial request to supply his driver’s license and registration; Appellant had pinpoint pupils, consistent with the consumption of pills or narcoti cs; Officer Maga conducted a walk
- and
- turn test and one
- leg stand test, both of which Appellant failed; a subsequent blood draw showed Appellant had Xanax and Valium in his system; Appellant admitted taking Xanax either the nightJ - A23043
- 15

- 13
-

before or two nights prior ; Officer Maga believed Appellant was incapable of safe driving; and (3) Ms. Janssen, an expert in forensic toxicology, testified that Appellant had Xanax and Valium in his system at the time of the incident; Ms. Janssen explained the adverse side effects of both substances, which were consistent with Officer Maga’s observations of Appellant’s behavior at the time of the traffic stop. The defense offered the suppression testimony from Ms. Mattei. Ms. Mattei’s version of events directly contradicted the e vents as described by Ms. Jacobs and Officer Maga. Ms. Mattei testified that Ms. Jacobs was the person driving erratically and Appellant only swerved to move out of Ms. Jacobs’ way. Ms. Mattei admitted she did not see Appellant perform the walk
- and
- turn test or one - leg stand test because she was in the lobby of the police station at that time. Ms. Mattei also testified that Appellant has a prescription for Xanax and Valium. The court expressly stated it found Ms. Jacobs’ testimony credible and Ms. Matte i’s testimony incredible. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict
- winner, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for DUI. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2); Hansley, supra . Additionally, the trial court as fa ct - finder was free to accept the testimony from the Commonwealth’s witnesses and to reject Ms. Mattei’s testimony. See Champney, supra
. Appellant’s guilty verdict for DUI is not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. See id. Th us, even if Appellant had preservedJ - A23043
- 15

- 14 -

his challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, those claims would still merit no relief. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Enter ed.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/30/2015(fl

ge nerall · ~n,.t!... ore s p ecifica ll y in th at thi s Cou rt re j e c ted h is clai m th at h e was arre s te d c::> . J ~H •• 0 <2. 1- 

# :fll

~ i , u t p ~ \\ c au se . D efe ndan t also cl a im s th at he wa s deni ed du e p rocess w h e n th e

~ . C o nnr,on ~ ~ 1

d id no t turn over certain vi d eo ev i de n c e . D efen d ant al so r ai se s

-- (...) u-~ ~ U.. c h al l~ es lSa~~ n th e s uf fi cien cy and we igh t of th e evide n ce. A ll claims fa i l. t · · c.) ...J -:;:,.. n . . .a:

~ · ~..I c- ~ , : , On app eal, th e d efe ndant cla im s th at thi s Co urt err ed i n denying hi s supp re s sion m o ti on fo ll owe d b y a t e rm o f prob ati o n of s ix m o nth s . D e fend ant then fil ed th is tim ely app eal. c ode offen s e s. De fe nd an t was s enten c ed to a term · of imp ri s o nm e nt of tim e s e rve d found gu i lty of dri v in g und e r th e influ ence of a co ntroll ed s u bstance and variou s ve hicl e s ent e ncin g mo ti o n s on S e pt e mber 1 6, 20 1 4
. After a n on-j ury tri a l, th e d efendant was S e pt e mb er 3, 2014 which became fin a l wh e n this Co urt d e n i ed de fe nd ant's p ost T hi s i s a dire ct appe a l wh e r ei n th e defend an t app ea l s th e Jud g m e nt o f S e n te nc e of Marian i , J. OPINION WIL L IAM A. MOULIS , v s . ) ) ) C C N o. 20 14-0 2 5 84 ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL V ANIA Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM2 1 I n his Omnibus Pretrial Motion and in his 1925(b) statement, the defendant o nly claimed that hi s arrest was without probable cause. He never specifically challenged the actual stop o f his vehicle, which required the standard of reasonable suspicion. See Commonwealth v . Holmes, 14 A.3d 89 , 95 (Pa. 20 1 1). Howeve r , because the defendant claimed in his Omnibus Pretrial Motion that he never violated the vehicle code and did not fail any sobriety tes t s, this Court will address both issues in its opini o n. places himself at risk of prosecution for filing a false claim if the tip is untrue, whereas an to be trustworthy, in the absence of special circum s tances, since a known informant identified citizens who report their observations of criminal activity to police are assumed Commonwealth v. Swartz, 787 A.2d 1021, 1024 (Pa. Super. 2001) (e n bane). "Indeed, but may rely upon the information of third parties, including tips from citizens." suspicion, police officers need not personally observe the illegal or suspicious conduct, occurred. Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89, 95 (Pa. 2011). "To have reasonable su s picion to believe that a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code is occurring or has Police officers are permitted to conduct a vehicle stop if the officer has reasonable stop of his vehicle as well as the probable cause to arrest him or whether he challenged only the probable cause to arrest him. 1 Regardless, both arguments fail. field sobriety tests prior to his arrest. It is not clear whether the defendant challenged the without probable cause be c ause he did not violate the vehicle code nor did he fail any Defendant's motion to suppress was based on defendant's contention he was arrested defendant's vehicle and the field sobriety tests administered to the defendant. predicated on the Commonwealth's refusal to produce video evidence of the stop of motion to s uppress, a request for a p r obable cause hearing and a motion to dismiss Prior to trial, Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion. That motion contained a Defendant first claims that this Court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM3 The defendant's vehicle was stopped as a resu l t of a 911 call from a concerned motori s t , Lisa Jacobs , whose i dentity was known to the 911 d i spatcher. Ms. Jacobs

re l ayed h er observations that the defendant had been oper ating his vehicle i n a re c kl ess

manner. M s. Jacobs told the 911 dispatcher that she w a s dri v ing on Ewin gs Mill R o ad in R obinson Town s hip

. While she wa s driving, the defendant' s ve hicle h a d qu i ckl y dri v en up to the left side of h e r vehicle and almo s t s we rve d into her v ehicle

. Th e defendan t ' s ve h icle quickl y sw erved away . She th e n ob s e rve d the d e fendant 's ve hicle pass her and r e pe ated l y s werv e again a cro s s her lan e and i nto on co min g traffi c and

al most drive off the road. She re l ated that other v ehicl e s w e re fo r ce d o ff the road du e to the defe n d ant's driving and the y were honkin g th e ir h orn s at h i m . She a l s o e x plained that the defendant drove through a few stop sign s . She then con tinued to he r de s tination and

ca ll ed 9 1 1. Ms
. J a c obs was able to describ e th e vehicl e t o the 911 d i spat c h e r and she

re l ayed all o f h e r o b se rvations about the defendant's dri v in g . Offi c er E ri c Ma ga was d i sp atched t o in v e s ti gate th e matt e r. He ca ll ed M s . Jac o bs and s h e r e lat e d h e r

o b s erv ations t o him. Officer Maga q u ickl y locat e d the defe nd ant's ve hicle and in itiat ed a traf fic s t o p. M s. J ac ob s's information co n ce rnin g the defen dan t' s errati c dri v in g clearl y

e st abli s hed r e a s onab l e s u s pi ci on that the defendant h ad v i o l at ed th e M o tor Ve hicl e unknown informant faces no such risk

. " Commonweal th v . Barber, 889 A. 2 d 587 , 593 (Pa
. Super
. 2005)

. Similarly, "Pennsylvania law

. . . permit s a v e hicle s top b as ed upon a radio b ull etin i f evidence is offered at the sup p re ss i on hearing to establi s h rea s onabl e suspicion

. " Id

. at 594; see al so Commonwealth v . Anthony, 977 A.2d 1182 , 1185-118 6 (Pa
. Supe r. 2009)
. Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM4 2 The defend a nt' s g irl fri end t es tifie d th at th e d e fend an t di d n o t c o mmit an y v ehi cle co d e v i o l atio n s . F or th e r easo n s set forth o n the re c o r d , thi s Co urt d i d n o t fi nd her t esti mo n y c r edi b l e. 3 Th e defe n dant' s girl fri en d t e s ti fi ed th at s h e d id not s e e th e d efe ndant fail the fie ld sob rie ty t ests
. Ag ai n , for th e r eas o n s s et forth o n th e r ecord , thi s Co u rt d i d n ot fi nd h er te s ti m o n y c r edib le

. defendant. belie v e s thi s eviden ce wa s clearl y s uffi ci ent to es tabli s h p r obabl e cau s e to arr est the the defendant had bee n dri vi ng under the influen ce of a c ontrolled s ub s tanc e . Th is C o urt had failed three fi e ld sobriety te s t s . 3 He cl earl y pos s e sse d th e required kn o wl e dge that Offi ce r Maga wa s aware that the defendant had been driving in an e rrati c manner and he The defendant failed both o f th o s e te s ts a s well

. A t the time of the defendant 's arrest , s igns of impairment. The wa lk-and-tum tes t and th e on e- leg test were a l s o admini s ter e d. test , or e ye test , and th e r e s ult s of that te s t di s clo se d that th e defend ant exhibit e d all s ix defendan t. Offi ce r Maga testif ied th at he admini s t e red the hori zo n t al ga ze n ys ta g mus ( Pa.Super
. 2008). In this c as e, Officer Maga administered field s obriety test s to the alcohol or a con troll e d s ubstance. Commonwealth v. Angel, 946 A. 2 d 11 5, 118 warrant a prudent p e r s on to belie v e that th e driver ha s been driving und er th e influ e nc e of exi s t s when a poli ce offi ce r h as knowl e dg e o f suffi c i e nt fa ct s and cir c umstance s to S i milarly , probable cause e x i s ted to arre s t th e defendan t. Prob able cau se to arrest The r efore, th e s top of defendant 's v e h i cle was prop e r . Cod e . Ac co r dingly, the information s u p plied by Ms

. J ac obs was s ufficient to pro vi de the requ is ite rea s onable su s p i cion for Offic e r Mag a t o c o ndu ct the traffi c s t o p .' Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM5 The evidence adduced during the suppression hearing indicated that the Commonwealth did not possess the materials requested by the defendant. Officer Maga testified that dashboard camera inside the police cruiser he was driving at the time of the arrest was never operational. He testified that the police cruiser had been placed in service in 2012 and that the dashboard camera never worked since that time. He also testified that he had no knowledge as to whether a video existed of the defendant performing field sobriety tests in the hall area of the police station. The Commonwealth Under Pennsylvania discovery rules, a defendant may request the Commonwealth to produce inculpatory evidence that is relevant and the Commonwealth must produce such information provided it is within the possession of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571, 585 (Pa.Super. 2003). However, where the evidence is equally accessible or inaccessible to both parties, a defendant cannot use the discovery rules to compel the Commonwealth to produce such evidence. Id. Moreover, unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is not accountable for the failure to preserve any potentially useful evidence and the failure to preserve such evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law." Commonwealth v. Feese, 79 A.3d 1101, 1108 (Pa.Super. 2013). Defendant next claims that his due process rights were violated when the Commonwealth did not provide copies of a dash cam videotape from Officer Maga's police cruiser or a videotape of the defendant's filed sobriety tests conducted at the Robinson Township Police Station. Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM6 The defendant's final four is s ues relate to v e ry g e n e ral challen g e s t o the sufficiency o f the evidence and th e w eight of the e vidence. P e nn sy lvania c ourt s h a ve explained that "a Concise S t atement which i s too v a gue to allow the court to identi fy th e i s sues raised on appeal is the functional e qui v alent of no Conci se St atem e nt at a ll. " Commonwealth v . Dowling , 778 A.2d 683 686 (P a . Super. 2 001) ; see also Commonwealth v . Seibert. 7 99 A.2d 5 4 (P a. Sup e r . 200 2 ). In s uch ci r cu ms t an ces , th e vague iss u es r ai se d on appeal ar e deemed w ai ve d. Lineberger v. Wy e th, 894 A.2 d 141, advised the Court that the video recorded in the Robin s on Township Police Department h a llway " loops over itself' if no timely request i s made to pre s erve the v ideo

. The defendant was arre s ted on November 2, 2013
. The suppre ss ion hearing occurred on August 11, 2014. Defense counsel did not file a motion seeking disclo s ure of the v ideo until August 8, 2014. Officer Maga only became awar e that the defendant ' s counsel requested a c opy of the video on the date of the suppre s sion hearing

. Although the defendant m a de a general statement that he belie v ed th at the v ideo s in que s tion did actually exist, he did not provide any e v iden c e that the v ideos a ctually exist e d o r w hat inform ati on would have been contained on them. Simpl y p u t, the video s reque s t e d b y the defendant were not in poss e s s ion of the Commonwealth. D as hbo ard c amera v ideo s

ne v er existed

. Additionally, e ven if the defendant could hav e s omeho w pro v ed the existence of the video s, there was certainly no showing b y the defendant of an y b a d faith on the part o f the Commonwealth in relation to the pre s ervation of s uch v ide o s. Accordingly , the failure to produ c e any of the videos to the defendant w as not e rror. Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM7 Simil arl y, Appellan t her e in fai l ed to articulat e the s pe c ifi c e l ement s of an y c rime wh ic h h e de ems th e e viden ce present e d at tri a l fa iled to s ufficiently e st abli s h

. Th o u g h th e Commonw ea lth did n ot obj e ct t o Appellant' s d e fecti v e 1 9 2 5(b) statement o n thi s i ss u e , th e trial c o urt indi cated in su ff icien c y w as waiv e d on appea l : Th e Superior Court held that thi s state m ent was too va gu e and, ther efo r e , th e issue of

Wa s there not in s u ffi cient evi den c e t o s u s t ai n the charg es of Murder, Robbery, VUFA no lic e nse, and V UF A on th e s treet s . [ s i c ] Th u s, denyin g p e tition e r due pr o ce ss o f l a w? the Superior Court was ev alu ating a 1925(b ) stat e m e nt th at p os ed th e fo ll ow ing qu estion : Commonwealth v . Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 125 7

- 1 25 8 ; (P a . Sup e r . 200 8)
. In William s , established at trial are too vague and r esult in a waiver o f the i ss ue s rai s ed o n appeal

. See evidence that do not articulate the s pecifi c e l e ments that an app e llant d e em s w e re n ' t Germane to this ca se , general claims of in s ufficien cy of e v i d e n c e or we igh t of There is a common s ense o bligation to gi ve the trial court notice a s to wh at the tria l co urt shou l d addr ess in its Rul e 1925(a) opinion

. While there is a middle ground that coun s el mu s t trave l to a void having a Ru l e 1925(b) statement so vague that th e trial judg e cannot a sc ertain what issues shou l d be discussed in the Ru l e 1925(a ) opin i on or s o verbo s e an d length y that it fru s tr at e s th e ability of the trial judge to hone in on the issue s actually being presented to the appe ll ate court, s e e Kanter v . Epstein , 866 A.2d 394 (Pa
. Super. 2004 ), that i s not an onerous burden to pl a ce on counsel. It only requires using a little common se n se . Sup e r . 2006) : 148 (Pa
. Super. 2006). As set forth in Commonwea l th v . Reeve s , 907 A.2d 1, 2-3 ( Pa
. Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM8

reas o nabl e d o u b t. He clai ms th at th e trial c ou rt e rr ed in fi nd ing h im gu ilty b e y ond a th e evi d e n c e. H e also makes t wo all egati on s th at hi s g u ilt wa s n ot pro v e n beyo nd a ev i de n c e was i n s uffi ci ent t o co n vic t him an d that th e ver d ict was a gai ns t th e we i gh t o f w hat i s re q uired in s u c h a s t ate m e nt. Th e d e f en dan t makes bald a ll egatio n s th at th e In th is case, th e d efe ndant ' s f in al fo ur cl a i ms in h i s 1 925 (b ) statement fall s h ort of jury w as a gai n s t th e we i g ht of the c redibl e ev iden c e a s t o al l of the c h ar ges . " ) wai ve d fo r havin g filed a vag ue 1 92 5 ( b ) st at e m ent claim in g o nl y th at " th e ver d ic t of the th erefo re, waived. ) ; Seib e rt, 79 9 A
. 2 d 5 4 ( A p pe llant ' s we igh t o f the e v ide n c e issue s ec u ring e x ec uti on o f do c ument s b y d e c e p tion " was in suff i c i en t an d the i s s u e w as , that stated , "[t]he e viden c e w as insuf fic ient t o s upp ort the ve rdi c t o n the c h ar ge of e vid enc e cl aim for ap pell ate re view

. ) ; R eev e s, 9 07 A. 2 d at 3 (a Ru l e 1 925 (b ) state m e n t comm i tted th e abo ve-c apti o ned o ffen s es " did not prop erly pre s e rv e a suffic i enc y of th e Simp so n wa s in suf

ficien t t o pro v e b e y o nd a re a sonable d o ubt that the appell a n t captioned offenses " an d that " the te s timon y of S o ndra C o ble , Juli e nne B ri ggs, and Atla s in s ufficient to prove be y ond a r easo nabl e d o ub t th at th e ap pe llan t co mm itte d th e ab o ve 52 3 ( Pa
. Su p er . 2 0 07) ( a 1 92 5 ( b ) s t ate me n t s tati n g that " [t ] h e e v iden ce p resen t ed was Willi a ms, 95 9 A.2d at 1257-1258; see al so C o mmonwealth v . Fl ores, 9 2 1 A. 2 d 51 7, 522-

its Opinion th at Appellan t ' s failure t o li s t any re aso n s he beli ev e s th at the e vi d e n ce was in s u ffic i e n t t o s u s t ain th e ch arge s c re at ed a s itu ation in whic h thi s is i ss u e is too ambiguous t o be effe c tivel y review e d b y the trial c ourt and s h o uld be di s mi s s e d

. T ri a l C o urt Op i n io n , filed Jun e 2 6, 2007 , at 7. A s su c h, in light of Fl o r es, supra; we find Appellant h as w ai ve d this i ss u e . Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM9

Date:
. ~,,p,_ / 

### I 

## 2,:;11- By the Court: For the foregoing reasons , the Judgment of Sentence should be affirmed. reasonable doubt and he claims that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His claims do not provide any guidance as to which elements were lacking proof and how the weight of the evidence did not support the verdict rendered in this case. These allegations are too vague and, pursuant to the authority set forth above, this Court believes that these issues are waived for appellate review. . · , ~ ~ Circulated 10/19/2015 10:49 AM