J-S27034-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANDRES RODRIGUEZ 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 50 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 16, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0005086-2018

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 27, 2024

Andres Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after the trial court convicted him of driving under the influence 

(“DUI”),

1 driving while operating privilege is suspended, and careless driving.2

 

We affirm.

In August 2018, West Reading Police Officer Brandon Breitenstein 

(“Officer Breitenstein) was dispatched to the scene of a one-vehicle accident. 

See N.T., 8/16/22, at 4, 10, 18. At the scene, Officer Breitenstein observed 

a white Lincoln SUV had crossed from the westbound lane to the eastbound 

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth charge Rodriguez with five counts of DUI, see 75 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(a)(1), (b), (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iii), and (d)(2). The trial court 

convicted Rodriguez on all counts but sentenced him only on count three, 

pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1)(i).

2 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1543(a) and 3714(a).
J-S27034-23

- 2 -

lane, jumped the curb and struck a wall and a light pole. See id. at 4-5. The 

vehicle sustained extensive damage to the driver’s side, the airbags had 

deployed, and the driver’s side windows were smashed. See id. at 5.

Rodriguez was standing next to the car,

3 and had a cut over his right 

eye, consistent with hitting the car’s window. See id. at 6. Officer 

Breitenstein observed Rodriguez appeared intoxicated, he had “bloodshot 

glassy eyes and slurred speech. He was staggering as he walked, nearly 

falling over.” Id. at 10. Rodriguez explained he had been drinking at a bar 

with family members, and he “crashed.” Id. at 6-8. Rodriguez was not from 

the area and was unable to give any information about the location or name 

of the bar, except that it was in the City of Reading. See id. at 6-8. An 

ambulance took Rodriguez to the hospital. See id. at 11, 20-21.

At the hospital, Officer Breitenstein read the Pennsylvania Department 

of Transportation DL-26 chemical test warnings form to Rodriguez, who 

consented to a blood test. See id. at 11-12. Rodriguez told Officer 

Breitenstein he had imbibed too much alcohol and smoked marijuana. See 

id. at 15-16. Blood testing showed Rodriguez had a blood alcohol 

concentration (“BAC”) of .121% and the presence of marijuana and its 

metabolite. See Commonwealth’s Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3. At the time of the 

____________________________________________

3 Rodriguez was not the registered owner of the car. See N.T., 8/16/22, at 

20.
J-S27034-23

- 3 -

accident, Rodriguez’s driver’s license was suspended. See Commonwealth’s 

Exhibit No. 5.

Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Rodriguez of the above 

offenses. The court sentenced Rodriguez to seventy-two hours to six months 

in county jail. Rodriguez filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court 

denied. The instant, timely appeal followed.4

On appeal, Rodriguez raises three issues for our review:

1. Did the court err when it admitted Rodriguez’s extrajudicial 

statement when the corpus delicti of [DUI], driving while 

operating privileges are suspended, and careless driving, had 

not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence or when 

it considered [Rodriguez’s] extrajudicial statement when the 

corpus delicti of [DUI], driving while operating privileges were 

suspended or revoked, and careless driving had not been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

2. Did the Commonwealth present sufficient evidence to establish 

the verdicts for [DUI], driving while operating privileges were 

suspended or revoked, and careless driving when there was no 

evidence presented to show that [Rodriguez] was driving?

3. Were the verdicts for [DUI], driving while operating privileges 

are suspended, and careless driving, against the weight of the 

evidence?

Rodriguez’s Brief at 8-9 (numeration added, paragraph formatting altered).

In his first issue, Rodriguez argues the Commonwealth failed to establish 

the corpus delicti for DUI, driving while operating privilege is suspended, and 

careless driving. See Rodriguez’s Brief at 17-26.

____________________________________________

4 Rodriguez and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S27034-23

- 4 -

Our standard of review for a challenge pursuant to the corpus delicti rule 

is well-settled.

The corpus delicti rule is designed to guard against the hasty and 

unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and 

admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no 

crime has in fact been committed. The corpus delicti rule is a rule 

of evidence. Our standard of review on appeals challenging an 

evidentiary ruling of the trial court is limited to a determination of 

whether the trial court abused its discretion. The corpus delicti

rule places the burden on the prosecution to establish that a crime 

has [] occurred before a confession or admission of the accused 

connecting him to the crime can be admitted. The corpus delicti

is literally the body of the crime; it consists of proof that a loss or 

injury has occurred [because] of the criminal conduct of someone. 

The criminal responsibility of the accused for the loss or injury is 

not a component of the rule. . . . The corpus delicti may be 

established by circumstantial evidence. Establishing the corpus 

delicti in Pennsylvania is a two-step process. The first step 

concerns the trial judge’s admission of the accused’s 

statements[,] and the second step concerns the fact finder’s 

consideration of those statements. [F]or the statement to be 

admitted, the Commonwealth must prove the corpus delicti by a 

preponderance of the evidence. [F]or the statement to be 

considered by the fact finder, the Commonwealth must establish 

the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 410–11 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted; emphases omitted).

“Before introducing an extra-judicial admission, the Commonwealth is 

not required to prove the existence of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rather, it is enough for the Commonwealth to prove that the injury or loss is 

more consistent with a crime having been committed than not.” 

Commonwealth v. Zugay, 745 A.2d 639, 652 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citations 

omitted). Moreover,
J-S27034-23

- 5 -

the Commonwealth need not affirmatively exclude the possibility 

of an accident [] to establish the corpus delicti. . . . [T]he injury 

or loss need not be tangible. Rather, [] to establish the corpus 

delicti of the crime of driving while intoxicated, the 

Commonwealth need only show that someone operated a motor 

vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 

Commonwealth v. Kasunic, 620 A.2d 525, 529 (Pa. Super. 1993) (citations 

omitted).

In addition, an exception to the rule of corpus delicti exists, 

which is commonly referred to as the “closely related crimes 

exception.” Pursuant to this exception, inculpatory statements 

may be admissible as to all crimes charged even though the 

Commonwealth’s independent evidence is able to establish the 

corpus delicti of only one. For the exception to apply, the 

relationship between the crimes charged must be sufficiently close 

[to] ensure that the purpose underlying the corpus delicti rule is 

not violated.

The purpose behind the corpus delicti rule is the 

ultimate consideration in determining whether two 

crimes are closely related [to] implicate the exception. 

Where the relationship between the crimes to which 

the defendant has confessed is close and the policy 

underlying the corpus delicti rule—to avoid 

convictions for crimes that did not occur—is not 

violated, the exception renders the confession 

admissible for all closely related crimes.

Thus, where the Commonwealth establishes the corpus 

delicti of one crime, an appellant’s inculpatory statements may be 

admissible as evidence for all crimes which are closely related. 

Whether the crimes are sufficiently close to justify invoking the 

exception must be determined on a case[-]by[-]case basis.

Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356, 363-64 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations 

and emphasis omitted). With respect to the determination of whether the 

crimes are closely related, the fact the offenses may be different grades is

inconsequential. See Commonwealth v. Verticelli, 706 A.2d 820, 825-26 
J-S27034-23

- 6 -

(Pa. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Taylor, 

831 A.2d 587, 595-96 (Pa. 2003). 

Rodriguez contends the Commonwealth failed to establish the crimes 

occurred before Rodriguez admitted he crashed. See id. at 22. Rodriguez 

maintains while the Commonwealth established a crash occurred, it did not 

show Rodriguez was driving, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. See 

id. at 23-24.

The trial court rejected Rodriguez’s corpus delicti argument, finding it 

properly admitted Rodriguez’s statements “based upon a totality of the 

circumstances. Trial Court Opinion, 4/4/23, at 6. We agree.

Here, the record showed Officer Breitenstein was dispatched, at 2:30 in 

the morning, to the scene of a single-car accident. See N.T., 8/16/22, at 4, 

10, 18. Officer Breitenstein observed the vehicle had crossed from the 

westbound lane to the eastbound lane, jumped the curb, and struck a wall 

and a pole. See id. at 4-5. The car had extensive damage to the driver’s 

side. See id. at 5. Rodriguez was standing next to the car, his eyes were 

glassy and bloodshot, his speech slurred, and he staggered as he walked.

5

 

____________________________________________

5 The Commonwealth introduced Rodriguez’s statement that he “crashed” 

before it elicited Officer Breitenstein’s testimony about the visible signs of 

intoxication. However, this Court has held the fact an “appellant’s admissions 

were introduced before the corpus delicti was completely satisfied is 

immaterial, as the Commonwealth ultimately fulfilled that burden.” 

Commonwealth v. Friend, 717 A.2d 568, 572 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citation 

omitted).
J-S27034-23

- 7 -

See id. at 6-8, 10. Rodriguez had a cut over his right eye consistent with the 

damage to the car. See id. Officer Breitenstein testified he did not encounter 

anyone else at the scene who was involved in the accident and his examination 

of the passenger side of the car did not suggest a passenger had been in the 

vehicle. See id. At the time of the accident, Rodriguez’s license was 

suspended; laboratory testing revealed a BAC of .121%, and the presence of 

marijuana and its metabolite. See Commonwealth’s Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, and 

5.

Based on our review, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court 

in rejecting Rodriguez’s corpus delicti claim. The circumstantial evidence 

presented by the Commonwealth was sufficient to demonstrate, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, the offense of DUI had occurred, where Officer 

Breitenstein testified as to his observations of: (1) a visibly and significantly 

intoxicated person, (2) with injuries, (3) who was found, in the middle of the 

night, next to a vehicle that had crashed into a wall and pole. Further, the 

circumstantial evidence presented by the Commonwealth, as well as all 

reasonable inferences derived therefrom, was sufficient to demonstrate, 

beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offenses of DUI and careless driving had 

been committed. See Commonwealth v. Young, 904 A.2d 947, 956-57 (Pa. 

Super. 2006) (holding Commonwealth established the corpus delicti for 

careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt, where evidence showed the 

intoxicated defendant was standing next to a crashed vehicle, with the keys 
J-S27034-23

- 8 -

in his pocket); Friend, 717 A.2d at 570-72 (holding the Commonwealth 

satisfied the corpus delicti for DUI where the evidence showed there was a 

one-car accident in the middle of the night; the skid marks showed the car 

crossed lanes and crashed into a guardrail; the defendant was the only person 

on the scene who had been involved in the accident; the defendant was 

injured; he was the owner of the car; and he displayed visible signs of 

intoxication); see also Kasunic, 620 A.2d at 529 (rejecting defendant’s 

corpus delicti claim in a DUI case where the police officer testified he found 

the defendant lying next to his crashed truck, on a freezing night, no one else 

was present, and the defendant appeared intoxicated). 

Further, we conclude the DUI offenses share a sufficiently close 

relationship with the offense of driving while operating privilege is suspended. 

The offenses were all part of one continuing incident. See Taylor, 831 A.2d 

at 596 (concluding crimes shared sufficiently close relationship because “there 

was one continuing incident occurring at roughly the same time, and the victim 

of each crime . . . was the same”); Herb, 852 A.2d at 364-65 (“the summary 

offenses of double-parking . . . and driving on a DUI-related license suspension 

. . . are sufficiently close under the facts as they exist in this case to implicate 

the ‘closely related crimes exception’ to the corpus delicti rule.”). Rodriguez’s 

statements “and [the] independent evidence presented by the Commonwealth 

are sufficient to overcome the danger of a conviction where no crime was in 
J-S27034-23

- 9 -

fact committed.” Taylor, 831 A.2d at 596. Rodriguez’s first issue does not 

merit relief.

In his second issue, Rodriguez contends the evidence was insufficient to 

sustain his convictions for DUI, driving with a suspended license, and careless 

driving. See Rodriguez’s Brief at 26-29. 

Because evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, the standard of 

review is de novo, and the scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth 

v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013). When considering a challenge to 

the sufficiency of the evidence:

[W]e evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the verdict 

winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable 

inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will be 

deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each 

material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof 

by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the 

Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical 

certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved 

by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive 

that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from 

the combined circumstances.

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of 

wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that the 

evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a crime is 

circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence 

coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom 

overcomes the presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may 

not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so 

long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of 

a defendant’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's 

convictions will be upheld.
J-S27034-23

- 10 -

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Importantly, 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. See 

Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868, 873 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc).

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802 provides in relevant part:

(a) General impairment.--

(1) An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual 

physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing 

a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is 

rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in 

actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.

* * * *

(b) High rate of alcohol.--An individual may not drive, operate 

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

imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol 

concentration in the individual's blood or breath is at least 0.10% 

but less than 0.16% within two hours after the individual has 

driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the 

movement of the vehicle.

* * * *

(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:

(1) There is in the individual’s blood any amount of a:

(i) Schedule I controlled substance, as defined in the 

act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The 

Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act;

* * * *
J-S27034-23

- 11 -

(iii) metabolite of a substance under subparagraph (i) 

or (ii).

(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(a)(1), (b), (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2) (footnote 

omitted). A person is guilty of driving while operating privileges are 

suspended or revoked if he, “drives a motor vehicle on any highway or 

trafficway of this Commonwealth after the commencement of a suspension, 

revocation or cancellation of the operating privilege and before the operating 

privilege has been restored[.]” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a). A person is guilty of 

careless driving if he “drives a vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of 

persons or property.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a). Careless disregard “implies 

less than willful or wanton conduct but more than ordinary negligence or the 

mere absence of care under the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Ford, 

141 A.3d 547, 556 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

Here, Rodriguez’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is based

on his rejected claim the Commonwealth did not satisfy the corpus delicti 

requirement. Rodriguez argues, because of this, the trial court should not 

have considered Rodriguez’s statements he had been drinking too much, had 

smoked marijuana, and had crashed the car. However, as discussed above, 

Rodriguez’s corpus delicti claim lacks merit. Moreover, we note Rodriguez 

stipulated to the results of his blood test and did not contest his license was 
J-S27034-23

- 12 -

suspended at the time of the incident. See Commonwealth Exhibits Nos. 4 

and 5. 

Moreover, the evidence delineated above, in combination with the blood 

tests results, Rodriguez’s certified driver history, and his statements at the 

scene and at the hospital, are more than sufficient to sustain his DUI, driving 

with a suspended license, and careless driving convictions. Rodriguez’s

argument to the contrary disregards our standard of review by viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to himself. See Franklin, 69 A.3d 722. 

Rodriguez’s argument is speculative, and he asks us to substitute our findings 

of fact for that of the trial court, which is again contrary to our standard of 

review. See id. at 722-23; Orr, 38 A.3d at 873. The finder of fact could 

reasonably infer from the testimony and documentary evidence that 

Rodriguez drove carelessly, while under suspension, and after drinking alcohol 

and smoking marijuana, causing him to crash his car. Rodriguez’s second 

issue does not merit relief.

In his third issue, Rodriguez challenges the weight of the evidence. 

Rodriguez’s Brief at 29-31. 

Our standard of review for a weight of the evidence claim is well-settled.

The essence of appellate review for a weight claim appears to lie 

in ensuring that the trial court’s decision has record support. 

Where the record adequately supports the trial court, the trial 

court has acted within the limits of its discretion. 

* * * *
J-S27034-23

- 13 -

A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is 

against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion 

of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a 

mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same 

facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the 

role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the 

facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore 

them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny 

justice. 

* * * *

An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with 

a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of 

review applied by the trial court. Appellate review of a weight 

claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying 

question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence.

Commonwealth v. Mucci, 143 A.3d 399, 410-11 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

(quotation marks and citations omitted). To prevail on a weight of the 

evidence challenge, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague, and uncertain 

that the verdict shocks the conscience of the trial court. See Commonwealth 

v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Rodriguez claims the verdict shocks the conscience because there was 

no direct evidence he was driving, and the only evidence presented at trial 

was that he was injured and went to the hospital. See id. at 31. He further 

contends his statements at the scene were unreliable because of his head 

injury6 and his intoxication. See id.

____________________________________________

6 The only testimony with respect to Rodriguez’s injury was that he had a cut 

over his right eye, which was repaired at the hospital. N.T., 8/16/22, at 6, 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S27034-23

- 14 -

The trial court considered Rodriguez’s weight claim and determined it 

lacked merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/4/23, at 7-8. We discern no abuse 

of discretion by the trial court in reaching its determination the verdict did not 

shock its conscience. The Commonwealth presented direct and circumstantial 

evidence that Rodriguez had been drinking, drove his car while his license was 

suspended, and crashed it. That the trial court, siting as finder of fact, chose 

to believe the testimony provided by Officer Breitenstein was entirely within 

its province. Rodriguez essentially requests we re-weigh the evidence and 

assess the credibility of the witnesses presented at trial. This we cannot do, 

as it is a task that is beyond our scope of review. The trial court, as finder of 

fact, had the duty to determine the credibility of the witnesses and evidence 

presented at trial. See Commonwealth v. Collins, 70 A.3d 1245, 1251 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (stating that “[a]n appellate court cannot substitute its 

judgment for that of the finder of fact”). Although Rodriguez challenged 

Officer Breitenstein’s testimony regarding the incident, he did not present 

independent exculpatory evidence that would contradict the verdict, nor did 

he so undermine the Commonwealth’s evidence as to render it completely 

unbelievable. Ultimately, the trial court found the direct and circumstantial 

evidence demonstrated Rodriguez drove the car while intoxicated. 

____________________________________________

11, 20. Rodriguez does not point to any medical or testimonial evidence that 

he suffered a head injury which would have rendered his statements 

unreliable. See Rodriguez’s Brief at 31.
J-S27034-23

- 15 -

Accordingly, we decline to disturb the trial court’s rejection of Rodriguez’s

challenge to the weight of the evidence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/27/2024