J. A20043/17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JEREMY MICHAEL HARNER, : No. 295 MDA 2017

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, January 4, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Criminal Division at No. CP-40-SA-0000338-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2017

Jeremy Michael Harner appeals the judgment of sentence of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Luzerne County where the trial court found him guilty of 

driving while his operating privilege was suspended or revoked1and 

sentenced appellant to pay fines plus court costs. After careful review, we 

affirm.

The record reflects that, on August 4, 2016, appellant was operating a 

motor vehicle in Butler Township, Luzerne County when Officer 

Anthony Martine (“Officer Martine”) executed a traffic stop on the basis that 

 

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).
J. A20043/17

- 2 -

appellant was speeding.2 Officer Martine also issued the citation for driving 

with a suspended license.

A magisterial district judge convicted appellant of driving with a 

suspended license. Appellant appealed to the trial court. On January 4, 

2017, the trial court conducted a de novo trial. Officer Martine testified 

regarding the basis for the traffic stop. Officer Martine further testified 

regarding his initial conversation with appellant when he reached his vehicle:

Upon making contact with [appellant] and speaking 

with him, he had informed me that he had missed 

some payments on previous fines that he had 

accumulated that was [sic] not in reference to this 

stop. [Appellant] had also stated to me that his 

license was not valid. I proceeded to go back to my 

patrol car. I was able to pull up what magistrate’s 

office that he owed fines to, and I was able to 

provide him with that information. I issued a citation 

without any further incident.

Notes of testimony, 1/4/17 at 3-4.

Officer Martine emphasized that appellant made him aware that his 

license was suspended at the time of the stop. (Id. at 5.) Officer Martine 

also identified appellant’s driving record which indicated numerous 

suspensions in the past and which was placed into evidence. (Id.) Officer 

Martine further testified that he provided appellant with the location and 

telephone number of the magistrate’s office where he owed fines from 

previous citations, and appellant called that office in Officer Martine’s 

 

2 Although appellant was issued a citation for speeding, that citation is not 

before this court on appeal.
J. A20043/17

- 3 -

presence. On cross-examination, Officer Martine did not recall whether 

appellant provided him with a driver’s license or not, but he reiterated that 

appellant told him that his license was suspended. (Id. at 7-8.)

Appellant testified that he provided Officer Martine with his driver’s 

license but did not tell him the license was suspended. In fact, appellant 

testified that he thought the fine was paid and his license was valid. (Id. at 

9.) At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found appellant guilty and 

levied the sentence set forth above.

Appellant contends that there was not sufficient evidence at trial to 

support that appellant was aware that his driver’s license had been 

suspended when Officer Martine stopped him. (Appellant’s brief at 3.)

A claim challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence is a question of law. Commonwealth v. 

Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 319, 744 A.2d 745, 751 

(2000). In that case, our Supreme Court set forth 

the sufficiency of the evidence standard:

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. 

Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 533 Pa. 

412, 625 A.2d 1167 (1993). Where the 

evidence offered to support the verdict is 

in contradiction to the physical facts, in 

contravention to human experience and 

the laws of nature, then the evidence is 

insufficient as a matter of law. 

Commonwealth v. Santana, 460 Pa. 

482, 333 A.2d 876 (1975). When 

reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is 

required to view the evidence in the light 
J. A20043/17

- 4 -

most favorable to the verdict winner 

giving the prosecution the benefit of all 

reasonable inferences to be drawn from 

the evidence. Commonwealth v. 

Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 630 

(1991).

Id. at 319, 744 A.2d at 751.

Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906, 910 (Pa.Super. 2006).

Section 1543(a) of the Vehicle Code, entitled “Driving while operating 

privilege is suspended or revoked” provides as follows:

(a) Offense defined.--Except as provided in 

subsection (b), any person who 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 is guilty of a 

summary offense and shall, upon conviction, 

be sentenced to pay a fine of $200.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).

In Commonwealth v. Kane, 333 A.2d 925 (Pa. 1975), our 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that it was necessary for the 

Commonwealth to establish that the operator was aware that his license was 

suspended in order to prove a conviction under the predecessor statute to 

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a), 75 P.S. § 624. Although Section 1543(a) does not 

state that actual notice of the suspension is required, our supreme court has 

held that actual notice remains an essential element for a conviction. See 

Commonwealth v. Zimmick, 653 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 1993).
J. A20043/17

- 5 -

Appellant argues that he did not tell Officer Martine that his license 

was suspended until he spoke with the magistrate’s office after 

Officer Martine provided him with the magistrate’s telephone number. 

Appellant ignores the fact that Officer Martine testified that appellant told 

him that his license was suspended when he stopped him.3 This testimony 

established that appellant was aware that his operator’s license was 

suspended when he was stopped for speeding. The trial court did not 

commit an error of law when it determined that the evidence was sufficient 

to convict appellant.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/19/2017

 

3 Though credibility is normally not part of a sufficiency challenge, this court 

notes that the trial court explicitly found Officer Martine credible.