J. S42045/15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

JAMES C. BABB, :

:

Appellant : No. 3594 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 4, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Criminal Division No(s).: CP-46-SA-0000588-2014

BEFORE: SHOGAN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JULY 14, 2015

Appellant, James C. Babb, appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas 

following his conviction of failing to stop at a stop sign1and fine of $25.00 

plus court costs. Appellant contends the Vehicle Code requires an 

engineering and traffic investigation to justify a multiway stop and the court 

erred in refusing to enforce a subpoena he served on the township. We 

affirm.

We glean the facts from the notes of testimony from the trial de novo. 

Officer Zack Wise, of the Lower Providence Township Police Department, 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3323(b).
J. S42045/15

- 2 -

testified that he made a traffic stop for a stop sign violation on April 16, 

2014. N.T., 12/4/14, at 4, 5. He was “sitting at Pinetree Drive watching a 

four-way stop sign at Pinetree Drive and Pinetown road. [He] stopped a 

silver Honda Odyssey on Pinetree Road at Brenda Lane.” Id. at 5. The 

officer identified Appellant as the individual who was in the vehicle. Id. at 6. 

He “advised [Appellant] of the reason of the stop after first receiving his 

license, registration, insurance. Again, [Officer Wise] identified him as the 

owner of the vehicle . . . .” Id. at 6. He observed Appellant go through the 

stop sign. Id. at 10. 

Appellant advised the court he had a subpoena for the township 

records officer, Denise Walsh. Id. at 11. He had requested certain 

documents from the township. Id. as 12. He stated to the court:

The documents that I requested from the township are the 

traffic studies, ordinances, and correspondence with 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation regarding the 

intersection of Pinetown Road and Brenda Lane, meeting 

minutes for the meeting where ordinances related to the 

intersection of Pinetown Road and Brenda Lane were 

enacted, and for the 12 months preceding the enactment 

of those ordinances.

Id. Appellant introduced into evidence a letter from the Lower Providence 

Township dated May 14, 2014.2 Id. at 17. Appellant argued the stop sign 

 

2 The letter stated as follows:

Thank you for contacting Lower Providence Township with 

your Request for Information pursuant to the Pennsylvania 

Right to Know Law. On May 7, 2014, the Township 
J. S42045/15

- 3 -

did not meet the requirements of “Title 75, Section 6109, Paragraph (e).” 

Id. at 13. He stated that in response to his request for “a copy of the 

required investigation from the township [he] was informed there is none.” 

Id. Appellant argued the “township has failed to perform the required study 

by law and therefore cannot enforce this stop sign.” Id. at 18.

Judgment of sentence was entered on December 4, 2014. This timely 

appeal followed. Appellant filed a timely court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement of errors complained of on appeal3and the trial court filed a 

responsive opinion. Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

 

received your request for “all engineering and traffic 

investigations related to the stop signs at the intersection 

of Pinetown Road and Brenda Lane.”

No record exists in response to the information requested. 

You have a right to appeal this response in writing to Terry 

Mutchler, Executive Director, Office of Open Records, 

Commonwealth Keystone Building, 400 North Street, 4th 

Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17120. If you choose to file an 

appeal you must do so within 15 business days of the 

mailing date of the agency’s response.

Appellant’s Unmarked Ex.. The letter was signed by Denise Walsh, Opens 

Records Officer. Id. There is no evidence in the record that Appellant took 

an appeal. We note the letter was dated May 14, 2014, and the trial de 

novo did not take place until December 4th.

3 Appellant raised an additional issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement 

denominated as “Procedural Errors.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors 

Complained of on Appeal, 1/21/14, at 1. He claimed the judge was acting as 

a prosecutor. Id. This issue is not identified in the statement of questions 

presented section of his brief or developed in the argument section of his 

brief. Therefore, the issue is abandoned on appeal. See Commonwealth 

v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1218 (Pa. Super. 2011).
J. S42045/15

- 4 -

1. Does the Vehicle Code and specifically 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 

6109(e) along with the associated regulations promulgated 

by the department require an engineering and traffic 

investigation to justify a multiway stop that was 

established after the Vehicle Code of 1976 was published?

2. Did the trial court err when it refused to enforce the 

subpoena [Appellant] served upon the township requesting 

documents relevant to establishing the legality of the 

multiway stop?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

First, Appellant contends Section 6109(e)4of the Vehicle Code 

required an engineering and traffic investigation to justify a multiway stop. 

He argues the Pennsylvania Code, specifically, Subsection 212.106(c), and 

The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”)5outline the 

restrictions that apply to the use of multiway stop signs. Appellant’s Brief at 

9-10. He claims Section 6109(e) along with the aforementioned regulations 

require an engineering and traffic investigation to establish a multiway stop. 

Id. at 11.

 

4 This section provides:

(e) Engineering and traffic investigation 

required.─Action by local authorities under this section 

shall be taken only after completing an engineering and 

traffic investigation when and in such manner as required 

by regulations promulgated by the department. No 

engineering and traffic investigation is required to establish 

a speed limit under section 3362(a)(1.2) (relating to 

maximum speed limits).

75 Pa.C.S. § 6109(e).

5 We note Appellant did not argue these regulations before the trial court. 
J. S42045/15

- 5 -

Our review is governed by the following principle: “Where the trial 

court has heard a case de novo, we must determine whether the findings of 

fact are supported by competent evidence or any error of law has occurred.” 

Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 849 A.2d 1258, 1259 (Pa. Super. 2004). 

In the case sub judice, the trial court opined:

[A]ppellant presented no contrary testimony at trial, 

and raises no challenge on appeal, to Lower Providence 

Township Zachary Wise’s testimony that on April 6, 2014 

he observed and cited [A]ppellant for the stop sign 

violation.

[A]ppellant’s argument, predicated on 6109(e), 

Engineering and Traffic Investigation Required─ is 

meritless. 75 Pa.C.S. [ ] § 3323(b)[6]contains no 

 

6 Section 3323(b) provides:

(b) Duties at stop signs.─Except when directed to 

proceed by a police officer or appropriately attired persons 

authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic, every 

driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop

at a clearly marked stop line or, if no stop line is present, 

before entering a crosswalk on the near side of the 

intersection or, if no crosswalk is present, then at the point 

nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a 

clear view of approaching traffic on the intersecting 

roadway before entering. If, after stopping at a crosswalk 

or clearly marked stop line, a driver does not have a clear 

view of approaching traffic, the driver shall, after yielding 

the right-of-way to any pedestrian in the crosswalk, slowly 

pull forward from the stopped position to a point where the 

driver has a clear view of approaching traffic. The driver 

shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the 

intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely 

as to constitute a hazard during the time when the driver 

is moving across or within the intersection or junction of 

roadways and enter the intersection when it is safe to do 

so.
J. S42045/15

- 6 -

provision that requires the Commonwealth to prove that 

the stop sign at issue was reasonably and properly placed 

at the intersection. It clearly and simply requires every 

driver to stop before proceeding through a stop sign. The 

Commonwealth has no burden to prove that the placement 

of the stop sign was proper; it is not an element of the 

offense.

 * * *

[Appellant] failed to rebut the statutory presumption 

that the township acted reasonably in the placement of the 

stop sign. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6109(a)[7]. . . .

 

75 Pa.C.S. 3323(b) (emphasis added).

7 The statute enumerates presumed exercises of police power in pertinent 

part as follows:

(a) Enumeration of police powers.─The provisions of 

this title shall not be deemed to prevent the 

department on State-designated highways and local 

authorities on streets or highways within their 

physical boundaries from the reasonable exercise of 

their police powers. The following are presumed to be 

reasonable exercises of police power:

 * * *

(6) Designating any highway as a through highway or 

designating any intersection or junction of roadways 

as a stop or yield intersection or junction.

75 Pa.C.S. § 6109(a)(6) (emphases added). It is well-established that 

[o]ur General Assembly has established certain 

presumptions to guide the courts in interpreting statutory 

enactments, including presumptions that the legislature 

“does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of 

execution or unreasonable” and “intends the entire statute 

to be effective and certain.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922. In 
J. S42045/15

- 7 -

 * * *

[The trial court] note[d] further that 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] 

§6124[8]authorizes local authorities to erect and maintain 

stop signs at intersections under their jurisdiction.

 * * *

The Commonwealth was entitled to the presumption

that the placement of the stop sign at issue was 

reasonable and authorized. [Appellant] offered no 

evidence that the stop sign was non-conforming or was not 

placed by the official act or direction of lawful authority 

and therefore his argument must fail.

Trial Ct. Op., 2/6/15, at 3-4 (some citations omitted). We agree no relief is 

due. We discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 

3323(b); 75 Pa.C.S. § 6109(a)(6); Kaufman, 849 A.2d at 1259.

Lastly, Appellant contends the court erred in refusing to enforce the 

subpoena he served on the township requesting documents that would 

 

accordance with Section 1922, we will not interpret a 

statute in such a way as to render it meaningless.

McGrory v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 915 A.2d 1155, 1160 (Pa. 2007).

8 The statute provides:

The department on State-designated highways, including 

intersections with local highways, and local authorities

on intersections of highways under their jurisdiction may 

erect and maintain stop signs, yield signs or other 

official traffic-control devices to designate through 

highways or to designate intersections at which vehicular 

traffic on one or more of the roadways should yield or stop 

and yield before entering the intersection.

75 Pa.C.S. § 6124 (emphasis added).
J. S42045/15

- 8 -

establish that the multiway stop sign was not compliant with the law. 

Appellant’s Brief at 12. Appellant avers the court “dismissed [his] 

arguments as meritless and elected not to enforce the subpoena that would 

have established [his] case.” Id. at 16. 

As a prefatory matter, we consider whether Appellant has waived this 

issue on appeal. At trial, Appellant advised the court that he had a 

subpoena for a witness that was not in the courtroom. The record reveals 

the following regarding this issue.

[Appellant]: . . . First, I have a subpoena for a witness that 

I do not see is here. I subpoenaed the records officer from 

the township, Denise Walsh.

Can I give you a copy of the subpoena?

 * * *

Now, I’d like to try to proceed without the witness, 

but I don’t know if you would be willing to accept her letter 

as evidence.

But we may need the witness to be here, and I may 

need to ask you to enforce the subpoena.

The Court: Let me see the letter. 

But now do you have questions of the [police] officer 

with respect to the substance of what he said?

Do you have questions of the officer?

N.T. at 11, 14. Appellant proceeded to cross-examine the police officer. At 

the conclusion of his cross-examination, Appellant stated:

I would like to introduce this letter as evidence. 
J. S42045/15

- 9 -

Will you accept this letter as evidence?

The Court: Sure. 

─ ─ ─

(Unmarked letter from Lower Providence Township 

dated 5-14-14 was received in evidence.)

─ ─ ─

[Appellant]: Okay.

The Court: Sure.

Do you wish to present evidence?

Any other testimony?

[Appellant]: Not at this time, no.

The Court: All right.

Any argument? Do you have argument?

[Appellant]: Well, my argument is that the township has 

failed to perform the required study by law and therefore 

cannot enforce this stop sign.

The Court: I find you guilty of this citation. You’re 

sentenced to pay a fine of $25, plus the court costs.

You have 30 days in which to appeal to the Superior 

Court of Pennsylvania.

Wait for a copy of the order.

[Appellant]: I would like to object to that.

The Court: Sir, wait for a copy of the order. The [c]ourt 

has ruled. You have the right of appeal within 30 days to 

the Superior Court.

N.T. at 11, 17-19.
J. S42045/15

- 10 -

Appellant did not ask the trial court to enforce the subpoena. “Issues 

not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first 

time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); accord Commonwealth v. Wholaver,

989 A.2d 883, 892 (Pa. 2010). Therefore, this issue is waived. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Wholaver, 989 A.2d at 892.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/14/2015