### J - S67042 - 17

____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee
v. JOSE GARCIA Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3449 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 10, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP
- 39 - CR - 0000696 - 2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2017 Appellant, Jose Garcia, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance (“DUI”) , and one count each of careless driving, immediate notice of accident to police department, and driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked
. 1 

### We affirm. In its opinion, the tria l court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We clarify that Appellant was charged and convicted of two counts of DUI under Section 3802(a)(1).

____________________________________________ 1 

### 75 Pa.C.S.A . §§ 3802(a)(1), 3714(a), 3746(a)(2), 1543(a) , respectively
.

### J - S67042 - 17

- 2 -

Appellant raises three issues for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DENYING [APPELLANT’S] REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL? WHETHER THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT [APPELLANT] DROVE, OPERATED, OR WAS IN ACTUAL PH YSICAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AT TRIAL TO SUSTAIN THE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CHARGES? WHETHER THE VERDICT OF GUILTY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL THAT [APPELLANT] DROVE, OPERATED, OR WAS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, AND [APPELLANT’S] WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE? ( Appellant’s Brief at 5). 2 

### After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well
- reasoned opinion o f the Honorable Maria L. Dantos, we conclude Appellant’s first and second issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those questions . ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 29, 2016 , at 11 - 12 ; 2 - 6 ) (finding: (1) first DUI offense is ungraded misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment; when first offender refuses chemical testing, violation remains ungraded misdemeanor

____________________________________________ 2 

### The summary of the argument section in Appellant’s brief does not pertain to any of the issues Appellant raises on appeal. Rather, this section inexplicably states the trial court erred by fail ing to grant Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. The record suggests this misstatement was merely an inadvertent error by counsel.

### J - S67042 - 17

- 3 -

punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment; 3 

### right to j ury trial exists only when defendant faces charge which, alone, could lead to imprisonment greater than six months; thus, Appellant’s argument is legally flawed; (2) Commonwealth presented evidence that on August 22, 2015 , at approximately 4:30 a.m., polic e received dispatch to accident in McDonald’s parking lot; Officer Beiner observed male, later identified as Appellant, standing outside of driver’s side door of pick
- up truck which had damage to front and side fenders; Officer Beiner noticed another vehic le approximately 20 feet away had damage to it as well as nearby telephone pole; Appellant’s vehicle had yellow paint on it which appeared to be from utility pole; Appellant denied knowledge of accident; Appellant said his wife had been

____________________________________________ 3 

### Appellant was charged with, inter alia , two counts of first
- offense DUI under Section 3802(a)(1): count 1− DUI ( gene ral impairment ) and count 2− DUI (g eneral impairment with refusal). Appellant was not facing any charges subject to more than six months’ imprisonment. The court’s statement, therefore, is limited to the context of Appellant’s demand for a jury trial. We acknowledge the recent cases of Birchfield v. North Dakota , ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) and Commonwealth v. Giron , 155 A.3d 635 (Pa.Super. 2017) (holding that, pursuant to Birchfield , defendant who refuses to submit to warrantless blood draw cannot be subject to enhanced penalties under 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3803 - 3804; affirming appellant’s DUI conviction but vacating and remanding for resentencing). Significantly, the record in the present case makes clear the court imposed no penalty at all on Appellant’s conviction for count 2− DUI ( general impairment with refusal). In fact, the court sentenced Appellant on only count 1− DUI (general impairment) , plus fines/costs for the summary offenses. Therefore, this case did not involve an illegal sentence under Birchfield or Giron
. Further, Appellant did not raise any Birchfield challenge to the validity of his conviction for count 2− DUI ( general impairment with refusal). So, absent an illegal sentence on that conviction, Appe llant is not entitled to relief on the grounds asserted.

### J - S67042 - 17

- 4 -

driving and was in McDonald’s using restroom; Officer Beiner went inside but no patrons were there as restaurant was closed except for employees; Officer Beiner noticed strong odor of alcohol on Appellant’s breath, and that Appellant had glassy and bloodshot eyes and was swa ying; Appellant also kept repeating himself; Appellant refused to perform sobriety tests or consent to blood draw; court found completely incredible Appellant’s wife’s testimony that she was driver of vehicle, struck utility pole, went to use McDonald’s re stroom but because restaurant was closed she walked to Walgreen’s to use restroom there, and it took her one hour to find bathroom and return to accident scene; Appellant’s license was under suspension on date in question; evidence was sufficient to sustai n Appellant’s convictions). Therefore, with respect to Appellant’s first and second issues on appeal, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Regarding Appellant’s third issue , preliminarily, a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be preserved by a motion for a new trial. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607. The Rule provides:

Rule 607. Challenges to the Weight of the Evidence (A) A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence shall be raised w ith the trial judge in a motion for a new trial: (1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or

### J - S67042 - 17

- 5 - (3) in a post - sentence motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)
- (3). “As noted in the comment to Rule 607, the purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived.” Commonwealth v. Gillard , 850 A.2d 127 3, 1277 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied , 581 Pa. 672, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004). An appellant’s failure to avail himself of any of the prescribed methods for presenting a weight of the evidence issue to the trial court constitutes waiver of that claim, even if the trial court responds to the claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Commonwealth v. Burkett , 830 A.2d 1034 (Pa.Super. 2003). See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1) (explaining written post
- sentence motion shall be filed no later than 10 days after imposition of sentence). Instantly, the court sentenced Appellant on October 10, 2016. Appellant did not raise a challenge to the weight of the evidence prior to sentencing or file a post
- sentence motion within ten days of the imposition of his sentence. The trial court’s discussion of Appellant’s weight claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion does not cure this defect. 4 

### See Burkett, supra . Thus , Appellant’s weight claim is waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; 720; Gillard, supra ; Burkett, supra
. Moreover, even if Appellant had preserved

____________________________________________ 4 

### The full citation for Commonwealth v. Lyons ( see Trial Court Opinion at 7) , is 833 A.2d 245 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied , 583 Pa. 695, 879 A.2d 782 (2005).

### J - S67042 - 17

- 6 -

his weight claim, we would affirm for the reasons stated in the trial court’s opinion. ( See Trial Court Opinion at 2 - 7 . ) Accordingly, we affirm. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/13/20177 5 Pa. C

. S

. A. § 38 02 ( a)( l )

.

75 Pa

. C.S

. A. § 3714 ( a )

. 75 Pa

. C.S.A. § 3 746 ( a)(2)

. ). 3 Care l e s s Driving.s Immed i ate N o ti c e of A ccide nt to Po li c e Departm ent , " and Dri ving Dri vi n g Und e r th e Influenc e o f Alc oho l (g e ne ral i mpairm e n t , fir st o ff ense , h i g h est tie r) , 1 A t th e co nclus i on of the trial, thi s Co urt found th e Defen d an t, J ose Garc i a , g ui l ty o f

A no n - jury tri al was c o nducted in th e withi n m atte r on A ugust 15, 201 6
. MAR I A L. DANTOS, J. MEMORANDUM OPINION ·k * 

### * 

### * ~- ·}: ·): •k KATHRYN SMI T H ESQUIRE J ) O n b e ha lf o f the Def

e ndan t AD RA RENEE SM I TH , ESQ U IRE , SEN I OR DEPUTY DISTRICT A T T ORNEY, On behalf of the Comm o n w e al th APPE A RA N C P ~ S: JOSE GARCIA, Defendant Case No
. 0 6 96/2 016 vs . COMM O NWEALTH O F PENNS Y L VAN I A CRIM I NAL DMSION IN TH E COU R T OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Circulated 10/24/2017 10:08 AM2

75 Pa

. C.S

. A

. § 1543 (a }. Co mm o n w e a lth v . TayJ. or , 83 1 A.2cl 66 i, 6 63 (P a . Super. 20 03), 

### q u o t in g ~ ommonwe a lth
v . D i S t e fan o , 7 8 2 A
. 2 d 57 4 , 582 (Pa
. S u per. 200l)(statin g th at th e s t and ar d applie d i n at tri al was in s ufficient t o sustain findin g the D e f e nd ant gui l ty of Driving Under the Influ e n ce of Alc o h ol ( ge n e ral impairm e nt, fi rs t o ffense, hi g he s t tier), Carel e s s Drivin g , Imme di ate Noti c e of Acc i d ent t o Poli ce Dep artm ent, an d Dri v in g Und e r Susp e n s io n . It is we ll -se ttled law in Penn s ylvania th at when reviewing the s ufficiency of the e viden ce cl ai m, th e app e llat e cou rt must r eview all of the evidenc e and all reasonabl e inferenc e s drawn th e r efro m in a li g h t most fa vorab le to th e Commo n w e alth a s the verdi c t winn e r. A. C halle1
. 1gi11: g t

he Suf f i cie n cy of th e Evide n ce The D e fendant alleges th at the evidence pr e s e nted b y the Commonw e alth this C ourt to reconsid e r its s e ntence. co n c i se s t ate m e nt o f matt e r s compl ained 

### of on ap p eal, the D e fe n dant ch all e n g es th e weig ht of th e e v ide nc e and th e s uffi c i e n c y of the ev id e nce. Th e D e fendant al s o argu es th at thi s Cou rt err e d in n ot g ranting th e Defendan t a j u ry tri al, a s well as re qu e st s app e al no l ate r th an No v emb e r 28, 2016 , in a c c ord an ce with P e nnsylv ani a Rul e of Appell at e Pro c edu re 1 925 (b). The Defendan t tim e l y compli e d with said Ord e r. In hi s of reco rd and serve upon this Court a concis e s t atement o f e rrors complai ne d o f o n co n sec uti ve l y to th e s e nte n c e i mp ose d in Cas e No. 215/201 6
. Th e w ithi n timely app eal foll o w e d o n Nove mb er 3 , 2 0 16. Ther ea fter, this C ourt instru c te d the De fe nd ant t o file Defe nd ant w a s s e n te nc e d to a t e rm o f imprisonment o f n o t l es s th an o n e (1) month nor
m ore th an six ( 6 ) m o nth s in L eh ig h C ounty Jail, as well as co sts and fines, to b e ru n Wh i le Ope ratin g Privile ge is S uspe n d e d
. " Th e r e after; o n Oc t ob e r 10, 201 6 , th eof s af

e drivin g . Se e 75 Pa. C .S.A. § 3 80 2 (a)(l)
. ve hi cle w h il e und e r the influ ence o f al c oh o l t o a d eg r ee which re nd e red him inc ap ab l e indi v idu al w as drivi n g, operatin g , or in a ctu al physi cal co ntrol o f th e m ov eme n t of the D ri vin g U nder the Influence , the C o mm o n we alth mu s t h av e d e monstrated th at the

In i ti al ly this Court not es th at in o rder to e stabli s h a 

### prima [a cie ca s e for 868 A
. 2 cl at 505. es t ab l i she d, then the ev i d ence w ill be dee med s u ffi c ie nt to s u p p o rt th e v e rdict. Hunzer, hav e dete rmined fro m th e e vid e n c e adduced th at all of th e ne ces s ary e l e m e n ts w e re P a. S up e r. 495, 5 01, 648 A. 2 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 3 (199 3 ). If the finder o f fact re a sonabl y co uld testi mo n y an d to be lie ve al l , part or n one o f th e e vide nce . Commonw ea lth v. Moor e, 436 wi thin th e p ro vin ce o f th e fact find e r t o d e te rmi ne th e w ei g ht to b e give n t o th e a m e r e co nfli c t i n th e t es ti mo ny d oes not r en d e r th e e v ide nce i ns uffi ci ent, bec au s e it i s 7 8 9 A. 2 d 70 8 , 716 (P a . Sup e r. 2 00 1) ( c itati ons and qu otati o ns omitted)). Furth e rmo re , McCal m an, 7 9 5 A.2cl 41 2 , 4 1 5 (P a . Sup er. 2 002) 

### (citing Co mmo nw e alth v . P a ss arelli, w h ic h th e D e fend an t c hall e ng es , b e y on d a reas onabl e d o ubt. Co mmon we alth v . d ete rmi n e w h e th e r th e ev iden ce w as s uffi cien t to prove all of th e ele ment s o f th e c ri m e s , Hunz e r , 86 8 A. 2d 4

- 98, 5 0 5 (Pa. S up e r. 2005)
. With that st andard in mind, w e mu s t th e Co mm o n weal th n ee d no t pre clud e e v e ry possibility of inn oc e nc e. C o mm o nwealth v. 153 4 , 1 40 L. E d.2d 684 (1 998 ). M ore ov e r, th e fac t s an d c irc um s tan ce s est abli s h e d by 549 P a . 2 6 9 , 280 , 701 A. 2 d 1 90 , 195 (1997), 

### cert . den i e d, 5 2 3 U.S
. 108 2, 11 8 S. C t. Comm o n wea l th v. Kl e in , 795 A. 2 d 42 4, 4 26 ( Pa
. S u per . 20 0 2 ) ; C o mm on wealth v . H all , e n abl e th e fa c t
- fin de r t o find e v e ry ele m e nt o f th e c rim e b ey ond a re as on abl e doubt) ; tri al i n th e li g ht mo s t fav orable to th e ve r dic t w inn e r, there is suffi cie nt evid enc e to r e vi e w i n g th e s uffi c i e n cy o f th e e viden ce i s w heth e r vi ewing all th e e vid en ce admitted a t4

Pa. C. S .A. § 154-3(a).

After a re vi e w of the r ecord, this Court finds th at th e evidence pres e nted at the non-ju ry trial w as sufficient to support the finder of fact ' s verdict with regard to all of the aforemention e d charg e s. Vi e wed in the light most favorable to the C o mmo nw e alth , as verdict winn e r, a summary of the spe c ific evidence establi s hed at trial is a s follows:

In the inst ant ca s e, the e viden c e presented at trial revealed that on Au g ust 22, 2015, at approximately 4:30 A.M., Officer Joseph Beiner of th e Allent o wn Polic e Department w a s patrollin g in full uniform and in a marked patrol unit wh e n he
re cei v e d a di s patch to respond to the scene of an accident at the M c Donald's parking l o t l o c ated at 1414 Til g hman Stre e t, Allentown, Lehi g h County, P e nnsyl v ania. Upon his arrival, he observ ed a mal e , later identified as the Defendant, .Jose G ar c ia , qui c kest: m eans o f c o mmu ni cati o n g i ve notice to th e neares t office of a dul y auth orized police department 

### if the accident involve s damage to any v e hicle involv e d t o th e extent that it cannot be dri v en under its own power in its customary mann e r without further damage or haz ard to the veh i cl e , other traffic elements, or the roadway, and therefore require s t o wi n g." See 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3746(a)(2} ( Immediate Noti c e of Accident to Police D e partment). Finall y , "any person who driv e s a motor vehicl e o n any high w ay or traffi c way of this Commonwealth after the commencem e nt of a suspen s ion, r e vocation or cancellati o n of the operating privilege and before the op e rating privilege has been restored" is guilty of Driving Under Suspension. See 7 5

Also, "an y person w h o drives a vehicle in carele s s disregard for th e saf e ty of p e rson s o r prope rty i s guilty" of Careless Driving. See 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714(a). In ad d ition, " [tjhe driver of a vehicle involv e d in an accident sh all imm e di ate l y by th e5 The Defe nd ant 's wife , Tamisha Tayl o r, tes tifi e d at the ti me o f tri al. H er testim on y w as

comp le te l y in c r ed i b l e an d unb elievabl e. M s . T ay l or indi cate d that at ap pro ximat e l y 4 :0 0 A .M. , she an d h e r hu s b an d dec i de d to l eave th e ir seven (7) ch ildr en , w hose a ges r an ge fro m on e year o l d t o sevente e n (1 7) year s o l d, h ome alone t o g o get so m e th i ng t o eat at McDon al d ' s. She i ndi cat ed th at s he wa s th e dri ve r o f th e Ford F' l50 p i c k

- tru c k an d th at s h e h a d s truc k th e pol e i n th e M cDon ald' s parki ng l ot. Ms. Tay l o r th e n exp l ain e d th at she b e came so up set th at she ha d to use the r es tro om. A s th e M cDo n ald' s w as closed, s h e walke d to W al g ree ns lo c at ed at 1 71h and Til ghman Streets to u se the i r b athroo m facilitie s. M s . Taylo r s t at ed th at it t o ok her about one ( 1 ) h ou r t o fi n d a b athroom and r etu rn to the scen e o f the ac cid e nt. M s . T aylo r 's t e s timony was c o mpletely i nc re dibl e an d th i s Cou rt di s r eg ar d ed i t: in i ts e nti r ety as one compl e t e li e . immediate l y note d a stron g od o r o f alco ho l e m anatin g fr om b is per s on and h i s b r eath.

Whe n O ffi c er Be iri e r initiall y had s p o ke n w i th th e Defen dan t , he th e M cDo n a ld ' s , as th e r es t au ran t w as clo sed and onl y h a d e mpl oyees inai d e . > i n t o the McD o nald 's to locate the D efen d an t' s w i fe
. H oweve r, n o p atro ns w ere in si d e was in the M cD o nal d ' s r es t au ran t us i ng th e r estro om fac ili ti es . O ff i c e r S e i ner went i nd i cated th at h i s w i fe had b e en dri v in g th e F ord F' l S O p i c k-up truck, and th at sh e a c cid ent. The Defe nd ant d e ni e d h av in g an y kn owl e dge o f a ve h i cul ar ac cid e nt. H e

Office r Seine r appro ach ed th e D efend ant an d inquired abo ut the u ti li ty p o l e o n th e s id e, w hic h was co n s i s t en t wi th hittin g the te le pho ne po le. 

### Beiner o b serve d that th e F o rd F 1 50 pi c k-up tru ck h ad ye llo w tran sfe r paint fro m th e I n particu l ar, O ffi ce r Be in e r vi e w e d "sc uff m ark s" on th e telep h o n e p ol e . Offic e r telephone po l e at th e sou th eas t e nd o f th e M c D o n ald 's p arki n g l o t was al so d am ag ed. d amage w as new, as th e r e was g las s un derneath th e back en cl o f the v ehi cle
. Al so, a f eet fr om th e For d 

### Fl 50 pic k

- up truck , h a d dama g e to the re ar o f th e car. Th i s vehicle located i n the McDo n a ld' s parkin g lot , whic h w as ap p ro xi mate ly twe n ty ( 20') fende r and to th e dri ver s id e fe n d er. In a d d iti on, O ffi ce r S e i ne r notice d th at an o th e r Se in er observe d th at th e Fo r d Fl 50 pi c k- u p truc k ha d s u s t ai ned d ama ge to th e fr o nt s t an din g o ut s i de o f th e dri ve r' s s id e d o or of a bl ac k F ord Fl 50 p i c k- up tru ck. Offi cer6

co ncl u de i n it s di scre ti on th at "th e verdi c t is so contrary to th e evid e nc e a s t o shock c hallen ge th at th e verdict i s a g ainst the wei g ht of th e evide nce r equ i res this Cou rt to C ommon w ealth v. B e nnett , 827 A.2d 4 69 , 4 8 1 (Pa. Supe r . 2003). Furthermore, a Comm o nw ea lth v. Widm e r, 5 6 0 Pa. 308, 319 , 744 A.2d 7 45, 751 ( 2 000) ; s u s t ain th e verd ict , but con te nds that it is again s t the w e ight of th e evidence. c ontrary to th e w ei ght of th e e v id e nce c onc e d e s th at there is suffici e nt ev id e nce t o e vid e n ce . This Court notes th at a moti o n for a n e w trial on g rounds that th e v e rdict is

The Def end ant all ege s th at the verdict w a s ag ainst th e weight o f th e 

### B
. C h a ll e ngin g the We ight of th e E viden ce c h all e n ge t o the s ufficien cy of the e v idence must fail.



### In li g ht o f this abu n d ant evidence enum erated above, the Defend ant's · --------------------- - - - - - · ·· - · ·· · - · ·· - .. . . ·- · ·· ··· · ··-·· · ··· - -· ----------------

2 015. (C. E x . 1)

. re c ord s indi cat es th at the Def e nd ant' s dri v er 's li ce n s e wa s s u s p e nded o n August 2 2 , ce rtifi e d Pen n s y lv ani a D ep artm e nt of T ransportation Bur eau o f Driv e r Li c en s in g blood dra w, w h e re h e refused to submit to chemic al testin g . Furthermore , th e c ust o dy, and tr ansporte d th e D e fendant to th e DUI C e ntral B ooki ng Cente r for a o f al co hol and incapabl e o f s a f e driving, O ffi ce r B e iner pla c ed th e Defend ant in be admin i stere d. C o ns e qu en tl y , b e lieving th at the D efendan t w as u nder the in fl u e n ce a g r eed. H o w e v e r, the D e f e ndant ch an ge d hi s mind an d re fus e d t o all o w the t es ts t o Defendant wo ul d c o nse nt t o performi n g field so bri ety tests . At first the D efendant De f e ndan t ke pt re pe ating himself to the O ff i c er. Offi ce r Bein e r inquir ed if th e Th e Defe nd an t had glas sy and blo o d s hot eye s , an d w as s waying
. In addition, th e7

C. 

### M o ti on to Modi

fy 

### a n d Reduce S e nte nce Fi n ally, the Defendant asserts th at thi s Court e rred in sentencing the D e fend ant to a m ani fes tly e xces s i v e and u n dul y har s h s e nt e nc e . The Defendan t i s
c hallen g in g th e d i s cretionary as pect s of se nten c ing. C o mmonwealth v. Bish o p, 831 A.2d 656, 6 60 (P a. Super. 2 003). Initially thi s C ourt no tes th at: th e McDon ald ' s parking lot. I n additi o n, the Defendant failed to give notice to th e
ne ar es t o ffi c e o f a duly authorized polic e de partment a ft e r he wa s inv o lv e d in th e
ac cid en t that involv e d damage to another vehicle. Finally, the r ec ord e vid ence
e s tabli s hed th at the De fe nd ant drove the Ford F150 pick-up truck at a time wh e n his licen s e w a s s uspended, in violation o f the Motor Vehicle Cod e . In li g ht of this
abu n d an t evidence e num e rate d above, the Defendant' s challenge t o the weight o f th e evi d e n ce mu st fail. C ommo n we alth v . Sh a ffer, 722 A
. 2 cl 1 9 5, 200 (Pa
. S upe r. 1998). See a ls o Commonwealth v. Sulliv an, 820 A.2 d 795, 8 06 (Pa
. Super. 2003).

Fro m the evid e nce r e c o unted above, it is reasonabl e to have co ncluded that th e Defendant was dri v ing, o peratin g , or in actu al physical control of the movement of his Ford F150 pi c k-up truck whil e under the influence of alcoh o l to a degre e which rend e red hi m i ncap able of safe driving. Also , the e vidence show e d that the Defendant dro ve his Ford F150 p ic k-up tru c k in careless disregard for the safety of p e rsons or property when h e s tru c k the utility pole and th e othe r vehicle parked in one's sense of justi c e . '' Lyons, 833 A.2d at 258. Indeed, for a new trial to lie on a
c h all e nge that th e verdict is ag ain s t the weight of the eviden c e, the e vidence mu s t be
so tenuous, va g ue and un c ertain that the verdict sh oc ks th e co ns ci ence of the court."8 In d e te rmin i ng whether 

### a sentenc e i s manifestl y ex ce ssive, th e app e ll at e court mu st g iv e g reat w e i g ht to the senten ci ng court's discretio n, as he or she is i n the best position to m e a s ure factors such a s the nature of the crim e , th e d efe ndant ' s character, and the defendant's display of rem o rse, defi ance , or i ndiffere nce . C o mmon we alth v . Ellis, 700 A
. 2d 9 48, 9 58 ( P a. Super. J 99 7 )
. Whe re an exc e s s i v en e ss claim i s based o n a c o urt's " manife s tly e x ces sive." T o do s o , the following con s iderations must be e xami ne d: limit s . T here fo re , th e Defend ant's sentence must be e v a lu ated to dete rmine if it was m ax imums. Unque s tionabl y , th e sentence imposed did not e x ceed the st atutory stan dar d r an g e o f the g uidelin e s and maximum sentence w a s s e t at the st atuto ry

In the ins tant c a s e , the Defendant's minimum s e ntence was within the 1275, 1 2 7 7 ( P a . Super. 1998). app e llat e c o urts w ill n ot disturb the s en te n ce . Comm o nwe a lth v . G ibson , 71 6 A.2cl gu id e lin es is not unr easo nabl e, " its re s ponsibilities h av e been fulfill e d and the s e nten c i ng court pro f fe rs re as o ns i ndic ati ng th at its d ~ isi o n t o dep art fr om th e Common w ealth v. Sh a ffer, 7 2 2 A.2d 195, 198

- 199 (Pa. Sup e r. 1998). If "the

excess i v e ." Co mm o nw e al th v. G a ddi s , 4 3 2 Pa. Sup e r. 5 2 3 , 6 39 A. 2 d 4 62, 469 (1994). N e verthel e s s , s e nt e ncin g g uidelin es ar e mere l y advis o ry, 

### and the court may, in it s di s creti o n, sent e nc e out s ide the g ui de lines
. When a tri al c ourt deviate s fr o m the g u idelines, it must st ate its re aso n s for devi ation on th e record at the time of sen te ncing o r in a c ontemp o rane o us written statem en t. C o mmonwe alth v. L a ws o n, 4 3 7 P a . Super. 52 1 , 6 5 0 A

. 2d 87 6, 881 (1994). The court mu s t also c o n sider the guid e lin e s a s a starting point and d e vi at e s o a s t o i mpose a senten c e con s istent with both the public 's s a fety needs and the defend ant's rehabilitativ e n ee d s . Id
. Sentencin g i s within th e sound di sc reti on of th e s e nt e n cing judge, 

### and that decision will 

### not be disturbed ab se nt an abuse o f di sc reti o n . Commonwe a lth v. J o n e s , 418 Pa. Sup e r . 93 , 61 3 A.2cl 587, 591 (1 992 )( e n. b a n e ). "To c o n stitut e an abus e o f discre tion, the senten c e imp o s e d 

## mu st e i the r e xo eec l th e stat·u t ory limits o r b e m. an ifostly9

foll o wi ng mann e r: Wall s, 92 6 A.2cl 9 57 ( Pa
. 2 007). Th e standar d o f r evie w ha s b e en explai ne d in the be ev aluated to d e t e rmine if th e r e was an abu se of di sc retion. C o mm o nwealth v. addr e s s ed, Defendant's argument must fail. The Defend ant's s e ntence must initi a lly

A dditionall y , even if the merit of the Defend ant' s sent enc ing claim were j u stif y a revi e w of his cl aim. i mp os in g an e xce ssiv e and harsh s ent enc e fail s to pre se nt a substantial qu es ti o n to 5 9 5. Con se qu e ntl y, D e fendant' s ass e rti o n that this Court ab u s ed its d iscre tion b y all e g ati on that th e s e ntences impo s ed are exce ss ive or harsh. Lacl amus , 896 A.2d at 2005). Furth e rmore, a subst anti a l qu e stion re quire s s o m e thing more th an an co nc e rn ing th e s enten ce . Commonwe a lth v . L ee , 8 76 A.2d 40 8, 4 11 (Pa. Sup e r.

Th e d e f

e nd ant must de m o n s trat e th at a substanti al que s tion exist s 2 003)
. 

### 12 7 4 ( P a. Super
. 2 0 06); Comm onw e alth v. M c N abb , 819 A
. 2 d 54 , 

### 5 5 ( P a. Su p e r. A.2d 5 92, 5 9 5 (Pa. Sup er . 200 6 ); see also C ommonw ea lth v. Shugars, 895 A. 2 d 127 0 , se nt e n c e are not r evi ewable as a matte r of ri g ht." Co mmonweal th v. L a d amus, 8 96

Mor e ov e r, "[i ] t is well- s ettl e d that ap peal s of discre ti o nary a sp e cts o f a C omm o n we alth v. Mou zo n, 828 A
. 2d 112 6 , 112 8 ( P a. Sup e r. 2 00 3 ) (cit ation s omitt e d).

p ro t e cti o n of the p u bli c , th e rehabilitati ve n e ed s o f the defend ant , th e g ravi ty of the parti c ul ar offens es a s it relate s to th e imp ac t on th e li fe o f th e victim and the c ommuni ty , s o long a s the court al s o s tate s of record the fa ctual basi s and specifi c re a so n s wh ic h c omp elle d him to de v i ate from the guid e lin e ran ge. senten c ing out si d e th e gu ideline ran ges , w e l o ok , at a minimu m, for an i ndicati o n on the r eco rd th at the s e nten c ing c ourt und e rst o od th e s u gge s te d se ntencing r ange . 42 Pa. C
. S .A. § 972 l(b). When th e co urt so indi c at e s, 

### it may d e v iate fr o m th e guid e lin es , if n e ces sary, 

### to fashion a se n t ence which t ake s iota acccunt th e

### 1 0

t o impo s e i ts s e n tence conc urr ently o r co n se cu tive l y to o the r sen te n ce s being p r ece d ent recogn i zes that 42 Pa
. C. S .A. § 9 7 2 1 a ff o r ds th e sentenc in g c ourt d isc r e ti on Co mm on weal th v . Booze, 953 A.2 d 1 263, 1279 ( Pa
. Super. 2 00 8 ). L o n g - s t an d i n g than co n curre nt se nt en c es li es w ithi n th e s ound di sc r etion of th e se nt enc in g c o urt.

A dditi onally , i t i s ax i o m ati c th at the imp os i ti o n o f c on se cutive r ath er c h aracter, as we ll a s any miti gatin g fa c t o rs). was aware of an d a d eq uatel y co n s ider e d info rm ati o n re le van t t o th e defe n dant's w h e r e a pre - sentence re p o rt e xists , ther e i s a pr es u mption that the se nt enci n g jud ge fa ctors . Commonweal th v . D evers, 51 9 Pa
. 8 8 , 546 A. 2 d 1 2 (1 988 ) (h o ldin g that th e i nform ati o n con t ai n ed there i n. Als o, thi s C o u rt di d n o t fail to cons i de r miti gati ng I nve s tigatio n Report pre p ar ed on S ep te mb er 14 , 20 16. T he Co urt was awar e o f all o f

Prior to se nte n c in g, thi s C ourt caref ull y r eviewed th e Pr e-Se n te n ce (P a . S u pe r. 20 0 8 ). gu i de li nes . " 4 2 Pa
. C
. S .A. § 9 721 (b ); C o mm o nwealth v . F euc ht , 95 5 A.2 d 377 , 383 victi m an d th e commun i ty, the def e ndan t' s re habilit ativ e n eeds, an. cl th e sente n c in g " p rotec tion of the p ubli c , the g rav i ty of th e o ff e n se a s it r e l ates t o the impact o n th e I n imposing th e De fend ant's se nt e n ce , thi s Court cons id ere d th e v. R odela , 723 A. 2 cl 2 1 2 , 214 ( Pa
. Su per. 1 999 )( e n b an e ). Co mm o n weal th v . Fu llin , 892 A .2d 843, 84 7 ( P a . S uper. 20 0 6 ) , 

### c it ing C omm onwea lth

misap pli ed the l a w, ex er cised its j udg men t fo r r eas o ns o f parti al i ty , pre

ju dice, bi as o r ill w ill, o r arri ve d at a mani f es tl y u nr easonab le decisio n. S e ntenci n g i s a m atte r ves t ed in the s o und di sc r eti o n of th e s e nt enci n g jud ge , mid a se ntence will n o t b e di stu rb e d o n ap p ea l abse n t a manif es t abu se of d i scre ti on . In thi s co nt ext , 

### an ab u se o f di scre ti on is no t s h o wn m e r e l y b y 

### an error in j u d gm e n t . R athe r , the ap p e ll an t must es t abli sh , by 

### refore n ce to tfo: r eco rd , that tbe se nt encin g c ~rnrt ignor e d or11

D

. E ntit led t o 

### Ju ry Tri

al T h e De fen d ant argu es that h e was e ntitl e d t o a tri al b y jury in th e w i th i n
m atte r. H o w e v e r, thi s ar g ume n t i s b a sel ess . Thi s Court n o t es th at the "ri g ht t o a jury trial ex i st s w h en a d efen d ant fa ces a char ge w hich , alone, c o ul d l e ad t o i mpris onm e n t b ey o n d s ix m onth s . " Comm onwea lth v. H arri o tt, 919 A.2d 2 34 , 23 7 ( P a. Sup er . 2 0 0 7}, 

### c i ting Comm o nw e alth v. K erry, 906 A. 2 cl 1 23 7, 123 9 , 12 4 0 (P a . Su p er. 200 6 ). "By co ntr as t , th e r e i s no ju ry tri al ri g h t if an off e n se b e ars a m aximum incar cerati on of s ix mo nth s or l ess ." Id. P e nn s y lv ania d ee m s a fi rs t o ff e n se Drivin g U nder the I nflu e nce c har ge an ungrad ed mis dem e ano r, punish abl e b y up t o aix ( 6 ) mon th s of i mpri so n men t. S ee 7 5 P a. C
. S
. A § 3803 (a )( l)
. Wh e r e a fi rst off en d er ref

us es c h e mi cal D efe n dant's ar g ument is b aseless an d th e D e f en dant ' s re q ue st to m o dif y and r e du ce
s e nt ence i s d en i e d. i mpos iti o n of co n se c uti ve rather th an conc u rre n t se n te n ces d oes n o t p resent a
s u bs t anti al que sti on r egar din g th e dis c r e ti o n ary as pe c ts of se n t en ce . " Co mm o n we alth v. Ll oy d, 87 8 A. 2 cl 8 67 , 87 3 (P a. Su pe r . 2 005). Ind ee d, th e Superior Cou rt o f P e nn sy lvani a h as stated : " We see no r eas on why [ a defe n d ant] s hould b e
aff or d e d a ' v olu me d iscou nt' for hi s crime s by havin g all sent en c es ru n con c urre ntl y . " Co mmo nw e a lth v. Ho ag , 44 5 Pa
. Su pe r. 45 5, 665 A. 2 d 1 212 , 1 214 (1 9 95).

W i th all o f thi s in fo rm ation i n mind, u s in g i t s di s cre tio n thi s C o u rt imp ose d a se nte n ce th at was ap p ro priat e and withi n the l a w . Acco rdi ng l y , the i mposed at th e s am e tim e or to sen t e n ces a lr ea dy i mp ose d. 42 P a . C .S.A. § 9 72 1. See

al so Co mm o n wea lth v. J ohn so n , 961 A.2d 877 , 88 0 ( Pa. Sup e r. 20 0 8 ); Co mm o nw ea lth v . M arts, 889 A. 2 d 608, 6 1 2 (P a . Sup e r . 2 005}. "A c h all e n ge t o th e

### 12

DATED: The Defendant's appeal i s without merit and should be dismiss e d. testing, the vi olation remains graded as an ungraded misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months' imprisonment. 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3803(b)(2). Consequently, the Defendant's argument is legally flawed.