Court Opinion

ID: 9915165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 18:07:22.368612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:42.783691
License: Public Domain

J-A29041-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  BRYANT D. TATE                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 488 WDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 28, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County
                Criminal Division at CP-20-CR-0000898-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                           FILED: January 4, 2024

       Bryant D. Tate (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his conviction of driving under the influence of a controlled

substance (DUI), driving on roadways laned for traffic, and careless driving.1

Also, Appellant’s public defender (Counsel) has filed a petition to withdraw

and accompanying brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

We grant Counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm the judgment of

sentence.

       The trial court summarized the relevant factual background as follows:

            Trooper Jeffrey Slater testified to his interaction with
       [Appellant] on August 11, 2021. At approximately 6:00 a.m.[,]
       Trooper Slater was dispatched to the area of State Route 98 for
____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(d), 3309(1), 3714.
J-A29041-23

     the report of an erratic driver. The report indicated that a citizen
     was following a white box truck with “Ryder” written on the back
     of the truck. The trooper traveled to the area of State Route 98
     and was informed that the white box truck had entered onto
     Interstate 79 headed north. On that particular part of I-79[,] the
     right-hand lane was closed because of an active construction
     zone.

           The trooper activated his overhead lights and passed seven
     vehicles in order to catch up with the box truck. Once behind the
     truck he observed that the driver could not maintain the vehicle
     in the proper lane of travel. The truck traveled over the fog line
     several times, almost striking the guiderail. The truck then
     traveled across the lane designator and actually struck a lane
     designator that had been set up by the construction crew. The
     truck came inches away [from] striking a construction vehicle that
     was parked within the construction zone.

           The prosecution admitted into evidence a copy of the mobile
     video recording that recorded some of [Appellant’s] driving and
     the traffic stop that was conducted.        The video recording
     corroborated Trooper Slater’s testimony.         The truck was
     continuously weaving in and out of its proper lane of travel. At
     one point the truck nearly struck the guiderail.

            Trooper Slater testified about the details of his contact with
     [Appellant] after he had conducted a traffic stop. [Appellant]
     appeared to be sleepy, moving slowly and sluggish. His speech
     was “very thick and slurred.” [Appellant] admitted that he was
     prescribed methadone, oxycodone and other medications that he
     could not name. He informed the trooper that he had taken his
     medications the night before at 11:00 p.m. Trooper Slater did not
     ask [Appellant] to perform the walk-and-turn or the one-leg stand
     field sobriety tests because [Appellant] stated that he had an
     injured foot.

           Trooper Slater opined that [Appellant] was under the
     influence of drugs to a degree which impaired [Appellant’s] ability
     to safely drive his vehicle. On [Appellant’s] key chain was a small
     cylinder that contained “two circular pills and one-and-a-half
     rectangular pills.” [Appellant] stated that the pills were his
     medications and that they were methadone and oxycodone.
     [Appellant] was placed under arrest at approximately 6:30 a.m.

                                     -2-
J-A29041-23

      [Appellant] refused to provide a sample of his blood for chemical
      testing.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/31/23, at 2-3.

      About an hour after Appellant’s arrest, Pennsylvania State Police

Corporal Kyle Callahan (Cpl. Callahan), a certified Drug Recognition Expert

(DRE), evaluated Appellant. The trial court explained:

      A [DRE] is an individual who has specialized training in identifying
      individuals who are under the influence of a drug or drugs and
      alcohol. Cpl. Callahan detailed the extensive certification process
      that he went through in order to become a [DRE]. DRE’s use a
      systematic and standardized procedure which is done every time
      a DRE is called upon to do an evaluation. [Cpl. Callahan]
      explained that there are seven different drug categories. He then
      forms an expert opinion about what drugs are influencing and
      impairing the [subject]. Defense counsel did not object to the
      [c]ourt recognizing Cpl. Callahan as a [DRE] and … did not object
      to [Cpl. Callahan] providing expert opinion testimony.

            [Cpl. Callahan] explained in detail the 12-step process that
      he undertakes when conducting a drug influence evaluation on a
      subject. [Cpl. Callahan] considered Trooper Slater’s observations
      of [Appellant] during the traffic stop.        He described his
      observations of [Appellant] during the evaluation. [Appellant’s]
      eyes were bloodshot, and his eyelids were droopy. [Appellant]
      exhibited some confusion when asked about sleeping. [Appellant]
      admitted to taking various medications for Sickle Cell disease and
      admitted to taking methadone and oxycodone.

             [Cpl.] Callahan examined [Appellant’s] eyes and found that
      [Appellant’s] left eye failed to converge. During the divided
      attention tests[, Appellant] had eyelid tremors and a two-inch
      backward sway. During the one leg stand[, Cpl. Callahan]
      observed two out of the four clues present. [Appellant] swayed
      while balancing and he put his foot down on three occasions.
      During the finger to nose test [Appellant] had slow, sluggish
      reactions. During the dark room examination, [Appellant’s] pupils
      were constricted and below the DRE average range when
      examined in room light. When his pupils were examined in near
      total darkness[,] his pupil size was below the DRE average range.

                                     -3-
J-A29041-23

       Cpl. Callahan examined [Appellant’s] mouth and found
       [Appellant’s] oral cavity was dry and he had a sticky substance
       around his lips, mouth and tongue. [Cpl.] Callahan testified that
       dry mouth was indicative of central nervous stimulants as well as
       narcotic analgesics.

             Finally, [Cpl.] Callahan, without objection from defense
       counsel, opined that [Appellant] was under the influence of both
       central nervous system depressants and a narcotic analgesic that
       impaired his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. [Cpl.] Callahan
       indicated that methadone and oxycodone are narcotic analgesics.

Id. at 3-4 (citation to record omitted).

       Appellant pled guilty to the summary offenses of driving on roadways

laned for traffic and careless driving.          After a bench trial, Appellant was

convicted of DUI. For the DUI conviction, the trial court sentenced Appellant

to 7 days to 6 months in jail with immediate parole, a $1,000 fine, and costs.

The court also ordered Appellant to complete Alcohol Highway Safety School

and undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation and comply with suggested

treatment.     Additionally, the trial court imposed a fine for each summary

conviction. Appellant timely appealed.

       On August 30, 2023, Counsel filed in this Court an Anders brief and a

petition to withdraw. Appellant has not responded to Counsel’s petition.2

       We address Counsel’s petition to withdraw before considering the issues

raised in the Anders brief. See Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237,

240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“When presented with an Anders brief, this Court

____________________________________________

2 The Commonwealth has not filed an appellee brief.

                                           -4-
J-A29041-23

may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on

the request to withdraw.” (citation omitted)). Counsel seeking to withdraw

from representation must

     1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after
     making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
     determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy
     of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he
     or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional
     arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court’s
     attention.

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en

banc). Pursuant to Santiago, counsel must also

     (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
     citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that
     counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth
     counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state
     counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous.
     Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling
     case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion
     that the appeal is frivolous.

Id. (citing Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361). Once counsel has complied with the

procedural requirements, we review the record and render an independent

judgment as to whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Commonwealth

v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

     Instantly, Counsel filed an Anders brief and a separate petition to

withdraw. In her petition, Counsel confirms she conducted a thorough and

conscientious review of the record and concluded Appellant’s appeal is

frivolous. See Petition to Withdraw, 8/30/23. Additionally, Counsel sent a

letter to Appellant, informed him of her intention to withdraw, and advised

                                    -5-
J-A29041-23

Appellant of his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se to raise

additional claims. The record reflects that Counsel furnished Appellant with

copies of the petition to withdraw and the Anders brief. The Anders brief

summarizes the factual and procedural history of this appeal and explains

Counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous.        As

Counsel has satisfied the procedural requirements of Anders and Santiago,

we review the record to determine whether Appellant’s appeal is wholly

frivolous.

      Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his DUI

conviction. See Anders Brief at 10-13. Specifically, Appellant argues

      the Commonwealth did not offer expert testimony from any
      medical professional that could offer an opinion as to Appellant’s
      medical condition, Sickle Cell Anemia[,] and the accompanying
      prescription medications as an explanation for Appellant’s
      appearance and overall demeanor on the night in question.

Id. at 10. Counsel acknowledges this issue is waived because trial counsel

did not object to Cpl. Callahan’s qualification as an expert witness. See id. at

13-15.

      When reviewing sufficiency challenges, we adhere to the following:

      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, this 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 weigh
      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
      resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and

                                     -6-
J-A29041-23

      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 reasonable 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 finder 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.

Commonwealth v. LaBenne, 21 A.3d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2011)

(citation omitted).

      The trial court convicted Appellant under Section 3802(d)(2) of the

Vehicle Code:

      (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 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(d)(2).

      This Court has explained,

      Section 3802(d)(2) does not require that any specific amount or
      specific quantity of the drug be proven in order to successfully
      prosecute under that section. Rather, the Commonwealth must
      simply prove that, while driving or operating a vehicle, the
      accused was under the influence of a drug to a degree that
      impaired his or her ability to safely drive that vehicle.

Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 42 A.3d 302, 307 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emphasis

in original; citations and quotation marks omitted).

                                     -7-
J-A29041-23

      Expert testimony is not required to establish that a defendant’s inability

to drive safely was caused by a drug or combination of drugs. Id. at 1238.

“Instead, impairment evidence should be drawn from the totality of the factual

circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Spence, 290 A.3d 301, 309 (Pa. Super.

2023). “Rather than insist on proof that may lie exclusively within Appellant’s

own bloodstream, which he refused to provide, we will instead turn to the

totality   of   the   Commonwealth’s   direct   and   circumstantial   evidence.”

Commonwealth v. DiPanfilo, 993 A.2d 1262, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2010).

      Counsel correctly observes that Appellant did not object to Cpl.

Callahan’s qualification as an expert. See N.T. (Volume I), 1/20/23, at 32

(defense counsel stating, “… I suppose the weight of the opinion is affected

by his training and experience, so I have no objection to the information that’s

been presented and him using that.”). Appellant’s challenge to Cpl. Callahan’s

qualifications is therefore waived. Commonwealth v. Duffy, 832 A.2d 1132,

1137 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“In order to preserve an issue for review, a party

must make a timely and specific objection.” (citation omitted); see also

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot

be raised for the first time on appeal.”).      Further, to the extent Appellant

argues that the Commonwealth should have presented an expert to explain

the interaction of Sickle Cell Anemia and prescription medications, Appellant

has failed to demonstrate that the Commonwealth bears such burden. We

                                       -8-
J-A29041-23

reiterate that a conviction under subsection 3802(d)(2) need not be supported

by expert testimony. See Hutchins, 42 A.3d at 307.

       Notwithstanding waiver, we address Appellant’s sufficiency claim given

the requirement that this Court conduct its own review. At trial, Trooper Slater

testified that he received a dispatch concerning an erratic driver.       N.T.,

1/20/23, at 7. After locating the vehicle, Trooper Slater observed the vehicle

cross the fog line several times, and almost hit a guiderail. Id. at 10. Trooper

Slater also testified that the vehicle crossed a modified lane established by a

construction crew, and struck one of the lane designators. Id.; see also id.

(explaining the vehicle nearly hit a parked construction vehicle).          The

Commonwealth also introduced a copy of the mobile video recording from the

police cruiser.3 See id. at 10-11.

       Trooper Slater initiated a traffic stop.     He described Appellant’s

demeanor as “very slow, sleepy” and “sluggish.” Id. at 13. When Trooper

Slater asked Appellant if he was taking medication, Appellant responded that

he had taken “a lot” before starting work at 11:00 p.m.         Id.   Appellant

indicated that he was prescribed methadone, oxycodone, and other

medication, some of which he could not remember. Id.

____________________________________________

3 The video is not in the certified record.  Commonwealth v. Preston, 904
A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating, “the responsibility rests upon the
appellant to ensure that the record certified on appeal is complete in the sense
that it contains all of the materials necessary for the reviewing court to
perform its duty.”).

                                           -9-
J-A29041-23

       Trooper Slater asked Appellant to perform the horizontal gaze

nystagmus field sobriety test.4         Id. at 14.    Based on his observations of

Appellant, Trooper Slater believed that Appellant was impaired to a degree

that impeded his ability to drive safely.            Id.   Additionally, after placing

Appellant under arrest, Trooper Slater observed a small cylinder on Appellant’s

key chain, which contained “two circular pills and one-and-a-half rectangular

pills.” Id.

       Cpl. Callahan, a certified DRE, performed an evaluation of Appellant.

Pertinently, while reviewing Cpl. Callahan’s expert qualifications, defense

counsel asked Cpl. Callahan:

       [Defense counsel]: Through that training or that process, are you
       given any specialized knowledge or training to understand a
       person’s medical condition or potential injuries and how that might
       impact the test itself?

       [Cpl. Callahan]: Absolutely, sir. I had actually ruled people
       nonimpaired, as well as medically impaired.

       Q: When you say medically impair[ed], I’m saying if someone has
       a disease or a serious injury, are you able to diagnose that and
       understand [its e]ffect on the body in order – and factor that in to
       your analysis?

       A: So I do not offer a diagnosis, sir.       That’s for medical
       professionals. I offer opinions based on my past experience, my
       expertise and my current experience as a DRE.

____________________________________________

4 Trooper Slater testified he did not ask Appellant to perform the walk-and-

turn and one-leg stand tests because Appellant indicated he had a gunshot
wound in his foot. N.T. (Volume I), 1/20/23, at 20-21.

                                          - 10 -
J-A29041-23

Id. at 31. Defense counsel did not object to Cpl. Callahan’s qualifications, but

suggested the weight of his opinion might be affected by his training. Id.

       Cpl. Callahan testified that the drug influence classification program

comprises 12 steps and can be used to determine whether someone is under

the influence of one or more of seven drug categories.            Id. at 29-30.

Appellant’s preliminary breath test indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.00

percent.5 Id. at 35. Cpl. Callahan described Appellant’s eyes as bloodshot,

and noted Appellant’s droopy eyelids. Id. Appellant told Cpl. Callahan that

he had slept about 45 minutes the night before. Id. at 36. Regarding his

medications, Appellant explained he was taking hydroxyurea, promethazine,

oxycodone, naproxen, and methadone. Id. at 37.

       Cpl. Callahan detailed each step of his evaluation and reviewed his

observations of each test. See id. at 38-43. Cpl. Callahan concluded:

       [Appellant] was under the influence of both [central nervous
       system (CNS)] depressants and a narcotic analgesic. I arrived at
       this opinion for the CNS depressants due to [Appellant] displaying
       general indicators of the drowsiness, depressed reflexes, drunk-
       like behavior. He had gait ataxia. He was unsteady on his feet
       and overall uncoordinated. I arrived at my opinion for the narcotic
       analgesic, and I base this off of [Appellant’s] constricted pupils in
       room light and near total darkness, classifying his reaction to light
       as being little to none visible. Again, ptosis or droopy eyelids,
       depressed reflexes, drowsiness, as well as a dry mouth, and his
       admission to utilizing a narcotic analgesic, namely the oxycodone
       and the methadone.

____________________________________________

5 Immediately after administering the preliminary breath test, Cpl. Callahan

advised Appellant of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 435
(1966). N.T. (Volume I), 1/20/23, at 44.

                                          - 11 -
J-A29041-23

Id. at 45; see also id. (noting drowsiness, droopy eyelids, slow reactions,

low raspy speech, and unsteadiness).      Consequently, Cpl. Callahan opined

that Appellant was impaired to the extent of being unable to safely drive a

motor vehicle. Id. at 46.

      At trial, Appellant testified in his defense.    He stated he had been

diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anemia when he was six months old. N.T. (Volume

II), 1/20/23, at 10.     Appellant explained that the disease causes pain,

drowsiness, dehydration, and jaundiced eyes.          Id. at 12.   According to

Appellant, he had been taking prescription methadone for at least 20 years

and prescription oxycodone for about 8 years before that. Id. at 15. Appellant

stated, “I know not to fill myself … up with a lot of medication if I’m going to

be driving. I’m more responsible than that. That’s why I still had medication

on me [in the key chain] for my morning dose….” Id. at 16.

      Appellant also testified that he was exhausted at the time of the vehicle

stop. Id. at 16. Appellant attributed the swerving to his exhaustion and “the

truck not being properly maintenanced [sic].” Id. at 17.

      In its opinion, the trial court highlighted Appellant’s admission to taking

methadone and oxycodone. Trial Court Opinion, 5/31/23, at 5. The trial court

viewed the mobile video recording and concluded it corroborated Trooper

Slater’s testimony that Appellant’s driving was erratic and dangerous.       Id.

                                     - 12 -
J-A29041-23

The court also considered Appellant’s refusal to submit to a blood test. Id.6

Further, the court observed that the Commonwealth was not required to prove

its case through expert testimony. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Griffith,

32 A.3d 1231, 1239 (Pa. 2011) (stating that “subsection 3802(d)(2) does not

limit, constrain, or specify the type of evidence that the Commonwealth can

proffer in its case.”).

       The trial court properly considered the evidence, including Appellant’s

explanation for his erratic driving. As the factfinder, the court acted within its

purview in crediting the testimony of Trooper Slater and Cpl. Callahan.

Commonwealth v. Blackham, 909 A.2d 315, 320 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“It is

not for this Court to overturn the credibility determinations of the fact-

finder.”).   Moreover, Appellant had the opportunity to cross examine Cpl.

Callahan about his expertise and testify to his personal history with Sickle Cell

Anemia.

____________________________________________

6 The Vehicle Code provides:

       (e) Refusal admissible in evidence.--In any summary
       proceeding or criminal proceeding in which the defendant is
       charged with a violation of section 3802 or any other violation of
       this title arising out of the same action, the fact that the defendant
       refused to submit to chemical testing as required by subsection
       (a) may be introduced into evidence along with other testimony
       concerning the circumstances of the refusal. No presumptions
       shall arise from this evidence but it may be considered along with
       other factors concerning the charge.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(e).

                                          - 13 -
J-A29041-23

     Upon review, we conclude the evidence, viewed in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to establish Appellant was

under the influence of a drug, or combination of drugs, to a degree which

impaired his ability to drive safely. See Hutchins, 42 A.3d at 307. We also

agree with Counsel’s conclusion that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, and our

independent review discloses no non-frivolous issues Appellant could raise on

appeal. Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm

Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

     Application to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

     Judge Kunselman joins the memorandum.

     Judge Bowes concurs in the result.

DATE: 1/4/2024

                                    - 14 -