Court Opinion

ID: 9368300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 17:07:34.138163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.811402
License: Public Domain

J-A29022-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RHONDA LYNN MUNKO                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 450 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 9, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-02-CR-0002441-2017

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                            FILED: FEBRUARY 3, 2023

       Appellant, Rhonda Lynn Munko, appeals from the February 9, 2022

judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny

County, imposing an aggregate sentence of two to four days’ incarceration

and a concurrent six months’ probation, after the trial court, in a non-jury

trial, convicted Appellant of, inter alia, driving under the influence of alcohol

or controlled substance (“DUI”) – high rate of alcohol (Count 1).1 We affirm.

       The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history as follows:

       The evidence adduced at [the non-jury] trial established that on
       December 7, 2016, Officer Brian Kocian [(“Officer Kocian”)] was
____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b). Appellant was also convicted of two counts of
DUI – general impairment (Counts 2 and 3), as well as the summary offenses
of driving on roadways laned for traffic – driving within single lane and
careless driving.   75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(a)(1), 3309(1), and 3714(a),
respectively. Appellant was found not guilty of driving vehicle at safe speed.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3361.
J-A29022-22

     called to a vehicle accident on private property located [in
     Oakdale, Pennsylvania]. At the time, Officer Kocian was a
     twelve-year veteran employed with the North Fayette Township
     Police Department. The call came from the property owner at
     approximately 8:17 p.m.[,] and Officer Kocian arrived at
     8:21 p.m. [Officer Kocian] described that it was dark outside and
     that he observed a vehicle over an embankment. The subsequent
     accident investigation determined that the vehicle was driving
     northbound on the roadway at which time [the driver] failed to
     negotiate a left turn, instead continuing to the right, striking a
     telephone pole, traveling over the property owner's driveway
     whereafter [the vehicle] struck multiple trees before coming to
     rest at the bottom of an embankment. As Officer Kocian began to
     approach the disabled vehicle, a male [individual] was walking up
     the [embankment].       He displayed signs of intoxication and
     informed Officer Kocian that he was a passenger in the vehicle
     and that the driver was still inside the [vehicle].

     As Officer Kocian approached the vehicle[,] he observed heavy
     damage to the entire passenger side [of the vehicle]. Appellant
     was in the driver's seat [of the vehicle] wearing a seatbelt,
     however, Officer Kocian could not recall whether [the] fact she
     was belted into the seat was based on his own observation or a
     statement from Appellant. Appellant was coherent, offering to
     Officer Kocian that she was the driver of the vehicle and was
     unfamiliar with the area, and that prior to the accident she had
     been in a verbal argument with [the male individual]. Officer
     Kocian testified that he observed signs of alcohol impairment
     consistent with his training and experience with investigating
     [DUI] incidents. These signs included: bloodshot eyes, slurred
     speech, [detecting] an odor of alcohol from [the suspect’s] breath,
     and [observing the suspect having] difficulty formulating answers
     to his questions. Appellant complained of knee pain, and Officer
     Kocian observed that her knees were close to the steering column
     [of the vehicle]. Appellant removed herself from the vehicle[,]
     and Officer Kocian assisted her up the [embankment]. When
     asked if she [] consumed any alcohol[,] Appellant initially stated
     she had two drinks, later modifying the number to three.
     Paramedics called to the scene transported Appellant to a local
     hospital. As it was an active DUI investigation, Officer Kocian
     followed Appellant to the hospital for the purpose of requesting a
     blood draw. At approximately 9:13 p.m., Officer Kocian located
     Appellant at the hospital at which time she stated she was not the
     driver and that [the male individual] had[,] in fact[,] been driving

                                    -2-
J-A29022-22

        the vehicle. After Officer Kocian read the blood draw consent form
        (DL-26B) to her, Appellant consented to the [blood] draw which
        occurred at 9:53 p.m. Subsequent testing revealed a blood
        alcohol content ([“BAC”]) of [0].139 percent.         It was later
        determined that Appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle.

        Based on events that occurred on December 7, 2016, Appellant
        was charged with the [aforementioned] offenses. On September
        19, 2017, a bench warrant was issued for Appellant after she failed
        to appear for trial on the previous day. The warrant was cleared
        on October 19, 2021. Appellant proceeded to a non[-]jury [trial]
        on January 21, 2022, resulting in the convictions referenced
        [supra]. On February 9, 2022, the [trial] court conducted a
        sentencing hearing whereafter Appellant was sentenced at Count
        1 [] to [two] to [four] days[’ incarceration] and a concurrent
        six-month period of probation, with permission to serve the
        incarceration portion of her sentence in the DUI Alternative to Jail
        program. No sentence was imposed at Counts 2 and 3, which
        merged with Count 1 [for purpose of sentencing]. A $25.00 fine
        was imposed at each summary [offense] conviction. Appellant
        was permitted a comply date of May 13, 2022[,] for the
        incarceration portion of her sentence.

        On February 17, 2022, Appellant filed a timely post[-]sentence
        motion seeking a new trial based on a claim that the verdict was
        against the weight of the evidence. [The trial court denied] this
        motion [] on March 22, 2022. On February 19, 2022, Appellant
        filed an application to stay [her] sentence pending appeal[,] which
        [the trial court] granted on March 22, 2022.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/22, at 3-5 (footnotes, record citations, and

extraneous capitalization omitted; paragraph formatting modified).              This

appeal followed.2

        Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

        Where credible testimony was presented that [Appellant] was not
        the driver [of the vehicle involved in the incident] and the physical
        evidence corroborated such testimony, whether the trial court
____________________________________________

2   Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -3-
J-A29022-22

      abused its discretion in denying [Appellant’s] post-sentence
      motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (formatting and extraneous capitalization omitted).

      Appellant’s issue raises a claim that the verdict was against the weight

of the evidence, for which our standard and scope of review is as follows:

      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. Because the trial [court]
      had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an
      appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings
      and reasons advanced by the trial [court] when reviewing a trial
      court’s determination that the verdict is [or is not] against the
      weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for
      granting or denying a new trial is the [trial] court’s conviction that
      the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and
      that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

Commonwealth v. Horne, 89 A.3d 277, 285 (Pa. Super. 2014), citing

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000). A trial court abuses

its discretion “where the course pursued represents not merely an error of

judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the

law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of

partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill-will.” Horne, 89 A.3d at 285-286 (citation

omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013)

(stating, “[t]he term ‘discretion’ imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom[,]

and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion within the framework of the

law, and is not exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the [trial

court]”). For an appellant to prevail on a weight of the evidence claim, “the

evidence must be so tenuous, vague[,] and uncertain that the verdict shocks

                                       -4-
J-A29022-22

the conscience of the [trial] court.” Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d

795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted),

appeal denied, 833 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2003).

      When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on
      the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court's
      decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is so
      unreliable [or] contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon
      pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable on
      appellate review.

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1262 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal

denied, 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013).

      Here, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence to support her

aforementioned convictions, asserting that both her trial testimony, as well as

the evidence presented at trial of the injuries she sustained in the accident,

demonstrated she was not the driver of the vehicle. Appellant’s Brief at 12-15.

Appellant argues that the trial court “made much of the fact that Officer Kocian

observed [Appellant] in the driver’s seat [of the vehicle] and [Appellant]

initially told [Officer Kocian] that she was the driver.” Id. at 15. Appellant

contends that, while she initially informed Officer Kocian that she was the

driver of the vehicle, she did so because she feared the male individual, who

was present at the investigation scene.      Id. at 13-14.    Appellant further

contends that she later told the emergency medical technician (“EMT”), who

was with her during the ambulance transport to the hospital, and Officer

Kocian, at the hospital, that she was not the driver of the vehicle once she no

longer felt threatened by the male individual. Id. at 14-15. Appellant also

                                     -5-
J-A29022-22

asserts the evidence of her wrist and knee injuries, sustained as a result of

the accident, “was consistent with sitting in the passenger seat” rather than

sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. Id. at 14.

      In denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion challenging the weight of

the evidence to support her convictions, the trial court explained,

      As evidenced by Appellant's claim and the record, it is uncontested
      that on December 7, 2016[,] Appellant consumed alcohol,
      exhibited signs of intoxication, had a BAC of [0].139% within two
      hours of the accident, and was located in the driver's seat [of the
      vehicle] when Officer Kocian approached the vehicle. Thus, the
      only contested element of the DUI [convictions] was whether
      Appellant was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of
      the vehicle at the time of the accident.

      Simply put, the [trial] court did not find Appellant's testimony
      credible in light of her changing statements to police during the
      course of the DUI investigation and the Commonwealth's
      evidence.     Appellant changed her statements regarding two
      facts[:] the amount of alcohol consumed and operating the
      vehicle. Appellant first informed law enforcement that she had
      two alcoholic drinks when questioned, and then later modified it
      to three. Additionally, she admitted to driving the [vehicle], then
      later den[ied] the same when it became clear that a blood draw
      [would be] requested. The [trial] court found the explanation for
      her contrary statements to be unbelievable in light of the
      Commonwealth's testimonial evidence from Officer Kocian and
      [the EMT], which the [trial] court deemed credible.

      As reflected by the record, the majority of Officer Kocian's
      testimony was uncontested by Appellant.        Moreover, Officer
      Kocian's testimony regarding the physical state of Appellant was
      supported by [the EMT’s] testimony.

      Collectively the evidence established that Appellant was operating
      the vehicle when the accident occurred on December 7, 2016.
      Within minutes of the 911 [emergency] call[,] Appellant was
      observed in the driver's seat, in a [vehicle] registered to her, that
      she admitted to driving. Officer Kocian's inability to recall the
      source for the notation in his report regarding Appellant wearing

                                      -6-
J-A29022-22

      a seat belt did not impact his credibility. The four-year lapse of
      time between the offense date and [the non-jury] trial was
      attributable to Appellant's failure to appear for her trial scheduled
      on September 18, 2017. Officer Kocian identified how [the]
      information [of Appellant wearing a seat belt] would have been
      sourced, i.e.[,] his own observation or from Appellant herself.
      Thus, it is reasonable that, absent a specific notation in his report,
      he would not recall the origin of this one fact. He was unequivocal
      in his testimony that Appellant was belted into the driver's seat
      [of the vehicle,] and the [trial] court does not deem this inability
      to identify the source of the information as a reason to discredit
      this portion of his testimony.

      As the remaining elements related to her level of impairment and
      BAC are neither contested [nor] implicated by [Appellant’s weight
      of the evidence] claim[,] the [aforementioned] convictions are not
      so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one's sense of justice[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/22, at 8-9 (extraneous capitalization omitted).

      Critical to finding Appellant guilty of the aforementioned criminal

offenses and subsequently denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion raising

a weight of the evidence claim, was the trial court’s determination of witness

credibility. Here, the trial court considered the credibility of the witnesses and

explained its rationale for finding the testimony of Officer Kocian and the EMT

credible. Id.; see also N.T., 1/21/22, at 63-64. In particular, the trial court

found Officer Kocian’s testimony regarding Appellant’s physical state when he

first encountered her at the accident scene – Appellant was discovered in the

driver’s seat of the vehicle, the vehicle was registered to Appellant, and

Appellant admitted to being the driver – to be credible, supported by the

testimony of the EMT, and largely uncontradicted by Appellant. Trial Court

Opinion, 7/13/22, at 9; see also N.T., 1/21/22, at 64. The trial court further

explained the reasons it found Appellant’s contradictory testimony – first

                                      -7-
J-A29022-22

stating she was not the driver of the vehicle then explaining why she falsely

told Officer Kocian she was the driver - was not credible. Trial Court Opinion,

7/13/22, at 8-9; see also N.T., 1/21/22, at 63-64. In addition to changing

her statement to Officer Kocian concerning the number of alcoholic beverages

she consumed prior to the accident, the trial court found Appellant informed

the EMT that she was not the driver of the vehicle after she learned that a

blood draw would be performed as part of a DUI investigation and that she

was enroute to the hospital for that purpose. Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/22, at

9; see also N.T., 1/21/22, at 64 (stating, Appellant’s statement she was not

the driver of the vehicle can be looked upon “with some degree of caution

because [she has] a vital interest in the outcome of the proceedings”).

Appellant’s assertion that the trial court erred by denying her weight claim

based upon her testimony and the physical evidence of her injuries invites this

Court to do nothing more than reassess the witnesses’ credibility and reweigh

the evidence in an attempt to convince us to reach a result different than the

one reached by the trial court, as fact-finder. We decline Appellant’s invitation

since the fact-finder, while passing on the credibility of the witnesses and

weight of the evidence, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Dunkins, 229 A.3d 622, 631 (Pa. Super. 2020), aff’d,

263 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1679 (2022). Based upon

our review of the record and the trial court’s rationale for denying Appellant’s

post-sentence motion raising a weight of the evidence claim, we discern no

                                      -8-
J-A29022-22

error of law or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the

verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/3/2023

                                     -9-