Court Opinion

ID: 9945860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 17:11:25.274309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:16.199723
License: Public Domain

J-S46009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ERIC B. OKNEFSKI                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 454 WDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 6, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-24-CR-0000247-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                           FILED: FEBRUARY 28, 2024

       Appellant, Eric B. Oknefski, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 5

days to 6 months of incarceration entered in the Elk County Court of Common

Pleas following his conviction of DUI and Display of Unauthorized Certificate

of Inspection.1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence

in support of his DUI conviction. After careful review, we affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history as gleaned from the certified

record, including the notes of testimony from Appellant’s stipulated bench

trial, are as follows. On March 22, 2022, surveillance video recorded Appellant

drive into the front parking lot of the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”)

Ridgeway barracks where the custody exchange of his daughter was

scheduled to take place. Appellant exited his vehicle and began approaching

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(a)(1), and 4703(e), respectively.
J-S46009-23

the barracks on foot. At that time, PSP Corporal Brian Elensky walked out

through the lobby of the barracks to meet Appellant.

       Corporal Elensky immediately noticed that Appellant’s eyes were red

and watery, and that Appellant appeared disheveled, dazed, disoriented, and

a little confused. Corporal Elensky then had a “lengthy conversation”2 with

Appellant, during which he further observed that Appellant’s speech was slow,

quiet, and raspy. He described Appellant as having very noticeably swollen

hands, legs, and feet, and that Appellant seemed unbalanced. Appellant told

Corporal Elensky that he had driven to the barracks but did not respond when

Corporal Elensky asked him if he was sober. Corporal Elensky noticed that

Appellant had “complete unawareness of [] the year or the time,” 3 which

indicated to him that Appellant was impaired. Based upon his concern that

Appellant was not sober yet intended drive off the premises with a young child,

Corporal Elensky administered field sobriety tests,4 the results of which

indicated that Appellant was “clearly impaired.”5, 6   Corporal Elensky then
____________________________________________

2 N.T. Trial, 1/30/23, at 15.

3 Id. at 19.

4 Corporal Elensky administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test and
Romberg balance test that, because he was afraid Appellant would fall,
Corporal Elensky modified by permitting Appellant to sit. Id. at 16.

5 Id. at 18.

6 Corporal Elensky also inspected Appellant’s vehicle and observed a large
strip of tint on the front windshield, very dark tint on the rear door windows,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S46009-23

arrested Appellant for suspicion of DUI and transported him to St. Mary’s

Hospital where Appellant consented to a blood draw for blood alcohol level

testing.

       On January 30, 2023, Appellant’s stipulated bench trial commenced.

Relevantly, the parties stipulated that laboratory tests indicated that Appellant

had a blood alcohol content of .163% when sampled on March 22, 2022. In

addition to the parties’ stipulation, the court heard the testimony of Corporal

Elensky. Corporal Elensky testified to the above facts and summarized his

belief that Appellant was impaired to a degree that he was unable to safely

operate a motor vehicle as follows:

       There was no question that [Appellant] was impaired by alcohol
       or drugs or both. [And subsequent] toxicology results to confirm
       the source of the impairment.

                                           ***

       Due to even before the tests, the things I saw, his balance, his
       eyes, his demeanor, his speech, then the test and even the rest
       of my time with him, I mean, he - - I had no question that he was
       extremely dangerous risk to be out on the road.

N.T. Trial, 1/30/31, at 19-20.

       Following the trial, the court convicted Appellant of the above charges.

On February 6, 2023, the court sentenced Appellant a term of 5 days to 6

months of imprisonment.          On February 10, 2023, Appellant filed a post-

sentence motion, which the trial court denied on March 20, 2023.

____________________________________________

broken glass on one of the lights, and expired inspection. These observations
formed the basis of summary citations subsequently issued to Appellant.

                                           -3-
J-S46009-23

      This appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:

      1. Whether the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial
         was insufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense of Driving
         Under the Influence, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), specifically
         regarding the element of “imbibed a sufficient amount of
         alcohol such that he was incapable of safely driving, operating,
         or being in actual physical control of the movement of the
         vehicle,” where only one field sobriety test of [Appellant] was
         performed, [Appellant] had health issues which made it difficult
         for [him] to complete the field sobriety tests, [and] video
         evidence presented at trial showed [Appellant] in control of his
         person[]?

      2. Whether the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial
         was against the weight of evidence for the offense of Driving
         Under the Influence, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), specifically
         regarding the element of “imbibed a sufficient amount of
         alcohol such that he was incapable of safely driving, operating,
         or being in actual physical control of the movement of the
         vehicle,” where only one field sobriety test of [Appellant] was
         performed, [Appellant] had health issues which made it difficult
         for [him] to complete the field sobriety tests, [and] video
         evidence presented at trial showed [Appellant] in control of his
         person[]?

Appellant’s Brief at 10-11.

                                          A.

      In   his   first   issue,   Appellant    challenges   the   sufficiency   of   the

Commonwealth’s evidence in support of his DUI conviction. In an unusual

argument that misapprehends both the Commonwealth’s burden and this

court’s standard of review, Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth

presented insufficient evidence to prove Appellant’s proffered defense—that it

                                         -4-
J-S46009-23

was the consumption of alcohol and not, as Appellant claims, his lack of sleep

or health conditions—that rendered him incapable of safely operating a

vehicle. Id. at 23-24.

      Our standard of review applicable to challenges to the sufficiency of

evidence is well settled. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, and taking all reasonable inferences

in favor of the Commonwealth, the reviewing court must determine whether

the evidence supports the fact-finder’s determination of all of the elements of

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hall, 830 A.2d

537, 541–42 (Pa. 2003).         A conviction may be sustained wholly on

circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or

none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 40 (Pa. Super.

2014).   In conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh the

evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder. Id. at 39-40.

      Further, “[t]he facts and circumstances proved must, in order to warrant

a conviction, be such as to establish the guilt of the defendant, not necessarily

beyond a moral certainty, nor as being absolutely incompatible with his

innocence, but at least beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Interest of J.B., 189

A.3d 390, 408 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted).

      The court convicted Appellant of DUI pursuant to Section 3802(a)(1),

which provides:

      (a) General impairment.—

                                      -5-
J-S46009-23

         (1) An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual
         physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing
         a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is
         rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in
         actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.

75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1).

      “The types of evidence that the Commonwealth may proffer in a

subsection 3802(a)(1) prosecution include[,] but are not limited to . . . the

offender’s actions and behavior, including manner of driving[;] . . . demeanor,

including toward the investigating officer; physical appearance, particularly

bloodshot eyes and other physical signs of intoxication; odor of alcohol, and

slurred speech.” Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871, 879 (Pa. 2009).

      Following our review of Appellant’s argument, we observe that Appellant

has asked this Court to ignore the above-stated standard of review which

requires us to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as verdict winner, and instead, review the evidence in the

light most favorable to him. This we cannot and will not do.

      Moreover, the notes of testimony confirm that the Commonwealth did,

in fact, present sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Appellant does not dispute that he drove his vehicle onto the parking lot of

the PSP barracks in Ridgeway. Further, Appellant stipulated that his blood-

alcohol level was .163%. As set forth above, Corporal Elensky testified at trial

that Appellant’s appearance, demeanor, and conduct indicated that Appellant

was intoxicated.   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, we conclude that it was reasonable for the trial court, sitting

                                     -6-
J-S46009-23

as fact-finder, to determine that Appellant was not capable of safely operating

his vehicle.      Accordingly, Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence fails.

                                               B.

       Appellant also challenges the weight the trial court gave to the

Commonwealth’s evidence.            Appellant’s Brief at 24.   Appellant has not,

however, developed any argument in support of this claim.7 Id. Appellant’s

failure to develop this issue has hampered this Court’s ability to conduct

meaningful appellate review. We, thus, conclude that Appellant has waived

his weight of the evidence claim by failing to develop it in his appellate Brief.

See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010)

(citations omitted) (where “defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct

meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find

certain issues to be waived.”).

                                               C.

       In sum, we conclude that Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim

lacks merit and that he has waived his weight of the evidence claim.
____________________________________________

7 Appellant’s argument, in its entirety, is as follows:

       For the reasons set forth in section I hereinabove, [Appellant]
       avers that the [t]rial [c]ourt’s decision to deny his motion for a
       new trial based on the weight of the evidence was an abuse of
       discretion. Counsel does not see the need to set forth the same
       argument here.

Appellant’s Brief at 24.

                                           -7-
J-S46009-23

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

FILED: 2/28/2024

                                 -8-