Court Opinion

ID: 9384681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 17:07:36.486758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:55.595686
License: Public Domain

J-S02036-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    PRITAM RAJ-SHARM KANDEL                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 954 MDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 8, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-60-CR-0000055-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                       FILED: APRIL 4, 2023

       Appellant, Pritam Raj-Sharm Kandel, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on June 8, 2022, after the court convicted him of Driving

Under the Influence of Alcohol (“DUI”).1 After careful review, we affirm in part

and vacate in part.

       On December 8, 2020, Buffalo Valley Regional Police Sergeant Fred

Hetrick, Jr. was traveling north on State Route 15 when he witnessed a car on

the southbound shoulder. Sergeant Hetrick noticed that the car’s lights were

on and the operator, later identified as Appellant, was in the process of exiting

the vehicle through the driver’s door. Sergeant Hetrick performed a U-turn

and, approximately 3 to 5 minutes later, approached Appellant’s vehicle.

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1). The court also convicted Appellant of the summary
offense of Careless Driving. Id. at § 3714(a). Appellant’s issue on appeal
relates solely to his DUI conviction.
J-S02036-23

      When he approached, Sergeant Hetrick noticed damage to the driver’s

side of Appellant’s vehicle, and that the front passenger-side tire was flat.

Appellant had also turned off his lights and was laying across the rear seats.

      Through the course of interacting with Appellant, Sergeant Hetrick

smelled alcohol on Appellant’s breath and noticed that Appellant’s eyes were

bloodshot and glassy, and his speech was slurred. Appellant failed two field

sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test indicated the presence of alcohol.

      Based on the totality of the circumstances, Sergeant Hetrick determined

that Appellant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered

him incapable of safe driving and, as a result, arrested Appellant. Sergeant

Hetrick took Appellant to a local hospital, where Appellant refused to submit

to a chemical test of his blood.

      On December 6, 2021, the Commonwealth presented its evidence at a

bench trial. Sergeant Hetrick, who testified on behalf of the Commonwealth,

testified in a manner consistent with the above. The Commonwealth also

presented the court with a video recording of the incident taken from Sergeant

Hetrick’s vehicle.

      Appellant also testified at trial. He stated that before Sergeant Hetrick

arrived, his car had hit a pothole and then a railing. Appellant pulled his car

off to the side of the road and called his wife to request that she pick him up.

Knowing that he was going to have a long wait, Appellant decided to turn the

car’s lights off and move to the back seat. While in the back seat, Appellant

drank 3 beers.

                                     -2-
J-S02036-23

       At the conclusion of trial, the court convicted Appellant of DUI. In

rendering its verdict, the court explained that it did “not find [Appellant’s]

testimony concerning the circumstances of the accident to be credible.” Id. at

52. On June 8, 2022 the court imposed a 5-day to 6-month sentence of county

incarceration and granted Appellant immediate parole for time served.2 The

court also ordered, as part of Appellant’s sentence, that Appellant “suffer a

twelve-month operator license suspension and a one-year ignition interlock

restriction.” Amended Sentence, 6/8/22, at 1 (unpaginated).

       Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of

the evidence, which the court denied. Appellant then timely filed a Notice of

Appeal and complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).3

                                               A.

       In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s exercise

of discretion in denying his post-sentence challenge to the weight of the

____________________________________________

2 Although it appears that Appellant has completed serving his incarceration
sentence, this appeal is not moot because the instant DUI conviction carries
with it continuing civil consequences and the potential for increased
consequences if Appellant is convicted of DUI in the future. See
Commonwealth v. Lehnerd, 273 A.3d 586, 589 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2022); 75
Pa.C.S. § 3804(a), (e). See also Commonwealth v. Foster, 214 A.3d 1240,
1246 (Pa. 2019).

3 Unfortunately, the judge that presided over Appellant’s trial retired before
issuing a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. We are, however, capable of analyzing
the issue presented because the trial court placed its credibility determinations
on the record at the conclusion of trial. N.T. Trial at 52-53.

                                           -3-
J-S02036-23

evidence.4 Appellant’s Br. at 5. In essence, Appellant argues that the trial

court should have found credible his testimony that “he drank after his vehicle

came to rest, not before[,]” and place more weight on this testimony than the

other evidence presented at trial. Id. at 9-11.

       “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is

free to believe all, none[,] or some of the evidence and to determine the

credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 545

(Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). “Resolving contradictory testimony and

questions of credibility are matters for the factfinder.” Commonwealth v.

Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 917 (Pa. Super. 2000). It is well-settled that we

cannot substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Talbert, 129 A.3d

at 546.5, 6

____________________________________________

4 Appellant also purports to challenge the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s
evidence. Appellant’s Br. at 5. Appellant’s argument, however, is a challenge
to the trial court’s credibility determinations and, thus, a challenge to the
weight, and not the sufficiency, of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Gaskins,
692 A.2d 224, 227 (Pa. Super. 1997).

5 This Court’s review of a weight claim is a review of the trial court’s exercise
of discretion in denying the weight challenge raised in the post-sentence
motion. Talbert, 129 A.3d at 545-46. As our Supreme Court has made clear,
reversal is only appropriate “where the facts and inferences disclose a palpable
abuse of discretion[.]” Commonwealth v. Morales, 91 A.3d 80, 91 (Pa.
2014) (emphasis omitted).

6 To sustain a conviction for DUI—General Impairment, the Commonwealth
must prove that the defendant drove, operated, or was “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[.]” 75
Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1).

                                           -4-
J-S02036-23

       Appellant essentially asks this Court to reassess his credibility, find his

testimony credible, and then find his testimony more persuasive than the

testimony of Sergeant Hetrick. It is well settled that this Court cannot

substitute its credibility determinations for that of the factfinder or reweigh

the evidence. Here, the factfinder found Appellant’s testimony lacked

credibility. It is not within the purview of our review to reassess that

determination or reweigh the evidence.

       Our review of the record reveals no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

Consequently, this claim fails.

                                               B.

       In conducting our review of Appellant’s case, we have identified a

sentencing illegality.7 We conclude that the court lacked the authority to

impose the license suspension and ignition interlock aspects of Appellant’s

sentence, thus rendering them illegal. As a result, we vacate those

restrictions.

       “A claim that implicates the fundamental legal authority of the court to

impose a particular sentence constitutes a challenge to the legality of

sentence.” Commonwealth v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227, 230 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(en banc) (citations omitted). “If no statutory authorization exists for a

____________________________________________

7We may raise the issue of sentencing legality sua sponte. Commonwealth
v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa. Super. 2013). Our standard of review is de
novo and scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Alston, 212 A.3d
526, 528 (Pa. Super. 2019).

                                           -5-
J-S02036-23

particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction. An illegal

sentence must be vacated.” Id. (citations omitted).

       “Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Code sets forth a statutory scheme which

requires the executive branch[, through the Department of Transportation

(“the Department”),] to issue and regulate motor vehicle licenses.”

Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 834 A.2d 488, 500 (Pa. 2003). Specifically,

Section 1531 grants the Department with the authority “for revocation and

suspension of operating privileges and for driver education, testing and

control[.]” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1531. Within the statutory scheme, the Code requires

that the Department suspend a driver’s operating privilege if he or she is

convicted of DUI:

       The department shall suspend the operating privilege of an
       individual . . . upon receiving a certified record of the individual’s
       conviction of or an adjudication of delinquency for:

              (i)       an offense under section 3802 [relating to DUI
                        offenses.]

75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(e)(1)(i) (emphasis added).8

       The Code also requires that the Department suspend the license of any

person arrested for DUI who refuses to submit to chemical testing:

       If any person placed under arrest for a violation of section 3802
       is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so,
       the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police

____________________________________________

8We note that 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(e)(2)(iii) includes an exception to the license
suspension requirement for defendants convicted of a first offense under
Section 3802(a).

                                           -6-
J-S02036-23

        officer, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of
        the person as follows:

              (i)       Except as set forth in subparagraph (ii), for a
                        period of 12 months.

Id. at § 1547(b)(1)(i) (emphasis added).9

        The judiciary’s role is “limited to determining guilt” of DUI. Mockaitis,

834 A.2d at 501 (citation omitted). It is undisputed that the legislature vested

in the Department, and not the trial court, the authority to suspend a license.

Id.10

        Similarly, Section 3805 of the Vehicle Code grants the Department with

the authority to require that a person convicted of DUI, and who seeks to have

his driving privileges restored, accept the installation of an ignition interlock

system. 75 Pa.C.S. § 3805(a)(1). Our Supreme Court has explained that by

enacting     Section   3805,    the    General   Assembly   “delegate[ed]   to   the

Department, not the courts, the authority to impose the interlock

requirement.” Whalen v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver

Licensing, 32 A.3d 677, 680 n.3 (Pa. 2011) (emphasis added). Thus, “a

sentencing court has no statutory authority to order installation of [ignition
____________________________________________

9   Appellant refused chemical testing. N.T. Trial, 12/6/21, at 13.

10 In Mockaitis, our Supreme Court found unconstitutional Act 63 on the
grounds that it violated the Separation of Powers doctrine because it delegated
to the courts the responsibility to determine whether and when repeat DUI
offenders are entitled to conditional restoration of their operating privileges,
which is a function of the executive branch of government. 834 A.2d at 503.
Following Mockaitis, our legislature passed, inter alia, Sections 3804 and
3805, which grant to the Department the exclusive authority to make ignition
interlock and license suspension determinations. See 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3804,
3805.

                                           -7-
J-S02036-23

interlock] devices” and a sentence imposing an interlock system is illegal and

must be vacated. Commonwealth v. Williams, 871 A.2d 254, 266 (Pa.

Super. 2005).

       The above law makes clear that it is for the Department, and not the

courts, to impose license suspensions and the use of ignition interlock

systems. Because the trial court in this case imposed these restrictions when

only the Department has the authority to do so, their imposition is illegal. As

a result, we vacate the license suspension and ignition interlock aspects of

Appellant’s sentence.11

       In sum, we vacate the license suspension and ignition interlock portions

of Appellant’s sentence. We affirm all other aspects of his judgment of

sentence.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed in part, vacated in part.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/4/2023

____________________________________________

11 This outcome does not preclude the Department from suspending
Appellant’s license and mandating an ignition interlock system when Appellant
seeks restoration of his driving privilege.

                                           -8-