Court Opinion

ID: 9898615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 20:10:59.26443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:35.117662
License: Public Domain

J-A21023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 ANDREW J J. LAVECCHIO                     :
                                           :
                     Appellant             :   No. 2869 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 27, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0003654-2019

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                        FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2023

     Appellant, Andrew Lavecchio, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence

entered on October 27, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

County, after a jury convicted him of Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”),

Homicide by Vehicle, and Homicide by Vehicle while DUI. Appellant challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence and the court’s jury instructions. After careful

review, we affirm.

                                      A.

     We glean the following facts and procedural history from the trial court’s

opinion. At around 9:45 P.M. on November 10, 2018, Appellant drove to a

gathering at a friend’s house in the Fishtown section of Philadelphia where he

met Decedent Lennard Besidsky for the first time.       While there, Appellant

smoked marijuana.
J-A21023-23

       The group then went to two bars and Appellant drank alcohol until 3:00

A.M. He and Decedent then returned to Appellant’s car, where both men used

cocaine and Appellant agreed to drive Decedent home.

       While driving Decedent home, Appellant crashed his car into a disabled

tractor trailer on the side of the road. The impact crushed the passenger side

of Appellant’s car, killing Decedent1 and severely injuring Appellant. At the

moment of impact, Appellant was driving at 93.2 miles per hour in a 50 mile-

per-hour zone, reduced from 118.7 miles per hour 4 seconds before impact.

He did not engage the brakes until 2 ½ seconds before impact.

        Appellant’s toxicology report indicated that his blood alcohol content

(“BAC”) was 0.19 percent and that he had recently used marijuana and

cocaine.       Three weeks after the crash, police investigators interviewed

Appellant, who informed them that he did not remember anything after his

first drink.

       On March 7, 2019, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with

Involuntary Manslaughter, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, Homicide

by Vehicle while DUI, Homicide by Vehicle, DUI, Recklessly Endangering

Another Person, and Reckless Driving.2

____________________________________________

1 Decedent’s cause of death was "multiple blunt impact injuries of the head

and neck,” according to Lindsay Simon, M.D., the medical examiner.

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2504 and 2705; 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3732, 3735, and 3736,
respectively.

                                           -2-
J-A21023-23

      Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on July 21, 2022. At trial, several

witnesses testified, including Trooper Gregory Butler, the Commonwealth’s

accident reconstruction expert. Trooper Butler concluded that “[Appellant’s]

intoxication, the speed, reckless driving -- one of those, let alone all of them

combined, could have been enough to cause the fatality in this situation, but

to have all of them together only goes to prove the recklessness of [Appellant]

that night.” N.T. Trial, 7/22/22, at 92.

      Appellant testified that he was now able to remember that after he and

Decedent used cocaine in Appellant’s car, Decedent asked him to drive him

home and told Appellant that he seemed fine to drive. He further testified

that immediately before the crash, Decedent was “making passes at [him]”

despite Appellant telling him to stop and pushing his hand away. N.T. Trial,

7/25/22, at 19-20. Appellant also stated that Decedent grabbed the steering

wheel after Appellant pushed his hand away, and that Appellant accidentally

pushed down on the accelerator when Decedent had touched him. Appellant

testified that he had no control of the car when the accident occurred.

      On July 25, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of Homicide by Vehicle

while DUI, Homicide by Vehicle, and DUI. The Commonwealth nolle prossed

the remaining charges.     On September 26, 2022, the court purported to

sentence Appellant to 5 to 10 years for the Homicide by Vehicle while DUI

conviction and a consecutive term of 2 to 4 years of incarceration for the

                                     -3-
J-A21023-23

Homicide by Vehicle conviction.3               However, due to a clerical error, the

sentences on each count were reversed, rendering Appellant’s sentence

illegal.

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

sufficiency of the evidence and requesting reconsideration of his sentence.

Post-Sentence Motion, 10/4/22, at 2 (unpaginated).              The court denied the

motion at a hearing on October 27, 2022. That day, the court also amended

Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence to correct the clerical error and imposed the

intended original sentence of 5 to 10 years for Homicide by Vehicle while DUI

and a consecutive term of 2 to 4 years of incarceration for Homicide by

Vehicle.

                                               B.

      This timely appeal followed. Appellant raises the following two issues

for our review:
      1. Whether the evidence presented at trial and all reasonable
      inferences derived therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable
      to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is sufficient to establish
      all elements of the offense of Homicide by Vehicle beyond a
      reasonable doubt?

       2. Were the Trial Court's jury instructions prejudicial as a whole
       when [Appellant] was charged with the summary offense of
       Careless Driving with Homicide by Vehicle?

Appellant’s Br. at 1.

____________________________________________

3 For sentencing purposes, Appellant’s DUI conviction merged with his
Homicide by Vehicle While DUI conviction.

                                           -4-
J-A21023-23

                                               C.

       In his first issue, Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting his convictions.4 In addressing this challenge, our well-

settled standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is limited to the

evidence admitted at trial viewed in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as verdict winner.                Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 A.3d

416, 420-21 (Pa. 2014). We determine “whether the evidence at trial, and all

reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish

all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v.

May, 887 A.2d 750, 753 (Pa. 2005). The factfinder, “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. Miller, 172 A.3d 632,

640 (Pa. Super. 2017).

       To sustain a conviction for Homicide by Vehicle, “the Commonwealth

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) [Appellant] violated a

Pennsylvania statute (except the DUI statute) . . .relating to operation or use

of a vehicle or regulation of traffic, (2) the violation caused the victim’s death,

and (3) [Appellant’s] conduct was either reckless or grossly negligent.”

____________________________________________

4 In his Statement of Questions, Appellant indicates he is challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence for only his Homicide by Vehicle conviction. See
Appellant’s Br. at 1. However, he raised the sufficiency of the evidence for
both convictions in his Rule 1925(b) Statement and has addressed it in his
Argument section. We, therefore, will address both.

                                           -5-
J-A21023-23

Commonwealth v. Sanders, 259 A.3d 524, 529 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en

banc), appeal denied, 278 A.3d 857 (Pa. 2022); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3732(a). An

“appellant may be found criminally liable [for homicide by vehicle] if his

actions are determined to be a direct and substantial cause of the decedent’s

death, even if the decedent’s alleged negligent acts were also substantial.”

Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 621 A.2d 681, 686 (Pa. Super. 1993).

      To sustain a conviction for Homicide by Vehicle while DUI, the

Commonwealth must prove “that [Appellant] unintentionally caused the death

of another person as the result of driving in violation of [S]ection 3802 [the

DUI statute].” Commonwealth v. Cruz, 71 A.3d 998, 1006 (Pa. Super.

2013); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3735.

                                       D.

      Appellant first argues that Decedent’s own drinking, cocaine use, and

choice to ask Appellant for a ride is the “substantial reason for his own death.”

Appellant’s Br. at 8. Appellant then quotes the standard jury instruction for

Homicide by Vehicle and seems to suggest that because he did not know that

the tractor trailer was disabled on the side of the road at the time of the crash,

he could not have been reckless.      Id. at 8-9.    He also contends that the

Commonwealth’s accident expert could not pinpoint whether intoxication or

reckless driving caused the accident and concludes “[t]he defendant’s reckless

conduct, § 3736 [sic] was not a sufficiently direct cause of the competing

                                      -6-
J-A21023-23

driver’s death to make him criminally liable therefor.”            Id. at 9-10.5

Unfortunately, Appellant’s brief is woefully lacking a cogent argument and we

are, as a result, unable to provide meaningful review of his sufficiency

challenge.

       Our rules of appellate procedure require conformance with particular

briefing requirements. Specifically, the Argument section of an appellant’s

brief must contain citations to the record and to relevant legal authority that

supports his arguments. Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a), (c). When an appellant fails to

develop an argument sufficiently for our review, we may dismiss the appeal

or find that issue waived. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.

Super. 2007); Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing defects may

result in dismissal of appeal); see also Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d

362, 371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding issue waived where the appellant

failed to cite any pertinent authority to support his argument).

       Here, Appellant fails to cite to the relevant statutes or notes of testimony

and instead quotes jury instructions generally to support his contention that

others were at fault for the crash. See Appellant's Br. at 7-8, 10. In addition,

____________________________________________

5 Appellant also argues that he should not have been convicted of both
Homicide by Vehicle and Homicide by Vehicle while DUI because the elements
of the offenses contradict one another. See Appellant’s Br. at 9. Appellant did
not raise this issue in his Rule 1925(b) Statement and it is, therefore, waived.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Moreover, we have held that a defendant may be
convicted of both Homicide by Vehicle and Homicide by Vehicle while DUI that
occurred in the same incident because an accident may have more than one
cause. Commonwealth v. Britcher, 563 A.2d 502, 506 (Pa. Super. 1989),
aff'd, 592 A.2d 686 (Pa. 1991).

                                           -7-
J-A21023-23

Appellant fails to address the evidence that the Commonwealth presented to

the jury or provide any cogent argument to enable us to provide meaningful

review.    Accordingly, we deem Appellant’s sufficiency challenge waived.6

B.D.G., 959 A.2d at 371–72.

                                               E.

       In his second issue, Appellant asserts that the court erred in instructing

the jury that the predicate traffic offense for Homicide by Vehicle was Driving

Vehicle at Safe Speed,7 where he was only charged with Reckless Driving.

Appellant’s Br. at 11.       Appellant failed to raise this issue in his 1925(b)

____________________________________________

6 Moreover, applying our de novo standard of review, our review of the record

supports the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to meet all
elements of both charges.        As the trial court observed, the evidence
established that Appellant drove at approximately twice the speed limit in
violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361, and as a result of this recklessness, he was
unable to stop or take other evasive actions to avoid crashing into the disabled
tractor trailer on the side of the road. Trial Ct. Op., 1/13/23, at 7.
Furthermore, we note, as did the trial court, that the jury found credible the
evidence that the combination of Appellant’s impairment and speed caused
the crash and, therefore, Decedent’s death, and found Appellant’s testimony
that Decedent convinced him to drive, made a pass at him, or grabbed the
wheel not credible. Id. The jury attributed no weight to Appellant’s testimony
that the crash resulted from Decedent’s actions. Id. We decline to re-weigh
the evidence. Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 337 (Pa. Super.
2019). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth
as the verdict winner, we agree with the trial court that it was sufficient to
prove each element of Homicide by Vehicle while DUI and Homicide by Vehicle.

7 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361.

                                           -8-
J-A21023-23

Statement.      Accordingly, Appellant waived this claim.8      See Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in

accordance with the provisions of this paragraph . . . are waived.”);

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (setting bright-line

rule requiring strict compliance with Rule 1925(b) requirements).
                                       F.

       In sum, we conclude that Appellant waived his challenges to the

sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 11/14/2023

____________________________________________

8 Appellant also waived this claim by failing to object to the jury instructions

prior to deliberation. N.T. Trial, 7/25/22, at 117. See Commonwealth v.
Gomez, 224 A.3d 1095, 1102 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citations omitted)
(“[a] specific and timely objection must be made to preserve a challenge to a
particular jury instruction. Failure to do so results in waiver.”).

                                           -9-