Court Opinion

ID: 9841486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 16:10:51.220615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:29.389841
License: Public Domain

J-S32007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                    :
                v.                                  :
                                                    :
                                                    :
    MELISSA ANN PARNHAM                             :
                                                    :
                       Appellant                    :   No. 1689 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 3, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                          CP-67-CR-0000008-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                FILED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2023

       Appellant, Melissa Parnham, appeals from the November 3, 2023

Judgment of Sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County

following her conviction for three Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses

and one count of Violating Traffic Control Signals.1            Appellant purports to

challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying her DUI conviction under

75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2). After careful review, we affirm.

                                               A.

       The charges arise from a single incident that took place on September

28, 2021, in York, Pennsylvania. At 1:30 AM, Trooper Dylan Adams of the

Pennsylvania State Police observed Appellant’s van leave a motel parking lot

in an area known for drug activity. Trooper Adams followed Appellant for two
____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(d)(2), § 3802(d)(1)(i), § 3802(d)(1)(iii), and
3112(a)(3)(i), respectively.
J-S32007-23

to three miles, during which time Appellant drove five miles per hour under

the speed limit and failed to stop at a red light.        Trooper Adams then

effectuated a traffic stop. During the stop, Appellant admitted that there was

marijuana in the van and consented to a search. Trooper Adams recovered a

box with marijuana inside and several devices for smoking.

        Trooper Adams then conducted field sobriety tests, specifically the “walk

and turn” test and the “one-leg-stand” test.        Appellant failed both tests.

Immediately before Trooper Adams administered the field sobriety tests,

Appellant told him for the first time that she had a leg cramp. Prior to that

time, Trooper Adams had observed her “standing perfectly fine for a half hour

before that.” N.T. Trial at 19.

        Based on his observations of Appellant’s driving—including her failure to

stop at the red light—and her inability to pass the field sobriety tests, Trooper

Adams arrested Appellant and transported her to York Hospital for a blood

draw. The results of Appellant’s blood draw indicated the presence of active

and inactive THC metabolites.       The Commonwealth subsequently charged

Appellant with the above offenses.

        On November 3, 2023, Appellant proceeded to a bench trial represented

by counsel. Trooper Adams, the Commonwealth’s sole witness, testified to

the above facts. The parties also stipulated to the results of Appellant’s blood

draw.     Appellant lodged no objections to Trooper Adams’ testimony and

presented no evidence in her own defense.

                                       -2-
J-S32007-23

      The trial court convicted Appellant of all charges. The same day, the

court sentenced Appellant to a term of six months’ probation and three days’

house arrest for her DUI conviction under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2).           The

remaining DUI convictions merged for sentencing. Appellant did not file a

post-sentence motion.

                                       B.

      Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the trial

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Appellant presents one issue for our review:

      Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain [Appellant’s]
      Driving under the Influence of a Controlled Substance conviction
      where there was no evidence [Appellant] was specifically impaired
      by a controlled substance as required for her conviction?

Appellant’s Brief, 5/31/23, at 4.

                                       C.

      Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to

convict her of DUI under Section 3802(d)(2).             Appellant’s Br. at 9.

Specifically, she maintains that field sobriety tests are unreliable evidence of

impairment and that her driving was not unsafe enough to indicate

impairment. Id. at 9, 12.

      “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.”

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). Our 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

                                      -3-
J-S32007-23

verdict winner.   Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 A.3d 416, 420-21 (Pa.

2014).   In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, 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) (citation

omitted).

      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).                  “In

conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh the evidence and

substitute its judgment for the fact[]finder.” Id.

      Challenges to reliability of evidence go to the weight of the evidence,

not sufficiency. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Barkman, 295 A.3d 721, 733

(Pa. Super. 2023) (stating that credibility and reliability go to weight of

evidence; a sufficiency claim must accept both); Commonwealth v.

Bristow, 538 A.2d 1343, 1345–46 (Pa. Super. 1988) (finding that an

argument that testimony was unreliable is irrelevant to sufficiency claim).

      To sustain a conviction under Section 3802(d)(2) of the DUI statute, the

Commonwealth’s evidence must be sufficient to establish that: 1) the

defendant drove 2) while under the influence of a controlled substance 3) to

a degree that impaired her ability to drive safely.       Commonwealth v.

Spence, 290 A.3d 301, 309 (Pa. Super. 2023); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2).

                                     -4-
J-S32007-23

“Evidence of consumption . . . standing alone, is insufficient to prove

impairment[;]” rather, “impairment evidence should be drawn from the

totality of the factual circumstances.” Id. (citations omitted).

       Appellant’s sufficiency challenge concerns only the impairment element

of Section 3802(d)(2). Appellant’s Br. at 12. The crux of her argument is

that field sobriety tests are insufficient to prove marijuana impairment. Id.

at 12, 13-15. In support, she relies on law review articles and case law from

Massachusetts2 that discuss the lack of consensus in the scientific community

as to whether field sobriety tests reliably determine marijuana intoxication.

She maintains that, due to concerns about their reliability, field sobriety tests

are insufficient to establish impairment.

       Appellant’s challenge to the reliability of the field sobriety tests

challenges the weight given the evidence by the factfinder, not the sufficiency

of the evidence supporting her conviction. Barkman, 295 A.3d at 733. As

noted above, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.         Accordingly,

____________________________________________

2 Commonwealth v. Gerhardt, 81 N.E. 3d 751. (Mass. 2017).

                                           -5-
J-S32007-23

Appellant has not preserved a weight of the evidence challenge for our

review.3,4

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/22/2023

____________________________________________

3 A weight of evidence claim must be raised with the trial judge in a motion

for a new trial either orally prior to sentencing, by written motion prior to
sentencing, or in a post-sentence motion, in order to preserve it for appellate
review. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v. Butler, 729 A.2d 1134,
1140 (Pa. Super. 1999) (holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence
is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court).

4 To the extent that Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in
support of her conviction, the trial court credited the Commonwealth’s
evidence that Appellant failed to stop at a red light and failed field sobriety
tests. This evidence established that Appellant failed to stop at a red light and
failed the field sobriety tests. Subsequent blood test results revealing that
Appellant had consumed marijuana further supported this evidence of her
impairment. N.T. Trial at 24; Trial Ct. Op. at 6-7. We conclude that this
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the
verdict winner, was sufficient to establish that Appellant was impaired such
that she could not drive safely. Trial Ct. Op. at 7.

                                           -6-