Com. v. Brown, F.
Com. v. Brown, F. No. 1256 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- On July 22, 2014, Trooper Depew stopped Frederick T. Brown for a suspended vehicle registration/insurance alert and observed marijuana odor and bloodshot eyes.
- Trooper Depew administered field sobriety tests (HGN, Rhomberg, lack of convergence); results were elicited at trial though the trooper did not state explicit pass/fail findings.
- Brown was arrested, signed O'Connell warnings, and voluntarily submitted to a blood draw; his blood showed 6.4 ng/mL Delta-9 carboxy-THC (a THC metabolite).
- The Commonwealth charged Brown under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(iii) (driving with any amount of a metabolite of a controlled substance) and two summary vehicle offenses; the jury convicted on the § 3802 count.
- Post-trial, Brown sought relief arguing (1) excessive/manifestly unreasonable sentence, (2) improper admission of field sobriety test testimony (including HGN), and (3) insufficient evidence in light of Birchfield v. North Dakota; trial court denied relief and imposed 18–60 months’ incarceration, $1,000 fine, and 18-month license suspension.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed: it found the sentencing claim did not present a substantial question, the field sobriety testimony issue was waived for lack of objection, and the sufficiency/Birchfield-based challenge was waived and, in any event, unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion | Commonwealth argues sentence was within statutory/standard range and properly imposed | Brown contends 18–60 months was manifestly excessive given low metabolite level and no proof of danger | No substantial question presented; claim fails (sentence within standard range) |
| Admissibility of field sobriety test testimony (including HGN) | Commonwealth: field sobriety observations were relevant and probative to DUI suspicion | Brown: field sobriety test results are not relevant to proving presence of drug metabolite in blood | Waived — trial counsel did not object; issue forfeited on appeal |
| Sufficiency of evidence; applicability of Birchfield to blood draw | Commonwealth: trial evidence (driving, blood test showing metabolite above legal limit) proved elements beyond reasonable doubt | Brown: relies on Birchfield to argue blood draw required a warrant and results should be excluded, undermining sufficiency | Waived — Brown did not move to suppress or challenge voluntariness at trial; Birchfield does not aid him on appeal; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defines when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (within-range sentence presumptively does not raise substantial question absent manifest injustice)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016) (blood draws are searches under the Fourth Amendment; warrant or valid consent required)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for admission of evidence: relevancy vs. prejudicial impact)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 552 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1988) (objecting timely to preserve evidentiary issues; failure to object waives claim)
- Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for sufficiency review)