Com. v. Cabrera, H.
Com. v. Cabrera, H. No. 2506 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Hugo Alberto Cabrera was convicted of DUI after a traffic stop where police requested a blood test and advised refusal could lead to enhanced criminal penalties.
- Cabrera filed a pretrial motion to suppress blood-test evidence, arguing the stop and pursuit were unlawful; he did not argue the blood-draw consent was involuntary.
- After conviction but before sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding states may not criminally punish refusal to submit to a blood test.
- At sentencing, defense counsel moved to vacate the conviction insofar as it relied on the blood evidence, citing Birchfield; the trial court granted a new trial "in the interest of justice."
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing waiver because Cabrera did not raise involuntariness of consent in his suppression motion; the trial court and majority upheld the new-trial grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cabrera waived challenge to voluntariness of blood consent by not raising it pretrial | Commonwealth: waiver — voluntariness not litigated pretrial, so new trial based on Birchfield improper | Cabrera: Birchfield changed law after trial, and trial court may grant relief in interest of justice to reassess voluntariness | Court: Commonwealth waived this appellate argument; trial court granted new trial under its "interest of justice" discretion and did not err |
| Whether trial court acted improperly by raising involuntariness sua sponte | Commonwealth: trial court improperly advocated for defendant | Defense: court merely sought counsels' views about Birchfield's impact | Court: Court only asked for counsel's positions; no improper advocacy found |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging consent pretrial | Commonwealth: not argued on appeal | Cabrera: counsel could not be ineffective for failing to anticipate change in law or make frivolous motions | Court: noted counsel cannot be faulted for failing to predict Birchfield; this supports granting a new trial to allow reevaluation |
| Whether Birchfield requires suppression or other relief | Commonwealth: Birchfield does not affect this case (per its brief) | Cabrera: Birchfield rendered the officer's advisory partially inaccurate and may have rendered consent involuntary | Court: Birchfield changed law; trial court reasonably concluded the partial inaccuracy of the advisory warranted granting a new trial in the interest of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 590 A.2d 1240 (Pa. 1991) (explains "interest of justice" ground for new trial and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 716 A.2d 580 (Pa. 1998) (issues unpreserved on appeal may be deemed waived)
- Commonwealth v. Hallman, 67 A.3d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate court will not develop appellant's arguments)
- Beal v. Reading Co., 87 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1952) (conclusion "in the interest of justice" requires amplification)
- Commonwealth v. Dennison, 272 A.2d 180 (Pa. 1971) (trial court may grant new trial sua sponte to promote justice)
- Pa. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Weaver, 912 A.2d 259 (Pa. 2006) (context on penalties/warnings for refusing tests under prior PA law)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 703 A.2d 510 (Pa. Super. 1997) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise frivolous objections)
- Commonwealth v. White, 528 A.2d 596 (Pa. 1987) (same principle on counsel performance)
- Commonwealth v. McBall, 463 A.2d 472 (Pa. Super. 1983) (counsel not ineffective for not predicting changes in law)