Com. v. Cravener, S., 344 A.3d 370

Scotty Lee Cravener was found by a Pennsylvania State Police officer in a running truck, parked in the middle of a closed AutoZone parking lot, visibly impaired and in possession of drug paraphernalia and controlled substances.
Cravener admitted to recent drug use and to having driven from his girlfriend’s house earlier that evening, failing Standard Field Sobriety Tests administered by the officer.
He was convicted by a jury of multiple DUI counts (third offense), knowing/intentional possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving while his license was suspended.
Cravener initially entered a guilty plea but later withdrew it and subsequently went to trial, after which he received a sentence of 21 to 60 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Cravener argued that his prosecution for DUI should be dismissed as a "de minimis" infraction, relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Bold v. PennDOT.

Issue	Cravener’s Argument	Commonwealth’s Argument	Held
Can Section 312 ("de minimis infractions") be used to challenge the weight of the evidence in a DUI case?	Cravener argued he should be allowed to challenge the weight of evidence by asserting his conduct was de minimis.	Commonwealth argued the claim was waived because it was not raised in trial court; also, the facts showed DUI.	The court held the de minimis claim was waived and not properly raised as a weight challenge; disagreed with Cravener’s legal theory.
Did Bold v. PennDOT require dismissal of the DUI charge because Cravener was not observed driving?	Cravener argued that, under Bold, his conduct did not pose the harm targeted by DUI laws (i.e., active driving).	Commonwealth countered that substantial evidence pointed to recent impaired driving prior to the stop.	The court found that the officer had a reasonable basis to believe Cravener drove impaired; Bold did not require dismissal.
Should the appellate court remand for trial court reconsideration in light of Bold?	Cravener requested remand to allow the lower court to reconsider under the new Supreme Court authority.	Commonwealth argued the claim was not preserved and was meritless in any event.	The court affirmed the conviction, declining remand because the Section 312 claim was waived and lacked merit even if considered.

Bold v. PennDOT, 320 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2024) (clarified the "actual physical control" requirement and public policy behind DUI statutes)
Commonwealth v. Proctor, 625 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 1993) (held mall parking lots open to the public are "trafficways" for DUI)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 871 A.2d 254 (Pa. Super. 2005) (affirmed DUI conviction where defendant was found intoxicated in a parked, running car in a lot)
Commonwealth v. Wolen, 685 A.2d 1384 (Pa. 1996) (plurality) (no requirement that actual danger to public be shown for DUI; risk is per se)
Commonwealth v. Banner, 737 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 1999) (articulated totality of circumstances standard for "actual physical control" in DUI)