Com. v. Garcia, J.
3449 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- On August 22, 2015 at ~4:30 a.m., police responded to an accident in a McDonald’s parking lot; Officer Beiner found Jose Garcia at the driver’s-side door of a damaged Ford F-150 that bore yellow paint transfer consistent with striking a utility pole.
- Another vehicle nearby had fresh rear damage and broken glass; a telephone pole showed scuff marks.
- Garcia told police his wife was driving and was in McDonald’s; officers found no patrons inside and did not locate the wife at the scene.
- Officer Beiner detected a strong odor of alcohol on Garcia, observed glassy/bloodshot eyes and swaying; Garcia initially agreed to field sobriety tests but then refused and later refused a blood draw.
- Records showed Garcia’s license was suspended on the date of the accident.
- Following a non-jury trial, the court convicted Garcia of two counts of DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1)), careless driving, failure to give immediate notice of an accident, and driving while suspended; sentenced to 1–6 months’ confinement (consecutive to another sentence). Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Garcia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to jury trial | Not at issue for Commonwealth; trial court proceeded non-jury | Garcia argued he was entitled to a jury trial | Denied — first-offense DUI (and refusal) here are ungraded misdemeanors punishable up to 6 months, so no jury right for offenses carrying ≤6 months incarceration |
| Sufficiency: proof of driving/operation/actual physical control while impaired | Evidence (Garcia at driver’s side, vehicle damage with pole paint transfer, nearby damaged car, odor of alcohol, impaired appearance, refusals, suspended license) sufficed to prove he drove/operated/was in control while impaired | Garcia argued no direct evidence he drove; his wife testified she drove | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence and credibility findings supported convictions |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: verdict did not shock the conscience given the totality of evidence | Garcia argued the verdict was against the weight because his witness (wife) said she was the driver | Waived on appeal (no post-sentence/new-trial motion); alternatively, meritless — trial court found wife not credible and verdict reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (Supreme Court decision addressing warrantless blood draws and enhanced penalties)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 607 requires presenting weight claim to trial court or it is waived)
- Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient where it allows reasonable inferences of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Passarelli, 789 A.2d 708 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sufficiency review framework)