Com. v. Lentz, R.
901 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- At ~1:20 a.m. trooper encountered a Buick LeSabre that signaled and pulled over; after the trooper stopped, occupants switched seats and Appellant Rebecca Lentz moved into the driver’s seat.
- Trooper observed headlights on, engine running, keys in ignition, Appellant seated in driver’s seat; trooper smelled alcohol and observed glassy eyes; Appellant admitted drinking and said she felt more sober and was going to drive (trooper testimony).
- Appellant testified she did not drive and intended to call a friend for a ride; the trial court found the trooper credible and convicted Appellant at a bench trial of three counts under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802 (general impairment, high rate, highest rate).
- Appellant was sentenced to 72 hours to 6 months (counts merged), filed post-sentence motions and appealed raising sufficiency and weight challenges.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether being in the driver’s seat for only seconds and expressing intent to drive sufficed to establish ‘‘drive, operate or be in actual physical control’’ under § 3802, and whether attempted DUI should have been considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lentz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802 when Appellant had just moved into the driver’s seat, engine running, and said she would drive | Presence in driver’s seat with engine running, lights on, keys in ignition, plus her statement she would drive, shows actual physical control/operation | Trooper observed she had not driven; at most she intended to drive moments later — insufficient to prove she drove, operated, or was in actual physical control | Reversed: evidence insufficient to support § 3802 convictions because uncontested facts showed she had not driven prior to the stop and mere present intent/brief occupancy did not establish actual physical control |
| Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence (short time in driver’s seat, would need to adjust seat/mirrors) | Trial court relied on credibility determinations to uphold conviction | Appellant argued the brief time and practical impediments undercut the verdict | Moot after reversal on sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Brotherson, 888 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discussing factors for ‘‘actual physical control’’ where vehicle found running and location supported inference of prior driving)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 833 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 2003) (defining ‘operate’ as requiring actual physical control of vehicle machinery or management of movement)
- Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931 (Pa. 2007) (attempt as lesser-included offense and when conviction for attempt may be affirmed)