Com. v. Miranda, M.
683 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- On December 19, 2015 police responded to a domestic dispute call involving Michelle Miranda; officers observed her drive away in a red Chevy Blazer and smelled alcohol.
- Corporal Moran observed bloodshot, glassy eyes, administered field sobriety tests (which Miranda failed), and conducted a breath test indicating alcohol; Miranda was arrested for DUI.
- Miranda’s daughter, Damiana Villa, initially gave a written statement to police saying Miranda had been drinking, but at trial recanted and testified she did not see Miranda drink that night.
- At a February 8, 2017 bench trial the court found Miranda guilty of DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1)); no PSI was prepared and on March 22, 2017 the court sentenced her to 2–6 months’ incarceration.
- Miranda appealed, raising sufficiency and weight of the evidence, evidentiary objections to admission of prior statements and testimony, and a discretionary-sentencing challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Miranda) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI | Evidence including officer observations, failed field tests, and breath test supported conviction | Miranda argued evidence (including absence of admitted breath/blood results at trial and daughter’s recantation) was insufficient to prove intoxication | Court held sufficiency claim actually attacked credibility/weight; evidence believed by finder supported conviction, so claim fails |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict was proper given credible police testimony and tests | Miranda argued it was equally reasonable to find she was not under the influence (credibility issues) | Court found weight claim waived for failure to specify reasons in post-sentence motion; alternatively, credibility is for factfinder |
| Admission of daughter's written statement and testimony | Prior inconsistent written statement admissible to impeach and as substantive evidence where witness testifies and is cross-examinable | Miranda argued hearsay and unfair prejudice; daughter’s statement was unreliable | Court affirmed admission: daughter testified and recanted, so statement admissible under Pa.R.E. 803.1 and related precedents |
| Discretionary aspect of sentence | Commonwealth urged aggravated-range sentence based on prior DUI, lack of remorse, no treatment | Miranda argued sentence excessive, court punished her for family members’ conduct and failed to consider § 9721 factors | Court found Miranda preserved claim and raised a substantial question but held sentencing was supported by on-the-record reasons and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Ratsamy v. Commonwealth, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- DeJesus v. Commonwealth, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (weight-of-evidence and credibility vested in factfinder)
- Watley v. Commonwealth, 153 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prior inconsistent statement may be substantive if reliability requirements met)
- Segida v. Commonwealth, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (focus of § 3802(a)(1) is inability to drive safely, not a specific BAC)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 461 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 1983) (post-verdict weight claim must specify grounds to preserve for appeal)
- Dodge v. Commonwealth, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (what constitutes a substantial question for discretionary sentencing review)
- Phillips v. Commonwealth, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Bricker v. Commonwealth, 41 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)