Com. v. Muniz, E.
1965 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Single-vehicle crash at ~2:45 a.m.; officer observed heavy front-end damage and vehicle against a guardrail.
- Muniz was at the scene; odor of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and slow/deliberate answers were noted.
- Muniz initially said he swerved to avoid a deer but later admitted drinking; officer’s accident-reconstruction opinion contradicted the deer explanation and cited loss of control and excessive speed.
- Muniz performed field sobriety tests (lack of convergence, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand); the officer testified Muniz failed two tests and a video showed impaired performance.
- Muniz provided an ID and stated his license was suspended.
- Following a bench trial, Muniz was convicted of DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1)), driving while operating privilege suspended (75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b)(1)), and failing to drive at a safe speed (75 Pa.C.S. § 3361); sentenced to consecutive terms; counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions for DUI, driving while privilege suspended, and unsafe speed | Commonwealth: Officer’s observations (odor, slurred speech, glassy eyes), failed FSTs and accident-reconstruction testimony provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of impairment and excessive speed; Muniz admitted drinking and having a suspended license | Muniz: Evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove impairment, causation (i.e., that he failed to avoid a deer), and the statutory elements for each offense | Court affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the uncontradicted officer testimony, video of FSTs, and reconstruction opinion were sufficient to sustain convictions; counsel’s Anders petition granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural standards for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders-type brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural elements required to withdraw under Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to fact-finder credibility determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of sufficiency standard and circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (addressing Anders procedural obligations)