Com. v. Redder, W., Com. v. Redder, W. No. 2110 MDA 2016

On Nov. 25, 2015 Troopers Levanavage and Smith found Wilma Redder seated in the driver’s seat of her running Chevrolet S-10 stopped on the berm of a rural road; Trooper Levanavage detected alcohol odor and Redder admitted drinking.
Redder failed breath and field sobriety tests and consented to a blood draw that showed BAC .148%; Commonwealth later withdrew the high-BAC charge after a suppression motion.
Redder filed a pretrial habeas corpus petition arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove she was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle because it was parked when officers arrived.
The trial court reviewed cruiser videos, credited Trooper Levanavage’s testimony that the truck was running, denied the habeas petition, and at a non-jury trial convicted Redder of DUI—general impairment (second offense).
On appeal Redder argued the trial court erred in denying habeas relief for lack of proof of actual physical control; the Superior Court treated the claim as a sufficiency challenge and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence established "actual physical control" for DUI conviction	Commonwealth: totality of circumstances (truck running, location, appellant in driver’s seat, statement she drove from NY) sufficed	Redder: vehicle was parked and she only placed keys in ignition to open window; videos show no exhaust	Court: Affirmed—evidence (officer testimony + video showing driver in seat of running truck at roadside) sufficient to prove actual physical control

Marti v. Commonwealth, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2001) (habeas corpus tests sufficiency to proceed to trial)
Commonwealth v. Lee, 662 A.2d 645 (Pa. 1995) (prima facie sufficiency moot after conviction)
Commonwealth v. McCullough, 461 A.2d 1229 (Pa. 1983) (same principle on sufficiency and habeas)
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 460 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983) (same principle on sufficiency and habeas)
Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellant must order trial transcript to preserve issues on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 157 A.3d 508 (Pa. Super. 2017) (sufficiency review requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (actual physical control determined by totality of circumstances; factors include engine running, location, evidence of driving)
Commonwealth v. Brotherson, 888 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial proof can establish actual physical control)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 871 A.2d 254 (Pa. Super. 2005) (factors for actual physical control and evidentiary standards)