Com. v. Strassburg, S.
Com. v. Strassburg, S. No. 587 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- On Oct. 5, 2014, Warminster Township Officer Daniele Leporace stopped Stephen Strassburg after observing a vehicle traveling ~10–15 mph in a 25 mph zone and with an unlit license-plate light.
- Officer observed glassy, dilated, poorly reactive pupils, nervousness, and unsteadiness; Strassburg admitted taking prescribed oxycodone earlier that night.
- Strassburg failed three field sobriety tests; a hospital blood test showed 435 ng/mL oxycodone (about four times therapeutic level).
- Toxicologist Dr. Thomas Brettel testified that that oxycodone level would impair driving and could be lethal; he acknowledged tolerance can develop but opined tolerance would not permit normal function at that level.
- A jury convicted Strassburg of DUI (controlled substance, third offense) and other offenses; court sentenced him to 2–5 years on the DUI count plus consecutive penalties; post-sentence motion denied and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Strassburg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI (3802(d)(2)) | Evidence (officer observations, failed field sobriety tests, blood level, expert) proves impairment to degree that driving was unsafe | Slow driving alone, compliance with traffic laws, and possible tolerance show Commonwealth failed to prove impairment beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence (failed tests, officer observations, toxicologist) sufficient to support conviction |
| Weight/credibility of expert toxicologist testimony | Dr. Brettel’s opinion that 435 ng/mL would impair driving supports verdict | Dr. Brettel’s concession that tolerance exists undermines his opinion and sufficiency | Rejected — tolerance acknowledged but expert still opined impairment at measured level; credibility/weight are for the jury |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (consecutive vs concurrent; guideline range) | Sentencing within court’s discretion; procedural requirements for appellate review not satisfied | Argues sentence length and consecutive terms were excessive and court should have considered guidelines/factors differently | Waived — appellant failed to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2012) (3802(d)(2) does not require proof of a specific drug amount)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure of field sobriety tests may establish incapacity to drive)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011) (officer observations plus toxicology sufficient for 3802(d)(2))
- Commonwealth v. Palmer, 751 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 2000) (officer opinion based on observations is competent evidence of intoxication)
- Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Roser, 914 A.2d 447 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement bars review when objected to)
- Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Rule 2119(f) requirement explained)
- Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discretionary sentencing claims not preserved below are unreviewable)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requirements for challenging sentencing norms)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural preservation for sentencing claims)