Com. v. Harner, J. ( 2017 )

J. A20043/17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JEREMY MICHAEL HARNER, : No. 295 MDA 2017
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, January 4, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No. CP-40-SA-0000338-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
Jeremy Michael Harner appeals the judgment of sentence of the Court
of Common Pleas of Luzerne County where the trial court found him guilty of
driving while his operating privilege was suspended or revoked1 and
sentenced appellant to pay fines plus court costs. After careful review, we
affirm.
The record reflects that, on August 4, 2016, appellant was operating a
motor vehicle in Butler Township, Luzerne County when Officer
Anthony Martine (“Officer Martine”) executed a traffic stop on the basis that
1
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).
J. A20043/17
appellant was speeding.2 Officer Martine also issued the citation for driving
with a suspended license.
A magisterial district judge convicted appellant of driving with a
suspended license. Appellant appealed to the trial court. On January 4,
2017, the trial court conducted a de novo trial. Officer Martine testified
regarding the basis for the traffic stop. Officer Martine further testified
regarding his initial conversation with appellant when he reached his vehicle:
Upon making contact with [appellant] and speaking
with him, he had informed me that he had missed
some payments on previous fines that he had
accumulated that was [sic] not in reference to this
stop. [Appellant] had also stated to me that his
license was not valid. I proceeded to go back to my
patrol car. I was able to pull up what magistrate’s
office that he owed fines to, and I was able to
provide him with that information. I issued a citation
without any further incident.
Notes of testimony, 1/4/17 at 3-4.
Officer Martine emphasized that appellant made him aware that his
license was suspended at the time of the stop. (Id. at 5.) Officer Martine
also identified appellant’s driving record which indicated numerous
suspensions in the past and which was placed into evidence. (Id.) Officer
Martine further testified that he provided appellant with the location and
telephone number of the magistrate’s office where he owed fines from
previous citations, and appellant called that office in Officer Martine’s
2
Although appellant was issued a citation for speeding, that citation is not
before this court on appeal.
-2-
J. A20043/17
presence. On cross-examination, Officer Martine did not recall whether
appellant provided him with a driver’s license or not, but he reiterated that
appellant told him that his license was suspended. (Id. at 7-8.)
Appellant testified that he provided Officer Martine with his driver’s
license but did not tell him the license was suspended. In fact, appellant
testified that he thought the fine was paid and his license was valid. (Id. at
9.) At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found appellant guilty and
levied the sentence set forth above.
Appellant contends that there was not sufficient evidence at trial to
support that appellant was aware that his driver’s license had been
suspended when Officer Martine stopped him. (Appellant’s brief at 3.)
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence is a question of law. Commonwealth v.
Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 319, 744 A.2d 745, 751
(2000). In that case, our Supreme Court set forth
the sufficiency of the evidence standard:
Evidence will be deemed sufficient to
support the verdict when it establishes
each material element of the crime
charged and the commission thereof by
the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 533 Pa.
412, 625 A.2d 1167 (1993). Where the
evidence offered to support the verdict is
in contradiction to the physical facts, in
contravention to human experience and
the laws of nature, then the evidence is
insufficient as a matter of law.
Commonwealth v. Santana, 460 Pa.
482, 333 A.2d 876 (1975). When
reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is
required to view the evidence in the light
-3-
J. A20043/17
most favorable to the verdict winner
giving the prosecution the benefit of all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from
the evidence. Commonwealth v.
Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 630
(1991).
Id. at 319, 744 A.2d at 751.
Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906, 910 (Pa.Super. 2006).
Section 1543(a) of the Vehicle Code, entitled “Driving while operating
privilege is suspended or revoked” provides as follows:
(a) Offense defined.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), any person who drives a motor
vehicle on any highway or trafficway of this
Commonwealth after the commencement of a
suspension, revocation or cancellation of the
operating privilege and before the operating
privilege has been restored is guilty of a
summary offense and shall, upon conviction,
be sentenced to pay a fine of $200.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).
In Commonwealth v. Kane, 333 A.2d 925 (Pa. 1975), our
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that it was necessary for the
Commonwealth to establish that the operator was aware that his license was
suspended in order to prove a conviction under the predecessor statute to
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a), 75 P.S. § 624. Although Section 1543(a) does not
state that actual notice of the suspension is required, our supreme court has
held that actual notice remains an essential element for a conviction. See
Commonwealth v. Zimmick, 653 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 1993).
-4-
J. A20043/17
Appellant argues that he did not tell Officer Martine that his license
was suspended until he spoke with the magistrate’s office after
Officer Martine provided him with the magistrate’s telephone number.
Appellant ignores the fact that Officer Martine testified that appellant told
him that his license was suspended when he stopped him.3 This testimony
established that appellant was aware that his operator’s license was
suspended when he was stopped for speeding. The trial court did not
commit an error of law when it determined that the evidence was sufficient
to convict appellant.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/19/2017
3
Though credibility is normally not part of a sufficiency challenge, this court
notes that the trial court explicitly found Officer Martine credible.
-5-