Com. v. Laureano, R. ( 2018 )

J-A01038-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERTO R. LAUREANO : No. 1986 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order June 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000087-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MAY 14, 2018
The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered in the Bucks County
Court of Common Pleas granting appellee, Roberto R. Laureano’s, post-
sentence motion requesting a judgment of acquittal based on the court’s
legally erroneous ruling permitting the Commonwealth to amend the
information. The Commonwealth contends the amendment to the criminal
information was proper. Based on the following, we reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
The trial court set forth the facts and arduous procedural history as
follows:
The instant case arises from a motor vehicle accident on
October 20, 2011. The accident occurred in the area of 2220
Street Road, Bensalem, PA. The roadway is a four-lane highway
____________________________________________
 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01038-18
with a center turning lane, and the accident occurred in the middle
of the block with no traffic light or pedestrian crossing. When
police arrived on scene, it was apparent that a pedestrian in a
motorized wheelchair had been struck by a vehicle and was
seriously injured. [Laureano] identified himself to police as the
person driving the vehicle that had struck the pedestrian. The
pedestrian later died.
Officer Jennifer Stahl (“Officer Stahl”) of the Bensalem
Township Police Department was the first officer to arrive at the
scene and explained to [Laureano] that the police would like him
to take a blood test due to the severity of the accident. [Laureano]
was told that this was standard procedure, and Officer Stahl asked
[Laureano] if he would consent to a blood draw. Officer Stahl
made it clear that there was nothing that caused her to suspect
that [Laureano] had done anything wrong or was in any way
impaired. [Laureano] was not provided the standard consent
form, nor was [Laureano] informed that the results of any test
could be used against him in a criminal proceeding. [Laureano]
consented to the blood test, and he was placed in a police car –
without handcuffs – and taken to the local hospital for a blood
draw.
The blood test came back positive for a metabolite of
marijuana. [Laureano] was charged with 75 § 3802(d)(1)(i),
Driving Under the Influence: Controlled Substance – Schedule 1,
on February 2, 2012. [Laureano] filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion
to, in part, suppress the blood test results. A suppression hearing
was held on May 12, 2012, and after we denied the motion to
suppress, a waiver trial was held immediately thereafter.
During the waiver trial, all evidence and testimony from the
suppression hearing was made part of the trial record. The
Commonwealth also entered the blood results as evidence, but it
offered no additional testimony. The defense demurred on the
evidence. During arguments, the defense pointed out that the
Commonwealth had charged [Laureano] with the incorrect
statute. Specifically, the Commonwealth charged [Laureano] with
[Section] 3802(d)(1)(i), which requires the active ingredient of
the controlled substance to be in [Laureano]’s blood. In reality,
[Section] 3802(d)(1)(iii) would have been the appropriate charge,
as this section requires only that a metabolite of the controlled
substance be present in [Laureano]’s blood. The Commonwealth
requested that we allow them to reopen their case and allow an
-2-
J-A01038-18
amendment to the information to correct the charge, which we
did. We then found [Laureano] guilty and deferred sentencing.
[Laureano] then filed a Post-Trial Motion for Extraordinary
Relief requesting reconsideration of the motion to suppress the
blood test results and the ruling to allow the amendment to the
criminal information. We held a hearing on this Motion, which
occurred on August 27, 2012. At this hearing, the defense argued
three issues: (1) the police did not have probable cause to
request a chemical test pursuant to the implied consent law; (2)
[Laureano]’s consent was not knowing and voluntary because the
police did not explain that the blood test results could be used
against him in criminal charges; and (3) the Commonwealth
should not have been permitted to amend the criminal information
after both parties had rested.
We found that [Laureano]’s arguments on the voluntary
nature of [his] consent had merit, and we reversed our original
decision of May 15, 2012, thereby granting the motion to
suppress. Because the Commonwealth could not meet its burden
of proof without the suppressed evidence, we additionally vacated
the conviction - also from May 15, 2012 - by an Order dated
August 30, 2012. We did not reach the implied consent or
amended criminal information issues at that time.
The Commonwealth appealed our decision to suppress the
blood test, which led to the Superior Court and the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court considering this case. The Superior Court initially
upheld our decision but the Commonwealth’s Petition for
Allowance of Appeal was granted by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. Following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Smith, 77 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior
Court, which overturned our suppression of the blood test. The
case was then remanded to us for sentencing.
Sentencing was scheduled for November 19, 2014.
[Laureano] again offered an oral Motion for Extraordinary Relief,
arguing that we were incorrect in allowing the Commonwealth to
amend its criminal information following the close of testimony at
the trial. We considered argument from both sides on this point
and consulted case law, after which we determined that it had
been incorrect to allow the Commonwealth to amend its
information following the close of testimony. We therefore
-3-
J-A01038-18
reversed our original decision in this matter and, since the
Commonwealth was unable to meet its burden of proof under
[Section] 3802(d)(1)(i), found [Laureano] not guilty. The
Commonwealth then filed an appeal on December 18, 2014, and
timely filed their Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal
on January 7, 2015.
Thereafter, we filed our Opinion on January 30, 2015. On
November 17, 2016, the Superior Court decided that we
improperly granted [Laureano]’s Motion for Extraordinary Relief
instead of waiting for a post -sentence motion, and thus, our Order
of November 19, 2014 was reversed, and the case was remanded
for sentencing.
On remand, a sentencing hearing was held on March 24,
2017. At the conclusion of that hearing we sentenced [Laureano]
to imprisonment in the Bucks County Correctional Facility for not
less than 90 days nor more than 6 months. [He] was also ordered
to pay the costs of prosecution, as well as a fine of $1,500.00.
[Laureano] was released on his own recognizance pending appeal
or post -sentence motion.
On March 31, 2017, [Laureano] filed a post -sentence
motion, asking us to arrest judgment or order a judgment of
acquittal. A hearing was held on June 6, 2017, regarding [his]
post -sentence motion. After the hearing, on June 9, 2017, we
granted [Laureano’s] motion requesting a judgment of acquittal
based on our legally erroneous trial ruling permitting the
Commonwealth to amend the information.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/2017, at 1-4 (record citations omitted).1 The
Commonwealth filed this appeal.2
____________________________________________
1 The court’s opinion was timestamped the following day.
2 On June 23, 2017, the trial court ordered the Commonwealth to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
The Commonwealth filed a concise statement on July 10, 2017. The trial court
issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on July 17, 2017.
-4-
J-A01038-18
In its sole issue on appeal, the Commonwealth argues the trial court
erred in granting Laureano’s post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal
and determining that its earlier ruling, permitting the Commonwealth to
amend the criminal information, was legally erroneous under Pennsylvania
Rule of Criminal Procedure 564, which governs the amendment of criminal
informations. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 13. The Commonwealth states
the court also “appears to misapprehend the nature of the amended crime
charged and the alleged prejudice [Laureano] suffered as a result of the
amendment.” Id. at 15.
Our review of a ruling granting a motion for judgment of acquittal is
guided by the following:
“A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is
granted only in cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to
carry its burden regarding that charge.” As we have stated:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there
is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and
substitute our judgment for [that of] the fact-finder. In
addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s
guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence
is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no
probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden
of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.
Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must
-5-
J-A01038-18
be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence
produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
“It is well recognized, however, that a criminal conviction cannot
be based upon mere speculation and conjecture.”
Commonwealth v. Graham, 81 A.3d 137, 142 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations
omitted), appeal denied, 93 A.3d 462 (Pa. 2014).
At issue in the present case is Rule 564, which provides:
The court may allow an information to be amended, provided that
the information as amended does not charge offenses arising from
a different set of events and that the amended charges are not so
materially different from the original charge that the defendant
would be unfairly prejudiced. Upon amendment, the court may
grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in
the interests of justice.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 564.
[T]he purpose of Rule 564 is to ensure that a defendant is fully
apprised of the charges, and to avoid prejudice by prohibiting the
last minute addition of alleged criminal acts of which the
defendant is uninformed. Commonwealth v. Duda, 2003 PA
Super 315, 831 A.2d 728, 732 (Pa. Super. 2003). The test to be
applied is:
Whether the crimes specified in the original indictment or
information involve the same basic elements and evolved
out of the same factual situation as the crimes specified in
the amended indictment or information. If so, then the
defendant is deemed to have been placed on notice
regarding his alleged criminal conduct. If, however, the
amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the
elements or defenses to the amended crime are materially
different from the elements or defenses to the crime
originally charged, such that the defendant would be
prejudiced by the change, then the amendment is not
permitted.
-6-
J-A01038-18
Commonwealth v. Davalos, 2001 PA Super 197, 779 A.2d
1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2001)(citation omitted).
Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218, 1221 (Pa. Super. 2006).
“‘[O]ur courts apply the rule with an eye toward its underlying purposes and
with a commitment to do justice rather than be bound by a literal or narrow
reading of the procedural rules.’” Commonwealth v. Mentzer, 18 A.3d
1200, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2011), quoting Commonwealth v. Grekis, 601 A.2d
1284, 1288 (Pa. Super. 1992).3
Here, Laureano was charged with the crime of driving under the
influence of a controlled substance (“DUI”). A DUI offense is defined, in
relevant part, as follows:
(d) Controlled substances. — An individual may not drive,
operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a
vehicle under any of the following circumstances:
(1) There is in the individual’s blood any amount of a:
____________________________________________
3 We must consider several factors in determining whether an amendment
has prejudiced a defendant:
(1) whether the amendment changes the factual scenario
supporting the charges; (2) whether the amendment adds new
facts previously unknown to the defendant; (3) whether the entire
factual scenario was developed during a preliminary hearing; (4)
whether the description of the charges changed with the
amendment; (5) whether a change in defense strategy was
necessitated by the amendment; and (6) whether the timing of
the Commonwealth’s request for amendment allowed for ample
notice and preparation.
Sinclair, 897 A.2d at 1223 (citation omitted).
-7-
J-A01038-18
(i) Schedule I controlled substance, as defined in the
act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The
Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act;
…
(iii) metabolite of a substance under subparagraph
(i) or (ii).
75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d).
As indicated above, Laureano was originally charged with Subsection
3802(d)(1)(i). Following closing arguments, the Commonwealth was
permitted to amend its criminal information and charge Laureano with
Subsection 3802(d)(1)(iii), as it was the more appropriate charge based on
the facts of the case. Laureano was convicted under the latter offense, and
subsequently sentenced. He then requested, and was granted, extraordinary
relief regarding the ruling that granted the amendment. The Commonwealth
now contends:
Here, there can be little doubt that the original charge
[(Subsection 3802(d)(1)(i))] and the amended charge
[(Subsection 3802(d)(1)(iii))] involved the same basic elements
and evolved from the same factual situation. The Commonwealth
always alleged that [Laureano] unlawfully operated his vehicle
while having marijuana in his blood. The basic elements of that
offense did not change regardless of whether he had marijuana
constituent or marijuana metabolite in his blood. Nor did the
requested amendment arise from a new or different factual
scenario. In addition, not only did the information place
[Laureano] on notice of the criminal conduct alleged, but
[Laureano]’s counsel conceded that he had actual notice that
there was marijuana metabolite, rather than marijuana
constituent, in [Laureano]’s blood once he received the lab report
several weeks prior to trial. As such, the trial court had properly
concluded during trial that it was appropriate to permit the
Commonwealth to amend the information.
-8-
J-A01038-18
Commonwealth’s Brief at 16-17 (citations omitted). Relying on
Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443 (Pa. Super. 2014), the
Commonwealth further asserts:
The trial court states in its Opinion that the latter is not a lesser
included [offense] of the former, insofar as “a metabolite of a
controlled substance is separate and distinct from the controlled
substance itself.” Opinion, July 17, 2017, p. 7. Yet, just as the
defendant in Houck could not have committed a Section 3802(c)
offense without committing a Section 3802(b) offense, see
Houck, 102 A.3d at 453, here [Laureano] could not have had
committed a [Subs]ection 3802(d)(1)(i) offense without
committing a [Subs]ection 3802(d)(1)(iii) offense. Put another
way, [Laureano] could not have had marijuana metabolite in his
blood if he had not also previously had marijuana constituent in
his blood. As that is the very conduct prohibited by [Subs]ection
3802(d)(1), the mere fact that, at the time of his blood draw, the
marijuana constituent had broken down into a metabolite is legally
insignificant. Cf. Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931, 938
(Pa. 2007) (to be a cognate crime, and therefore a lesser included
crime, it is sufficient that the two offenses have certain elements
in common, such that the greater offense includes allegations of
all the elements of the lesser offense); Commonwealth v.
Sinclair, 897 A.2d [1218,] 1222 [(Pa. Super. 2006)] (“The driving
under the influence statute proscribes a single harm to the
Commonwealth.... The fact that the offense may be established
as a matter of law if the Commonwealth can produce the
necessary chemical test [as opposed to the “incapable of safe
driving” element] does not constitute proof of a different offense,
but merely represents an alternative basis for finding culpability.”)
(quoting Commonwealth v. McCurdy, 558 Pa. 65, 735 A.2d 681(Pa. 1999)).
Commonwealth’s Brief at 18-20 (footnote omitted). Additionally, the
Commonwealth states Laureano did not suffer any prejudice where: (1) “the
amended charge arose from the exact factual scenario as the original
-9-
J-A01038-18
charge;”4 (2) “[t]he amendment did not add any new facts that were
previously unknown to [Laureano] as he was both aware that the charge
against him stemmed from marijuana in his blood while operating a vehicle
and in that he conceded that he was aware of the results of his BAC weeks
prior to trial;”5 and (3) Laureano “put on no evidence and proffered no defense
other than to rely on the variance between the results of the lab report and
the subsection charged.”6 Moreover, the Commonwealth alleges the “trial
court appears to ignore that it is illegal under [Subs]ection 3802(d)(1) to
operate a vehicle while having in one’s blood any amount of either a controlled
substance or a metabolite of a controlled substance, irrespective of whether
the controlled substance or metabolite thereof affected one’s ability to drive.”
Id. at 24.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained it granted Laureano
relief for several reasons. First, relying on Commonwealth v. Plybon, 421
A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1980), the court stated, “[I]t had been incorrect to allow
the Commonwealth to amend its information during closing arguments of the
waiver trial.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/2017, at 4. Specifically, the court
found:
____________________________________________
4 Commonwealth’s Brief at 20.
5 Id. at 21
6 Id.- 10 -
J-A01038-18
In the present case, the Commonwealth only moved to
amend the information following the close of its case and following
the defense’s demurrer on the evidence. It was not until the
defense pointed out during its closing arguments that the
Commonwealth had charged [Laureano] with the wrong statute
that the Commonwealth requested allowance to amend the
criminal information.
Additionally, [Laureano] … was on notice that he would have
to defend himself under the charge of driving under the influence
of a controlled substance, but the defenses for the charge of
having an active ingredient of marijuana in the bloodstream varies
distinctly from the defenses for the charge of having a metabolite
or inactive ingredient of marijuana in the bloodstream. Our
understanding is that a metabolite of marijuana can stay in the
bloodstream for a much longer period of time than the active
ingredients. Because of this, and because the defense had access
to the Commonwealth’s blood test results well before the trial, the
defense prepared to argue[] that [Laureano] was not actually
under the influence of marijuana at the time he operated the
motor vehicle; that is, that the presence of the metabolite did not
affect his ability to operate the vehicle. Additionally, the defense
offered some alternative defenses as well, including, for example,
a chain of custody argument.
Id. at 6.
Second, the court stated it did not “believe that 75 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
3802(d)(1)(iii) [wa]s a lesser-included offense of 75 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
3802(d)(1)(i).” Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/2017, at 6. Moreover, the court
opined:
Just as subsection (ii) of this statute could not be a lesser-included
offense of subsection (i), as a schedule II or III substance is a
wholly different drug than a schedule I substance, we do[] not
believe that subsection (iii) is a lesser-included offense of
subsection (i), as a metabolite of a controlled substance is
separate and distinct from the controlled substance itself.
Accordingly, that, coupled with the timing of the amendment,
should be sufficient to uphold our determination that the
amendment to the criminal information was improper in this case.
- 11 -
J-A01038-18
Id. at 7. Additionally, the court determined “the potential for prejudice is
especially heightened ... because the Commonwealth did not request leave to
amend the information until after the close of the Commonwealth’s case and
after the demurrer of the defense.” Id.
We are constrained to disagree with the court’s determination. First,
we conclude that despite the last minute notice of the amendment, the crime
specified in the original information (Subsection 3802(d)(1)(i)) involved the
same basic elements and evolved out of the same factual situation as the
crime specified in the amended information (Subsection 3802(d)(1)(iii)). See
Davolos, supra. In doing so, we disagree with the court’s conclusion that
Subsection 3802(d)(1)(iii) is not a lesser-included offense of Subsection
3802(d)(1)(i). It is obvious that one cannot have a metabolite of marijuana
in one’s system if he has not already ingested the active ingredient, marijuana.
“A ‘metabolite’ is the substance produced by metabolism or by a metabolic
process.” Vereen v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 515 A.2d 637, 639 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), citing Dortland’s
Illustrated Medical Dictionary 803 (26th Ed.1981). Additionally, both
subsections do not require proof that a specific amount of the drug be in the
defendant’s system, they only require the presence of the drug or metabolite.
As such, it is logical to assume that a crime requiring proof of the by-product
of a controlled substance would fall under a crime requiring evidence of that
- 12 -
J-A01038-18
controlled substance. Accordingly, these crimes are not so “separate and
distinct” as the trial court implies. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/2017, at 7.7
Second, we do not find that the defenses for these two subsections were
substantially different because driving under the influence of a controlled
substance pursuant to Section 3802(d)(1) does not require proof that the
controlled substance impaired or affected Laureano’s ability to operate the
vehicle, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion.8 Rather, Section 3802(d)(1)
only requires presence of the controlled substance in the defendant’s blood.
See Commonwealth v. Etchison, 916 A.2d 1169, 1174 (Pa. Super. 2007),
aff’d, 943 A.2d 262 (Pa. 2008) (“[A] conviction under Section 3802(d)(1) does
____________________________________________
7 As such, we find the court’s reliance on Plybon, supra, is misplaced. In
Plybon, a panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the
Commonwealth’s motion to amend an information to remove a charge of
driving “under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance
to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving” and to add a
charge of driving “under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders
the person incapable of safe driving.” Plybon, 421 A.2d at 225. At the time
of the case, the pertinent statutory provisions were, respectively, 75 Pa.C.S §
3731(a)(3) and § 3731(a)(1). These provisions were subsequently repealed
by P.L. 120, No. 24, § 14, Sept. 30, 2003, effective Feb. 1, 2004, and were
replaced with similar provisions found at 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) and
§ 3802(d)(3). Like this case, the Commonwealth sought to amend its
information after the close of its case and the defendant had demurred to the
evidence. However, unlike here, the crimes were materially different where
one crime required the evidence of one being under the influence of alcohol
and the other demanded proof of one being under the combined influence of
alcohol and controlled substance. Accordingly, Plybon is distinguishable from
the present matter because there was a complete change in the evidence
itself.
8 See Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/2017, at 6.
- 13 -
J-A01038-18
not require that a driver be impaired; rather, it prohibits the operation of a
motor vehicle by any driver who has any amount of specifically enumerated
controlled substances in his blood, regardless of impairment.”) (italics in
original); see also Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 42 A.3d 302, 311 (Pa.
Super. 2012) (same), appeal denied, 56 A.3d 396 (Pa. 2012).9 Therefore,
Laureano’s defense for both provisions would be the same – that the controlled
substance, whether it be the active ingredient of marijuana or the metabolite,
was not in his system at the time of the incident.
Lastly, we believe the potential for prejudice was not heightened by the
Commonwealth’s “11th hour” request to amend. We find: (1) the amendment
did not change the factual scenario supporting the charges; (2) the
amendment did not add new facts previously unknown to Laureano; (3) the
entire factual scenario was developed during the suppression hearing; (4) the
description of the charges did not substantially change with the amendment;
(5) a change in defense strategy was not necessitated by the amendment;
____________________________________________
9 We note the language in Section 3802(d)(1) is different than in other
sections of the DUI statute. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) (“An individual may
not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle
after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is
rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical
control of the movement of the vehicle.”) (emphasis added); 75 Pa.C.S. §
3802(d)(2) (“The individual is under the influence of a drug or combination of
drugs to a degree which impairs the individual’s ability to safely drive,
operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.”)
(emphasis added). See also Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa.
2011) (comparing the different provisions of Section 3802).
- 14 -
J-A01038-18
and (6) the timing of the Commonwealth’s request for amendment allowed for
notice and preparation. Sinclair, 897 A.2d at 1223. With respect to the sixth
factor, it merits mention that the purpose of Rule 564, “to avoid prejudice by
prohibiting the last minute addition of alleged criminal acts of which the
defendant is uninformed,”10 was not defeated where Laureano was put on
notice regarding the results of that lab report and his blood test came back
positive for a metabolite of marijuana because defense counsel acknowledged
that he had obtained the lab report at the time of discovery. See N.T.,
5/12/2012, at 148. As such, this was not surprise information that would
have required more time to prepare for trial. Additionally, we note this was a
non-jury trial, therefore, there would have been no confusion on the part of
the jury regarding the different crimes and a need for an amendment.
Furthermore, while there are cases, as cited by the trial court,11 that have
reversed a decision to allow a tardy motion to amend a criminal information,
there are also cases upholding belated amendments. See i.e.,
Commonwealth v. Mentzer, 18 A.3d 1200, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(affirming decision to amend information which requested at the time of
sentencing and concerned the grading of the DUI offense); Commonwealth
v. Roser, 914 A.2d 447, 455 (Pa. Super. 2006) (concluding grant of
____________________________________________
10 Sinclair, 897 A.2d at 1221.
11 Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/2017, at 7-10.
- 15 -
J-A01038-18
amendment just before closing arguments was proper, even where the
elements of the offenses differed, because appellant had prompted the need
for an amendment by his own inculpatory testimony), appeal denied, 927 A.2d
624 (Pa. 2007). Therefore, we conclude the trial court erred in granting
Laureano’s post-sentence motion requesting a judgment of acquittal and
reversing its prior ruling granting the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the
criminal information.
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/14/18
- 16 -