Com. v. Hastings, A. ( 2022 )

J-S05037-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ALEX JORDAN HASTINGS :
:
Appellant : No. 1034 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 22, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-01-CR-0000019-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: APRIL 13, 2022
Appellant, Alex Jordan Hastings, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence
entered on July 22, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
following his bench trial convictions of two counts of Driving Under the
Influence of marijuana (“DUI”). After careful review, we affirm.
On April 13, 2020, the Pennsylvania State Police arrested Appellant for
driving while under the influence of marijuana. Appellant admitted that he had
smoked marijuana approximately two hours before driving, and subsequent
blood test results proved the presence of marijuana and active and inactive
marijuana metabolites in his blood. Additionally, Appellant possessed a valid
medical marijuana card. The Commonwealth charged Appellant with three
counts of DUI.
On April 12, 2021, Appellant filed a pretrial Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus challenging the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence to prove
J-S05037-22
a prima facie case against him. He argued that “because [Appellant] was
legally taking his prescribed medication as directed, there is not prima facie
evidence that [Appellant] operated a motor vehicle with any amount of a
Schedule I controlled substance in his blood.” Petition, 4/12/21, at ¶ 7. The
court denied Appellant’s petition the following day and Appellant did not
petition this Court for review.
At Appellant’s bench trial on July 22, 2021, Appellant and the
Commonwealth stipulated to the above facts. At the conclusion of trial, the
court convicted Appellant of two counts of DUI, one for Appellant’s driving
with a Schedule I controlled substance in his blood, and the other for driving
with a metabolite of a Schedule I controlled substance in his blood. See 75
Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(d)(1)(i), 3802(d)(1)(iii). The court sentenced Appellant on
the same day to six months’ probation. Appellant timely filed a Notice of
Appeal and both he and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises a single issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in finding Appellant guilty of a DUI
for having any amount of a controlled substance in his system,
when the only substance was marijuana, which he had valid
medical marijuana card for.
Appellant’s Br. at 6.
Initially we observe that Appellant’s argument on appeal is broader than
the single issue he raised and preserved in his Rule 1925(b) Statement. In his
Rule 1925(b) Statement, Appellant queried “whether the trial court erred in
denying Appellant’s ‘Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus’ to the two counts of
-2-
J-S05037-22
DUI—Controlled Substance, when Appellant possessed a valid medical
marijuana card.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, filed 8/16/21. On appeal,
Appellant argues that the trial court “erred when it did not either grant
Appellant’s ‘Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus’ or find Appellant not guilty of
DUI after the stipulated bench trial, because the only substance in his system
was marijuana, which he had a valid medical marijuana card for.” Appellant’s
Br. at 9. The latter portion of Appellant’s argument implicates the sufficiency
of the Commonwealth’s evidence. Appellant waived this issue by failing to
raise it in his Rule 1925(b) Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues
not included in the Statement . . . are waived.”).
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the Commonwealth’s prima facie case.
Appellant’s Br. at 9. It is well-established that an accused may challenge the
sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence at the pre-trial stage through a
petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 331
A.2d 205, 209 (Pa. 1975). The denial of such a petition is not immediately
appealable as of right, and the defendant must petition this court for review.
Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349, 353 (Pa. 2015) disapproved of on
other grounds by Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020).
Where the defendant instead proceeds to trial and is convicted, any deficiency
in the Commonwealth’s pretrial ability to establish a prima facie case is not
reviewable. See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 172 A.3d 605, 610 (Pa. Super.
-3-
J-S05037-22
2017) (observing that the appellant’s “conviction at trial precludes this Court
from reviewing his pretrial habeas issues.”).
Since Appellant proceeded to trial rather than seek review from this
Court of the trial court’s denial of his pretrial Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, we are precluded from reviewing the only issue Appellant preserved
for our review. As a result, we affirm Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
President Judge Panella joins the memorandum.
Judge Stabile concurs in result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/13/2022
-4-