J-S16020-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ALISA ROSE STEFFIE,
Appellant No. 1084 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of June 20, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001058-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and OTT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED APRIL 23, 2015
Appellant, Alisa Rose Steffie, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on June 20, 2014. We affirm.
The trial court’s opinion thoroughly and ably summarizes the
underlying facts of this case. As the trial court explained:
[During Appellant’s jury trial, Pennsylvania State Troopers
David Beam and Peter Mohn testified for the
Commonwealth. Trooper Beam] testified that he [has been]
a trooper for eight years and, during this time, he has
received training in the administration of field sobriety tests.
[Trooper Beam] also received training to detect people [who
are suspected of] driving under the influence of a controlled
substance. He testified that he has been involved in over
[100] motor vehicle stops where he suspected [that] the
operator [was] under the influence [of controlled
substances.]
[Similarly, Trooper Mohn testified that he: has been a
Pennsylvania State Trooper for three years; received
specialized training to detect impaired drivers; is “certified
J-S16020-15
in standardized field sobriety tests;” and, has administered
approximately 20 field sobriety tests during his career].
...
The evidence at trial [established that, at approximately
12:48 a.m. on March 12, 2013, Troopers Beam and Mohn] .
. . were dispatched to [a] report of a disturbance in the area
of 57 Main Street, Mt. Carbon, Schuylkill County,
Pennsylvania. When the troopers arrived on scene[,] they
observed a vehicle that was parked [three-quarters] of the
way on the sidewalk [and one-quarter of the way on the
wrong side of the road. The troopers observed that the
vehicle’s headlights were] on, [the] vehicle [was] running,
and [Appellant was] seated in the driver’s seat. . . .
When Trooper Beam approached [Appellant, he noticed that
Appellant exhibited] body tremors, mainly in [her] legs[,
and that] she could not sit still. Trooper Beam testified that
the body tremors [were not] common for someone [who
was] not under the influence of a controlled substance.
When Trooper Beam asked [Appellant] for her driver’s
license[, Appellant] had a difficult time getting the license
out of her wallet. Trooper Beam testified that he asked
[Appellant] to perform field sobriety tests and [informed
her] that the tests were being recorded. [The trial court
and] the jury were able to witness [Appellant] perform the
field sobriety tests. . . .
The first test administered by Trooper Beam was the [heel-
to-toe] test and Trooper Beam testified that [Appellant]
failed the test for the following reasons:
She was unable to make any heel to toe contact. She
was unable to stay on the line. She raised her arms.
She was swaying. She did an improper turn to start to
turn back and she did not follow directions for the series
of three small steps.
[During the test, Appellant] complained about the roadway
being uneven where she performed the test so Trooper
Beam took [Appellant] to the other side of the roadway to
perform the test. [Appellant] again failed the test for the
same reasons she failed the first time. Trooper Beam
-2-
J-S16020-15
testified that he [believed] that [Appellant] was under the
influence of some type of controlled substance at that point.
Trooper Beam then asked [Appellant] to perform the one
leg stand and when she performed the one leg stand she
failed [] because she was unable to maintain [her] balance.
She was unable to keep her foot raised off the ground. She
would immediately pick her foot up and her foot would
return to the ground because she was unable to maintain
[her] balance[.] Trooper Beam testified that he
[administered] the test twice[] and then [] stopped the test
because she was unable to perform and it was unsafe for
her. Trooper Beam then gave [Appellant] a [preliminary
breath test (hereinafter “PB test”),] which indicated that
[Appellant] had no alcohol in her system.
Trooper Beam asked [Appellant] if she was on any type of
prescription medication and [Appellant told the trooper] that
she was prescribed oxycodone, prednisone, and trazodone
[and that she had taken her oxycodone that very day].
Trooper Beam testified that trazodone is an anti-depressant,
oxycodone is a narcotic analgesic[,] and prednisone is a
steroid[.] Trooper Beam testified that he [believed
Appellant] was incapable of safe driving. . . .
Trooper Beam placed [Appellant] under arrest and asked
[her] to submit to a chemical test of her blood[. Appellant]
stated that she would consent to the blood test. [Appellant]
was taken to the hospital where she completed the
necessary paperwork [and was “read the DL-26 [form and]
advised of her warnings.” However, when] the
phlebotomist arrived in the room to draw blood, [Appellant]
refused.
Trooper Mohn’s testimony was consistent with the
testimony of Trooper Beam. . . . Trooper Mohn testified
that[, based upon] his experience and [] observations, he
concluded that [Appellant] was [intoxicated and] incapable
of safely operating a motor vehicle. Trooper Mohn
testified[] as follows:
She was extremely nervous and jittery in the vehicle.
She stumbled with her cards when she was trying to find
her ID. She wasn’t able to locate them in a normal
-3-
J-S16020-15
manner by a non-impaired person. When she got out of
the vehicle, she couldn’t keep her balance. She couldn’t
submit to the standardized field sobriety tests as they
were instructed. She admitted to being prescribed
medications, one of which she had taken that day. Her
involuntary movements, always having to – she couldn’t
stand still, always having to lift her leg or lift an arm or
clench her teeth or move her head. Those movements.
Trooper Mohn testified that there [was no] alcohol in
[Appellant’s] system because Trooper Beam gave her a PB[]
test and it [indicated that Appellant did not have any alcohol
in her system]. . . . [Because of this,] Trooper Mohn opined
that [Appellant] was under the influence of drugs.
[In summary], to paraphrase the [Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa.
2011)]:
Two experienced Pennsylvania State Troopers observed
[that Appellant] had parked her running motor vehicle
three quarters [of the way] on the sidewalk and one
quarter on the road and facing the wrong way. The two
troopers observed [Appellant’s] behavior, demeanor,
unsteadiness, and inability to perform field sobriety
tests, all [of] which led [the troopers to request that
Appellant submit to] laboratory tests for the detection of
controlled substances in [Appellant’s] blood. [Appellant]
admitted she only had one beer early in the day and the
PB[] test showed that she did not have alcohol in her
system. [Appellant] admitted to taking oxycodone
earlier that day and being prescribed prednisone and
trazodone. [Appellant] also refused chemical testing of
her blood. . . .
[See Griffith, 32 A.3d at 1240].
In addition to the evidence presented by the
Commonwealth[,] the jury was also able to hear the self-
serving testimony of [Appellant,] who testified on her own
behalf. [Appellant] admitted to driving her vehicle and also
attempted to explain why she parked on the wrong side of
the road. [Appellant] testified that she had taken her
-4-
J-S16020-15
prescribed medications of prednisone and oxycodone earlier
in the day.
[Appellant] testified that she was unable to perform the
field sobriety tests due to [] problems with her legs.
However, [Appellant] testified that she never told the
troopers that she couldn’t perform the test[s] because of
her physical infirmities. [Appellant] testified that she did
tell the troopers that the road was bad where she was
performing the field sobriety test[s] and they allowed her to
move to the other side of the road. The jury and [the trial]
court did not find [Appellant’s] testimony credible that she
could not perform the field sobriety tests because of her
physical infirmities when she never stated to the troopers
that she could not perform the tests because of her physical
condition yet [Appellant] did point out to the troopers that
she couldn’t perform the test[s] because of the condition of
the roadway.
[Appellant] also testified that she did not submit to chemical
testing of her blood because she did not do anything wrong
but park illegally. [Appellant] also testified that she was
agitated at the police because they searched the car she
was driving, her purse without asking[,] and they were
going through her phone. [Appellant] testified that she
refused the blood test because she was angry at the police
for going through her personal property. The
Commonwealth presented rebuttal testimony from Trooper
Beam and he testified that he did not search her vehicle, he
never put his hands in her purse[,] and he did not have
possession of her cell phone.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/25/14, at 2 and 7-11 (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
The jury found Appellant guilty of driving under the influence of a
controlled substance (hereinafter “DUI”) and the trial court found Appellant
-5-
J-S16020-15
guilty of the summary offense of illegally parking on a sidewalk. 1 The trial
court originally sentenced Appellant on May 28, 2014; however, Appellant
filed a timely motion to modify her sentence and, on June 20, 2014, the trial
court granted Appellant’s post-sentence motion and entered an amended
sentencing order. Among other things, the trial court’s amended sentencing
order requires Appellant to serve five years of intermediate punishment for
her DUI conviction.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and Appellant now raises the
following claims to this Court:
1. Whether there was sufficient evidence that Appellant was
under the influence of [a] controlled substance to the
degree that [it] impaired her ability to drive safely?
2. Whether the trial court committed an error of law by
denying [Appellant’s] motion for judgment of acquittal, in
that the Commonwealth did not produce evidence in its case
in chief that Appellant was impaired by a controlled
substance to the degree that impaired her ability to drive
safely?
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some internal capitalization omitted).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the
certified record, and the well-written opinion of the able trial judge, the
Honorable James P. Goodman. We conclude that the claims raised in
Appellant’s brief are meritless and that the trial court’s opinion, filed on
August 25, 2014, meticulously and accurately explains why Appellant’s
____________________________________________
1
75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(d)(2) and 3353(a)(1)(ii), respectively.
-6-
J-S16020-15
claims fail. Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s opinion as our own. In any
future filings with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing
party shall attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/23/2015
-7-