J-S19003-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
STEVEN HAROLD NEILSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1279 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 23, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-08-CR-0000957-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2017
Appellant, Steven Harold Neilson, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas, following
his bench trial convictions of driving under influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and
harassment.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
On September 26, 2015, Appellant attended a wedding reception at Chrystal
Potter’s house. Chrystal Potter is Appellant’s girlfriend of four years and
Brian Potter’s ex-wife. Between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., police responded
to a disturbance call, which resulted in Appellant’s removal from the
reception. Appellant’s friends subsequently drove Appellant home in his
____________________________________________
1
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1), respectively.
_____________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S19003-17
pickup truck. Several hours later, Appellant returned to the reception,
where Brian Potter observed Appellant exit the driver’s side of his pickup
truck. Brian Potter did not see anyone else in the vehicle with Appellant.
Brian Potter believed Appellant was intoxicated based on his prior
consumption of alcohol that day, staggered gait, and bloodshot eyes.
Shortly after Appellant arrived, Appellant and Mr. Potter argued, which
resulted in a bystander calling the police.
Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael Boyle responded to the scene
around 11:00 p.m. where he observed Appellant without a shirt. Trooper
Boyle immediately noticed Appellant had slurred speech, bloodshot and
glassy eyes, a staggered gait, and smelled of alcohol. When Trooper Boyle
asked Appellant how he had returned to the reception, Appellant initially said
he had walked there. Upon further questioning, however, Appellant said he
had received a ride to the reception from his son, Blake Nielson. No one saw
Blake Neilson at the reception at any time. Trooper Boyle arrested Appellant
for disorderly conduct and discovered his car keys on his person during a
search incident to arrest. Trooper Boyle transported Appellant to the
hospital, where Appellant refused blood alcohol testing.
On January 18, 2016, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with
DUI—general impairment and harassment, and Appellant proceeded to a
bench trial on March 22, 2016. At trial, Brian Potter maintained he saw
Appellant arrive at the reception alone and exit the driver’s side of his pickup
-2-
J-S19003-17
truck. Blake Neilson and Appellant both testified Blake Neilson dropped
Appellant off at the reception in his pickup truck. Blake Neilson also stated
he obtained a ride from his girlfriend after he dropped Appellant off at the
reception. Chrystal Potter further testified that Brian Potter was inside the
reception when Appellant returned to the event. The court ultimately
convicted Appellant of DUI and harassment, and deferred sentencing
pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report.
On June 23, 2016, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term
of ten (10) days’ to six (6) months’ imprisonment. On June 28, 2016,
Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which the court denied on
June 29, 2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 29, 2016.
On August 10, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and
Appellant timely complied on August 11, 2016.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WAS THE VERDICT OF GUILTY OF DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE WHERE UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY
SHOWED THE WITNESS WHO OBSERVED [APPELLANT]
OPERATE A MOTOR-VEHICLE WAS NEVER IN A POSITION
TO ACTUALLY OBSERVE [APPELLANT]?
(Appellant’s Brief at 7).
Our standard of review for a challenge to the weight of the evidence is
as follows:
The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of
-3-
J-S19003-17
fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence
and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An
appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of
the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the [trial]
court’s verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one’s sense of justice. Moreover, where the trial
court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate
court’s role is not to consider the underlying question of
whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial
court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight
claim.
Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408
(2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004)
(internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Maureen T.
Beirne, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 3, 2016, at 1-4)
(finding: court convicted Appellant of DUI and harassment based on its
determination that testimony of Commonwealth witnesses was more credible
than testimony of defense witnesses; thus, Appellant’s challenge to weight
of evidence fails). The record supports the court’s decision. Accordingly, we
affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
-4-
J-S19003-17
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/21/2017
-5-
Circulated 04/10/2017 02:24 PM