J-S85025-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TERRY BOYLE :
:
Appellant : No. 920 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 27, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000093-2016
BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MAY 08, 2018
Terry Boyle appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the
McKean County Court of Common Pleas following his misdemeanor conviction
for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and his summary conviction for
maximum speed limits.1 We affirm.
A Pennsylvania State Police Trooper, Ethan Rowe, was parked along
State Route 770, a highway in Pennsylvania. The speed limit on that portion
of road is 55 miles per hour. Trooper Rowe was using a radar gun to check
the speed of passing vehicles when he observed Appellant’s car traveling at
73 miles per hour. The trooper followed Appellant, and noticed Appellant’s
vehicle abruptly jerk over the highway’s double yellow line before returning to
the correct travel lane. Trooper Rowe activated his police cruiser’s lights and
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(a)(1) and 3362(a)(2), respectively.
J-S85025-17
sirens to stop Appellant’s car. After Appellant pulled over, the officer
approached the driver’s side window and noted an odor of alcohol emanating
from the vehicle. Appellant’s eyes were bloodshot, and he admitted he had
consumed a few drinks. Trooper Rowe conducted field sobriety testing.
Appellant showed several signs of intoxication, and was subsequently
arrested.
Appellant proceeded to a bench trial. Trooper Rowe testified, and the
Commonwealth entered into evidence the police dashboard camera video
taken of the incident. Appellant did not present any evidence. The court
convicted Appellant of DUI and maximum speed limits, and acquitted him of
two other summary traffic offenses. The court sentenced Appellant to six
months of probation. He filed a timely notice of appeal, and this case is now
before us.
Initially, we note that Appellant’s brief suffers from innumerable errors.
Principally, Appellant has failed to include even a single legal citation in his
second argument, alleging the Commonwealth was inappropriately permitted
to reopen its case after it rested. Appellant advances merely a half-page
summary of the case, followed by a single line asking this Court to reverse
Appellant’s judgment of sentence. See Appellant’s Brief, at 12. In light of
Appellant’s failure to present adequate argument on this issue, we find it is
waived. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Simmons, 56 A.3d 1280, 1286 (Pa.
Super. 2012) (finding argument in appellate brief which lacked citations to
-2-
J-S85025-17
pertinent authority waived issue for this Court’s review under Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a)).
Appellant also offers a disorganized argument that the Commonwealth
“failed to present sufficient evidence of the venue of the offense.” Appellant’s
Brief, at 11. We interpret this as Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s
jurisdiction over the case, given his assertion that the Commonwealth failed
to show the DUI stop occurred in McKean County. Though he neglects to cite
to the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, Appellant specifically contests the trial
court’s decision to take judicial notice over the location of the intersection
where the Commonwealth alleged the traffic stop took place. To the extent
Appellant presents such an argument, his claim is without merit.
“A court has no jurisdiction over an offense unless the offense occurred
within the county in which the trial takes place.” Commonwealth v. Sestina,
546 A.2d 109, 112 (Pa. Super. 1988) (citation omitted).
A court may take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable
dispute because it “is generally known within the trial court’s territorial
jurisdiction[.]” Pa.R.E. 201(b)(1). A court “may take judicial notice at any
stage of the proceeding.” Pa.R.E.201(d). “Judicial notice is intended to avoid
the formal introduction of evidence in limited circumstances where the fact
sought to be proved is so well known that evidence in support thereof is
unnecessary.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 839 A.2d 433, 435 (Pa. Super.
2003) (citation omitted). Subjects appropriate for judicial notice include the
county in which a town or city is located, as well as the location of roads and
-3-
J-S85025-17
highways. See Commonwealth v. Varner, 401 A.2d 1235, 1236 (Pa. Super.
1979).
Instantly, the court watched the video taken from the police cruiser’s
dashboard camera, and listened to the recording of Trooper Rowe stating he
was conducting a traffic stop where State Routes 770 and 646 intersected.
See N.T. Trial, 4/3/17, at 31.The court also noted Appellant asserted on tape
he was traveling to Bordell Road in Bradford, on Route 219. See id. Though
the Commonwealth did not offer evidence specifically affirming the stop
occurred in McKean County, the court chose to take judicial notice that the
intersection of State Routes 770 and 646 is within McKean County. Appellant
did not present any evidence to dispute the location of these roads.
Thus, the court did not err in taking judicial notice that the intersection
of State Routes 770 and 646 is within McKean County. The Commonwealth
presented sufficient evidence to show the stop occurred in McKean County,
and was therefore within the trial court’s jurisdiction. Appellant is due no relief
on this claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/8/2018
-4-