J-S83009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOSEPH D. CAMILLERI, :
:
Appellant : No. 1398 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 3, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-39-CR-0003483-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 07, 2018
Joseph Camilleri (“Appellant”) appeals from the Judgment of Sentence
entered after his conviction of one count of DUI–General Impairment (2nd
Offense) and the summary offense of Accident Involving Damage to
Unattended Vehicle or Property.1 He challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the DUI conviction. After careful review, we affirm.
The facts, as gleaned from the certified record, are as follows. Around
5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2016, Jason Urban, a patron at the Westgate Mall in
Bethlehem, saw Appellant exit the mall and watched as he walked unsteadily
to his car. He then watched Appellant maneuver out of his parking spot and
back into an unattended SUV. Mr. Urban stopped Appellant and told him to
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) (incapable of safe driving) and 75 Pa.C.S. §
3745(a), respectively.
J-S83009-17
leave his contact information for the driver of the hit vehicle. Appellant, who
was slurring his speech, got out of his car, losing his slipper in the process.
Appellant walked right past his slipper and looked at the bumper of the
vehicle he had hit. He then asked Mr. Urban for a pen, and got back in his
vehicle, ostensibly to retrieve a pen. Instead, he drove out of the parking
lot in a zig-zag manner. Believing Appellant to be under the influence of
alcohol, Mr. Urban noted the license plate number of Appellant’s vehicle and
contacted the City of Bethlehem Police Department. Immediately, Officer
Jason Ebert went to the Westgate Mall to speak with Mr. Urban; Officer
Jason Gerstner was dispatched to Appellant’s home.
Approximately ten minutes after the call came in, Officer Gerstner
arrived at Appellant’s home but Appellant’s car was not there. In the
meantime, Officer Ebert finished his conversation with Mr. Urban, and
approximately 30 minutes after receiving the dispatch to the mall, drove to
Appellant’s nearby residence and located Appellant’s vehicle now in the
driveway. After noticing that the bumper had fresh scrapes, Officer Ebert
knocked on Appellant’s door. Appellant came to the door in a t-shirt, boxer
shorts, and socks, and admitted that he had hit the car in the parking lot at
the mall. During their conversation, Officer Ebert observed Appellant
swaying, slurring his speech, and reeking of alcohol. Appellant told the
officers that he had had one beer. The officers conducted field sobriety tests
-2-
J-S83009-17
on Appellant, the first two of which he failed.2 Appellant refused to
participate in the third field test and became belligerent, swearing at the
officers and calling them names. The officers placed Appellant in custody
and drove him to the DUI Booking Center. When the phlebotomist arrived to
draw blood, Appellant became irate and uncooperative again.3 On May 23,
2016, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with two DUI offenses and two
summary offenses.
On February 8, 2017, a bench trial proceeded on DUI–General
Impairment (2nd Offense), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), and Accident Involving
Damage to Unattended Vehicle or Property, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3745(a).4 Mr.
Urban testified regarding his observations of Appellant and the car accident,
noting that although he had not smelled alcohol on Appellant’s breath, he
did observe him walking fitfully, slurring his words, and driving erratically,
____________________________________________
2Appellant told officers he had an injured knee, but was unable to tell them
which knee was injured.
3 The record contains no indication that blood was actually drawn. However,
that fact is irrelevant to the determination of whether Appellant was
impaired or incapable of safe driving in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1).
See Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871, 879 (Pa. 2009) (noting that
the focus of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) “remains on the inability of the
individual to drive safely due to consumption of alcohol—not on a particular
blood alcohol level.”).
4 Although the Commonwealth originally charged Appellant with other DUI
offenses, the Commonwealth amended the Complaint prior to trial to include
just one DUI–General Impairment charge, in addition to the summary
offenses related to the accident.
-3-
J-S83009-17
and concluded that Appellant’s “actions were that of someone who was
intoxicated.” N.T., 2/8/17, at 9. He stated that he “was worried that
[Appellant] was going to hit somebody or there was going to be a bigger
problem that day.” Id. at 10. Mr. Urban further testified that he has had
experience with drunk people at weddings, parties, or bars, and would not
have let Appellant drive away because Mr. Urban believed that Appellant was
too intoxicated to drive. Id. at 11.
Officers Ebert and Gerstner testified regarding the investigation of the
car accident, including their observations of Appellant’s inebriated demeanor
at his home and at the DUI Center. The court also watched two videos from
the DUI Booking Center showing Appellant acting, among other things,
belligerently.
When the Commonwealth closed its case, Appellant moved for a
Judgment of Acquittal, which the court denied. Appellant then testified that
he had had one to two beers earlier in the day before the mall incident, and
that he had driven away from the accident in the mall parking lot because he
“panicked” and “was scared.” Id. at 53. Appellant had difficulty providing a
time line as to when he drank the beers and when he returned home. He
also testified that he had one beer when he got home from the mall.
An investigator for the public defenders’ office testified that he spoke
with the woman who owned the damaged vehicle. He testified that her car
had been slightly scraped, and she and her husband repaired the damage
themselves without submitting a claim to the insurance company.
-4-
J-S83009-17
The trial court found Appellant guilty of the DUI—General Impairment
charge and the summary offense of Accident Involving Damage to
Unattended Vehicle or Property. The court subsequently sentenced
Appellant to a term of 6 months’ intermediate punishment with the first 45
days on house arrest, and fines of $750 for the DUI and $300 for the
summary offense.
Appellant timely appealed. Both he and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that
[Appellant] was under the influence of alcohol such that he was
incapable of safe driving at trial to sustain the driving under the
influence charge?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
conviction of DUI-General Impairment. Our review is informed by the
following standards:
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
we must determine if the Commonwealth established beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense,
considering the entire trial record and all of the evidence
received, and drawing all reasonable inferences from the
evidence in favor of the Commonwealth as the verdict-winner.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proof by wholly
circumstantial evidence.
Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871, 880 (Pa. 2009) (citations
omitted). “It is not within the province of this Court to re-weigh the
-5-
J-S83009-17
evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.”
Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803, 806 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(citations omitted).
The court found Appellant guilty of DUI-General Impairment, 75
Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), which provides that “[a]n 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.” As our Supreme Court concluded, “[f]or
subsection 3802(a)(1), the only relevant time period is that span of time
during which an individual is incapable of safely driving due to alcohol
intoxication.” Segida, 985 A.2d at 878.
“The types of evidence that the Commonwealth may proffer in a
subsection 3802(a)(1) prosecution include[,] but are not limited to . . . the
offender's actions and behavior, including manner of driving[;] … demeanor,
including toward the investigating officer; physical appearance, particularly
bloodshot eyes and other physical signs of intoxication; odor of alcohol, and
slurred speech.” Id. at 879. The Commonwealth is not required to prove
that the suspect drank no alcohol after the accident. Id. at 879 n.6.
Appellant avers that because he consumed alcohol in the brief period
of time after he returned from the mall before the officers appeared at his
home, the officers’ observations of his behavior “have no evidentiary value
-6-
J-S83009-17
in determining whether [Appellant] was incapable of safe driving due to
consumption of alcohol at the time of the accident.” Id. at 11. He also
asserts that “Mr. Urban, a lay witness, is the only witness who actually
observed [Appellant] at the time he drove the motor vehicle” and he has “no
training in identifying intoxicated individuals or determining whether
someone is incapable of driving safely due to alcohol.” Id. Appellant thus
concludes the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of DUI. Id.
We disagree. The testimony from Mr. Urban, found credible by the
trial court, established that Appellant was impaired, as manifested by his
slurring, wavering gait, and apparent unawareness of his fallen footwear
prior to walking unsteadily around his vehicle to look at the damage to the
other car. Moreover, Mr. Urban watched as Appellant backed his vehicle into
a parked car, and as he shortly thereafter drove in a zig-zag out of the mall
parking lot.
In addition, police officers saw Appellant within 35 minutes after the
accident (and approximately 20 minutes after Appellant had returned home),
where Appellant admitted that he had had two beers during the afternoon
before he got in his car to leave the mall, and admitted that he had backed
into the unattended car at the mall. While the police officers did not see
Appellant drive, they testified that they did arrive a very short time later at
Appellant’s house and observed his drunken demeanor and physical state.
Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the officers’ testimony about their
-7-
J-S83009-17
observations is relevant as it tends to corroborate Mr. Urban’s testimony
that Appellant was in an inebriated and impaired state.
The trial court, as factfinder, weighed the evidence and made its
credibility determinations accordingly. This Court will not reweigh that
evidence or disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the verdict was supported
by sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the Judgment of Sentence.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/7/18
-8-