J-A10008-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DAVID PAUL CUGNO :
:
Appellant : No. 2451 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 30, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000598-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 03, 2018
Appellant, David Paul Cugno, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, following his
bench trial conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance
or a combination of drugs (“DUI”).1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court correctly set forth the relevant facts and
some of the procedural history of this case. We add that Appellant timely filed
a notice of appeal on July 31, 2017. The trial court did not order and Appellant
did not file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P 1925(b).
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT A JURY
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2).
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A10008-18
TRIAL FOR A FIRST OFFENSE DUI BECAUSE A DUI IS
COMMENCED BY THE FILING OF A BILL OF INFORMATION
AND ARTICLE I SECTION 9 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES A RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL
BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE VICINAGE, WHEN THE
PROSECUTION IS STARTED BY INDICTMENT OR BILL OF
INFORMATION?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas C.
Branca, 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 August 16, 2017, at 4-14) (finding:
Pennsylvania law has repeatedly held that defendant has no right to jury trial
for DUI offense, where maximum penalty is six months’ incarceration; crimes
that carry maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment or less are
considered “petty offenses” for which no right to jury trial exists;
notwithstanding language of Article I Section 9 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution, on which Appellant relies, Pennsylvania appellate courts have
repeatedly held that defendant is not entitled to jury trial for first offense DUI
under United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; maximum penalty for
Appellant’s DUI offense is six months’ imprisonment; thus, Appellant was not
-2-
J-A10008-18
entitled to jury trial). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court
opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge McLaughlin joins this memorandum.
Judge Ransom did not participate in the consideration or decision of this
case.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/3/18
-3-
Circulated 06/20/2018 03:57 PM