Com. v. Goodwine

• Decision Date: 08 April 1997
• Citation: 692 A.2d 233
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Darryl Baldy GOODWINE, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 233

692 A.2d 233

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Darryl Baldy GOODWINE, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 6, 1997.

Filed April 8, 1997.

Kevin G. Sasinoski, Assistant Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for Appellant.

Michael Streily, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before KELLY, HUDOCK and OLSZEWSKI, JJ.

OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

On April 10, 1996, a jury found appellant Darryl Baldy Goodwine guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol while the trial court found him also guilty of two related summary offenses. The facts underlying Goodwine's convictions were aptly summarized by the trial court as follows:

Housing Authority Police Officer Derek Williams, whose testimony was corroborated by his partner, Jake Jocins, testified that at approximately 3:50 a.m. on August 18, 1995, he observed a green sport utility vehicle go through a stop sign without stopping or even slowing down. After making a U-turn, the police pursued the vehicle, which pulled over to the side of the road. Both the driver, whom the officer identified as [Goodwine], and the passenger exited the vehicle. The police ordered them to return to the vehicle and [Goodwine] got back into the driver's side of the vehicle. After obtaining certain information, Officer Williams requested that [Goodwine] perform three field sobriety tests, which he failed. When Officer Williams attempted to handcuff [Goodwine], he fled. The police chased him to a house, where they finally arrested him.

According to a stipulation between the parties, [Goodwine] took an Intoxilyzer test, which resulted in a reading of .13 blood alcohol level.

[Goodwine] testified that he was not the driver of the vehicle and that he and the passenger had switched places because the passenger, Bernie Freeman, had a warrant out for his arrest and did not want to be arrested.

Opinion 8/1/96, at 2-3.

Following Goodwine's convictions, he was sentenced to 48 hours of imprisonment, two years of probation and a $300.00 fine. This appeal follows wherein Goodwine presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether his convictions were against the weight of the evidence because evidence at trial established that Goodwine was not the driver of the stopped vehicle.

2. Whether the trial court erred in its final instructions to the jury.

3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to Officer Jocins' testimony concerning opinion as to whether there was time for the driver and passenger to switch places.

Goodwine's first claim on appeal, that his convictions were against the weight of the evidence, is of great import. It is well-settled that a weight of the evidence argument must be addressed in the first instance by the trial court. Commonwealth v. Hodge, 441 Pa.Super. 653, 660, 658 A.2d 386, 389 (1995). Thus, normally, "a defendant, who wishes to seek a new trial on grounds that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, must ... raise this issue via post-sentence motion in the trial court." Id. Instantly, Goodwine elected to forgo filing post-sentence motions and, instead, filed an appeal directly to this Court pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410. Accordingly, at first blush, it would appear that Goodwine's weight of the evidence claim is doomed to failure.

We must, however, also consider the fact that Goodwine included his weight of the evidence issue in his Statement of Matters Complained of Upon Appeal and, accordingly, the trial court actually did address the issue in its opinion written pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925. Until recently, this fact would have no effect on our decision not to review the weight of the evidence claim. As this Court stated in Commonwealth v. Widmer, 446 Pa.Super. 408, 420-21, 667 A.2d 215, 221 (1995), "[t]he trial court's preparation of an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(a) did not present the court with jurisdiction to exercise discretion and rule upon [a] claim with respect to the weight of the evidence." Nevertheless, our Supreme Court recently reversed this Court's decision in Widmer. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997).

Specifically, our Supreme Court stated:

The issue under consideration--the weight of the evidence--is an exceptional issue which is unlikely to be preserved for appeal without the filing of a post-sentence motion. Thus, the option of forgoing a post-sentence motion and proceeding directly to the Superior Court, as permitted by [Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 1410, may not preserve the issue for appeal. Nevertheless, this case differs from Hodge in that the trial court had reviewed the weight of the evidence claim prior to the Superior Court's review, and clearly held that the verdict was in fact contrary to the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the precept in Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 435-39, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-91 (1994), that a weight of the evidence claim must be addressed in the first instance by the trial court has been met. There was no need for the Superior Court to review a cold record and make an initial determination concerning the weight of the evidence, which was the problem underlying the Brown decision. That being the case, it was error for the Superior Court to apply Hodge in this case to rule that appellant's failure to file a post-sentence motion for a new trial had the effect of waving his claim that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Under these circumstances, the Superior Court should have remanded the case to the trial court rather than holding that appellant had waived this claim.

We hold that the appellant must be permitted to file a motion for a new trial nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence pursuant to Rule 1410B. (1)(a)(iv).

Id. at 3-4.

In light of the above passage, it is clear that this Court may review a weight of the evidence claim, even if the claim has not been preserved through post-sentence motions, as long as the trial court has addressed the claim in its Rule 1925 opinion. Nevertheless, we must next decide whether we may review appellant's weight of the evidence claim or must we necessarily remand this case for appellant to file a motion for new trial. In Widmer, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court because "fairness dictate[d]" such a result. See id. at 6 (Cappy, J., concurring). The instant case, however, differs from Widmer in one major respect. Instantly, while the trial court addressed the weight of the evidence issue in its Rule 1925 opinion, it resolved the issue against appellant. See Opinion 8/1/96, at 4-5. Accordingly, it would be an exercise in judicial inefficiency to remand this case to allow Goodwine to file a motion for a new trial nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence. Thus, we will review a weight of the evidence claim if it has been addressed by the trial court in a Rule 1925 opinion and resolved against appellant. A similar claim that has been resolved by the trial court in appellant's favor, however, must be remanded to the trial court in order for appellant to file a motion for new trial nunc pro tunc. See Widmer, supra. ¹

We now turn our attention to the trial court's determination that Goodwine's convictions were not contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is well-established that "[t]he role of an appellate court in reviewing the weight of the evidence is very limited. The purpose of that review is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion and not to substitute the reviewing Court's judgment for that of the trial court." Commonwealth v. Manchas, 430 Pa.Super. 63, 71, 633 A.2d 618, 622-23 (1993), alloc. denied, 539 Pa. 647, 651 A.2d 535 (1994). ² "[A] new trial should be awarded when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail." Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 507 Pa. 592, 598, 493 A.2d 669, 672 (1985).

Instantly, testimony at trial established that Goodwine was in fact the driver of the stopped vehicle and, accordingly, it was well within the trial court's discretion to determine that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Officer Williams testified that, from the time the policemen activated their flashers until the time Goodwine's vehicle pulled to the side of the road, he never lost eye-contact with the vehicle. N.T. 4/9-10/96, at 15-17. Further, both Officer Williams and Officer Jocins testified that, once the vehicle had pulled to the side of the road, Goodwine exited from the driver's seat and another man exited from the passenger's seat. Id. at 17-18, 48. Both lawmen also testified that they did not witness anyone inside the vehicle attempt to change seats and that the occupants exited the vehicle nearly immediately after the vehicle ceased movement. Id. at 27, 47, 61.

In presenting his weight of the evidence claim, Goodwine essentially alleges the lawmen lacked credibility and that the defense witnesses, which testified that he was not driving the vehicle, were more believable. On appeal, however, we will not re-assess the credibility of the witnesses' testimony. "Where issues of credibility and weight are concerned, it is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court." Commonwealth v. Russell, 445 Pa.Super. 510, 525, 665 A.2d 1239, 1246 (1995), alloc. denied, 544 Pa. 628, 675 A.2d 1246 (1996). "Only where the 'evidence offered to support a verdict of guilt is so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture,' may we overturn the verdict on the basis that it is against the weight of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Harrison, 290 Pa.Super. 389, 396, 434 A.2d 808, 812 (1981) (quoting Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 60, 354 A.2d 545, 550 (1976)).

Instantly, the record clearly supports the trial court's...