Com. v. Hyland

• Decision Date: 27 May 2005
• Citation: 875 A.2d 1175
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Thomas W. HYLAND, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

875 A.2d 1175

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v.Thomas W. HYLAND, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued January 11, 2005.

Filed May 27, 2005.

Samuel Encarnacion, Lancaster, for appellant.

Alisa R. Hobart, Asst. Dist. Atty., Reading, for the Com., appellee.

Before: BENDER, GANTMAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

GANTMAN, J.:

¶ 1Appellant, Thomas W. Hyland, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI")¹ and related summary offenses.²We affirm Appellant's convictions but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.

¶ 2The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts of the case as follows:

On October 18, 2002, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Sarah Arndt heard the sounds of a motor vehicle crash occurring near her home on St. Peters Road, Hereford Township, Berks County.She described the sound as an "initial hit" then silence followed by the sounds of the vehicle hitting the ground and of metal scraping across macadam.She then awakened her brother, Thomas, and told him that a car had crashed outside.Thomas then drove himself and his sister in his pickup truck to the crash site located approximately 100 yards from their house.

When they came upon the accident scene, the brother and sister saw an SUV lying on its driver's side and [Appellant] standing nearby.They saw no damage to the passenger side of the vehicle.[Appellant] approached the pickup truck and Thomas asked him if he was okay.[Appellant] replied that he was and asked Thomas for assistance in righting the SUV.Thomas said the two men would be unable to lift the vehicle.[Appellant] then asked for a ride to a friend's house located about 1½ miles from the accident scene.Thomas complied with the request and drove [Appellant] to the home of Jay Geiger.

When they reached their destination, [Appellant] entered the house and yelled for Mr. Geiger to get up.About three minutes later [Appellant] and Mr. Geiger exited the house and Thomas drove them back to the crash site where they came upon two men standing near a van.The men said that they had called the police and then assisted Thomas, Mr. Geiger and [Appellant] in flipping the SUV back on its wheels.[Appellant] and Mr. Geiger attempted to drive away but the vehicle was too severely damaged to be operable.The Arndts then returned to their home.

Troopers Kent Kaylor and John Finkbiner appeared shortly thereafter to investigate a report of a one-vehicle crash.Before they arrived, [Appellant] had asked Mr. Geiger to say that he, Geiger, had been driving the SUV and Mr. Geiger agreed to do so.Trooper Finkbiner first observed that a stone wall located along the northbound berm of St. Peters Road a short distance from the accident scene had been struck causing rocks and debris to be strewn across the roadway.He also saw scratch marks in the roadbed that stretched across the westbound lane and into and across the eastbound lane indicating that something had slid across St. Peters Road.Finally, he noticed that there was extensive damage to the driver's side of the SUV and that paint on that side of the vehicle had been scraped off exposing the metal underneath.

Trooper Finkbiner spoke with Mr. Geiger who told him that he had been the driver of the SUV and the accident occurred when he had swerved to avoid hitting a deer.Trooper Kaylor, meanwhile, was speaking with [Appellant] who told him that Mr. Geiger had driven the SUV and he had been a passenger.Trooper Kaylor observed damage to the left side of [Appellant's] jeans and to [Appellant's] wallet, which was in a left pants pocket.He also saw injuries to the left side of [Appellant's] body.However, there were no injuries or clothing damage to [Appellant's] right side.Trooper Kaylor also smelled the odor of alcohol on [Appellant's] breath and observed that he was swaying slightly.

The troopers then had a private conversation.Trooper Kaylor pointed out that [Appellant] had injuries on the left side of his body.This aroused suspicions that [Appellant] may have been the driver.The trooper had also observed that Mr. Geiger had no injuries or clothing damage.Trooper Finkbiner again questioned Mr. Geiger warning him that he could face criminal charges if he lied.Mr. Geiger then admitted that he was not the driver of the vehicle.

When questioned by Trooper Finkbiner, [Appellant] could not give an explanation of his injuries.He admitted to drinking four beers that night and Trooper Finkbiner noticed the odor of alcohol on [Appellant's] breath, that he had glassy bloodshot eyes and he swayed from side to side.[Appellant] submitted to two field sobriety tests and failed them both.He refused to take a portable breath test.Trooper Finkbiner then arrested [Appellant] for DUI and transported him to the DUI processing center in Reading.

At the center, Berks County DetectiveRobert Johnson administered three field sobriety tests and [Appellant] failed two of them.[Appellant] refused to submit to a blood alcohol test.The Commonwealth charged [Appellant] with DUI and four summary offenses.

(Trial Court Opinion, entered August 11, 2004, at 1-4).

¶ 3 On October 25, 2002, the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against Appellant.Following a preliminary arraignment, Appellant posted $5,000.00 bail on November 18, 2002.Appellant applied for ARD consideration on December 3, 2002.On January 30, 2003, the Commonwealth denied Appellant's application for ARD but retained the hearing date of February 13, 2003 for his arraignment.Appellant's arraignment took place on February 13, 2003.At Appellant's request, a hearing was scheduled for April 29, 2003 on his proposed omnibus pre-trial motion.

¶ 4Appellant then filed his omnibus pre-trial motion for writ of habeas corpus and for suppression of evidence on April 7, 2003.³Specifically, Appellant asserted the police did not have enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of DUI.Further, Appellant averred his inculpatory statements made following his arrest should be suppressed, because the police did not have probable cause to justify the arrest.Appellant's pre-trial hearing took place on April 29, 2003.The trial court denied Appellant's motion by order entered May 30, 2003.On July 3, 2003, the court scheduled Appellant's trial for December 9, 2003.

¶ 5 On December 3, 2003, Appellant filed a Rule 600 motion to dismiss on the grounds that more than 365 days had passed since the Commonwealth filed its criminal complaint, and the Commonwealth had failed to use due diligence to bring Appellant to trial within the required period.The trial court conducted a Rule 600 hearing on January 21, 2004.At the hearing, Trooper Finkbiner testified he was a member of the United States Marine Corps.Reserves, and had been deployed to Iraq on January 13, 2003.(N.T. Rule 600Hearing, 1/21/04, at 4).Trooper Finkbiner did not return to the United States until May 2003.(Id. at 7).Trooper Finkbiner resumed work with the Pennsylvania State Police on August 1, 2003.(Id.)By order entered February 2, 2004, the trial court denied Appellant's Rule 600 motion.

¶ 6 On February 4, 2004, a jury found Appellant guilty of DUI.The trial court also found Appellant guilty of the related summary offenses.⁴On February 23, 2004, the court sentenced Appellant to three to twenty-three months' imprisonment in the Berks County Prison.Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions, in which he argued for the modification of his sentence, based on the trial court's failure to consider mitigating factors, such as Appellant's age, prior criminal record and good character.Further, Appellant requested a new trial because the trial court erred when it refused to allow evidence of Jay Geiger's prior convictions.Appellant also argued the court erred in denying his Rule 600motion to dismiss.The trial court denied Appellant's post-trial motions by order entered May 11, 2004.This appeal followed.

¶ 7Appellant raises the following three issues for our review:

WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED A MANIFEST ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT IMPOSED A SENTENCE AT THE EXTREME HIGH END OF THE AGGRAVATED RANGE OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WHICH SENTENCE WAS CLEARLY UNREASONABLE, MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE AND THE COURT FOCUSED ONLY ON THE SERIOUS NATURE OF THE OFFENSES TO THE EXCLUSION OF VARIOUS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE APPLICABLE TO THIS PARTICULAR [APPELLANT]?

WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE COMMONWEALTH'S OBJECTION AND IN REFUSING TO PERMIT [APPELLANT] TO INTRODUCE RELEVANT MATERIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH'S STAR WITNESS, JAY GEIGER, HAD A PRIOR DUI CONVICTION THEREBY PROVIDING HIM WITH A MOTIVE TO LIE TO THE POLICE IN ORDER TO IMPLICATE [APPELLANT] AND DEFLECT THE INVESTIGATION FROM HIMSELF?

WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED IN DENYING [APPELLANT'S]MOTION TO DISMISS FILED PURSUANT TO PA.R.CRIM.P. 600?

(Appellant's Briefat 4).

¶ 8 In his first issue, Appellant contends the aggravated-range sentence he received is unreasonable and inappropriate.Appellant asserts the sentencing court ignored "substantial mitigating circumstances," and the totality of these circumstances mandated a sentence "in or near" the standard range of the sentencing guidelines.(Id. at 18).Additionally, Appellant maintains the sentencing court placed undue emphasis on the jury's decision not to accept Appellant's trial testimony as credible.Appellant concludes this Court must reverse and remand the matter for re-sentencing.Appellant's claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

¶ 9 Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to appellate review as of right.Commonwealth v. Sierra,752 A.2d 910, 912(Pa.Super.2000).Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue:

[W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine:

...