 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Greenberg10/20/2005
1 This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed after Appellant was convicted of the summary offense of reckless driving. Appellant raises one question for our review, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for reckless driving? We reverse.
2 According to the trial court:
On February 23, 2004, the Defendant was operating his motor vehicle in Upper Dublin Township on Virginia Drive, heading southbound. It was a dry day. The speed limit on Virginia Drive was thirty-five miles per hour. Virginia Drive is a four lane highway with two lanes in each direction.
As the Defendant was proceeding on Virginia Drive he approached a portion of the roadway that curved approximately ninety degrees. Instead of reducing his speed to properly negotiate the sharp turn in the road, as required by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, the Defendant proceeded to make the turn at an excessive rate of speed. The Defendant concedes that he was driving approximately 20 m.p.h. over the speed limit when he made the turn.
Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 4/12/05, at 1-2. While negotiating the turn, the tail end of Appellant's vehicle crossed over the center line. Appellant then apparently lost control of his vehicle as the vehicle did a 180 degree spin and collided with a vehicle driven by Kristi Binkley. Binkley's vehicle had been traveling northbound in the lane closest to the curb. Thus, Appellant's vehicle had crossed two lanes of travel in colliding with Binkley's vehicle.
3 Appellant was subsequently cited for reckless driving and was convicted of that offense by a district justice. Appellant filed a summary appeal on March 9, 2004, which was heard on February 3, 2005. Following a de novo non-jury trial, Appellant was convicted and fined. Appellant filed the present appeal on March 3, 2005.
4 Appellant's only issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 787 A.2d 394, 398 (Pa. 2001), our Supreme Court recited the relevant standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence:
The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to support all the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
5 The charging of Appellant with reckless driving under the facts of the present case reflects a misapprehension of the hierarchy of offenses relating to driving with less prudence than the law requires and the differentiation among these offenses. Reduced to its essence, Appellant was charged with reckless driving for driving too fast for the road conditions. That is, Appellant drove too fast to negotiate a curve in the road or, alternatively, failed to sufficiently reduce his speed to negotiate that curve. Although, quite possibly, Appellant's driving might constitute some violation of the Vehicle Code (VC), a review of the elements of reckless driving and its place in the VC demonstrates that Appellant's conduct does not rise to the level of recklessness that is the hallmark of the offense of reckless driving.
6 Among the offenses in the Vehicle Code (VC), 75 Pa.C.S. § 101 et seq., that are, or might be, implicated when a driver drives "too fast" are:
Maximum speed limits, i.e., "speeding," (75 Pa.C.S.§ 3362), Driving vehicle at safe speed, i.e., "driving too fast for conditions," (75 Pa.C.S. § 3361), Careless driving, (75 Pa.C.S. § 3714), and Reckless driving (75 Pa.C.S. § 3736).
Among these offenses, maximum s
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|