 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Paes11/16/2004
Richard Paes (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered May 28, 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County. We reverse and vacate the judgment of sentence. The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows.
On April 16, 2000, Pennsylvania State Police were conducting a regulatory roadblock in Redstone Township. During the course of the roadblock, Appellant was stopped while driving his vehicle. Appellant indicated that he was not in possession of a driver's license, registration or proof of insurance. Accordingly, we was asked to pull to the side of the road where the officer noticed signs of intoxication, namely, red, glossy eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcoholic beverages emanating from Appellant's person. Appellant was asked to perform field sobriety tests, which he failed. Consequently, he was taken to the hospital where blood was drawn revealing a blood alcohol content of .21%.
Appellant was charged with driving under the influence, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3731. He filed an omnibus pretrial motion raising, inter alia, the constitutionality of the roadblock. A hearing was held on January 3, 2003; on February 19, 2003, Appellant's motion was denied. Thus, on May 20, 2003, Appellant proceeded to a non-jury trial where he was found guilty. On May 28, 2003 he was sentenced to nine months to five years of incarceration and ordered to pay the costs of prosecution and a $700.00 fine. Appellant filed a timely appeal, raising the following issues for our consideration:
1. Is a roadblock constitutionally permissible when there is no prior approval regarding the particulars of the roadblock and there is insufficient evidence the selected road was likely to be traveled by drivers committing registration, licensing or equipment violations?
2. When a police officer renders an opinion based upon his specialized knowledge on the administration, performance and results of field sobriety tests must Pa.R.E. 702 regarding expert testimony be satisfied before admitting such evidence?
3. Can the Commonwealth's guilty verdict of driving with a blood alcohol content in excess of .10 percent be sustained when it failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 1547 regarding the admissibility of a chemical test?
4. Can the sentencing court impose a fine when it fails to consider if the defendant can pay the fine, his financial resources and the burden payment would have?
5. Can the judiciary inject itself into a function reserved for the executive branch of our tripartite system of government by deciding the gradation of the crime?
6. Is the offense gravity score for a DUI, second degree misdemeanor, a two or a three?
7. Can an ambiguous sentence be imposed? Appellant's brief, at 7.
Appellant's first issue challenges the suppression court's finding that the regulatory roadblock was not constitutionally defective.
When we review the ruling of a suppression court, we must first ascertain whether its factual findings are supported by the record and whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable. Where the defendant challenges an adverse ruling of the suppression court, we will consider only the evidence for the prosecution and whatever evidence for the defense that remains uncontradicted in context of the whole record. If there is support on the record, we are bound by the facts as found by the suppression court, and we may reverse that court only if the legal conclusions drawn from these facts are in error. If there is sufficient evidence of record to support the suppression court's ruling and that court has not misapplied the law, we will not substitute o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|