Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
[U] Commonwealth v. Mason
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
September 27, 2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee
DARNELL MASON, Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered November 26, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009144-2012
BEFORE: ALLEN, OTT and COLVILLE [*] , JJ.
The trial court convicted Darnell Mason, ("Appellant"), of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c). Appellant filed this timely appeal in which he asserts that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the results of his blood test. We affirm.
The parties stipulated to the following facts:
On June 17, 2011, at approximately 2:00 A.M., Philadelphia Police Officer Karen Lee responded to a one vehicle accident at Roosevelt Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Philadelphia, PA. Notes of Testimony, 11/26/12, p. 12. At that time, Officer Lee found Appellant standing next to a white Nissan Maxima, which had struck a large metal fixture and light pole. Id. The officer said that Appellant had glassy eyes, slurred speech, was unable to walk without assistance, and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Id. Appellant was transported to the hospital where he was read his O'Connell warnings by Officer Sienkiewicz and blood was drawn. Id., Notes of Testimony, 9/2/11, p. 21. At the time the blood was drawn, Appellant was unresponsive and snoring. N.T., 11/26/12, at 13. The blood was sent to a drug scan and came back indicating a blood alcohol content, within two hours of the incident, of .286 percent blood alcohol concentration.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/21/13, at 2-3.
On appeal, Appellant presents the specific question:
Did the trial court err in denying the Appellant's Motion to Suppress evidence of the blood results based upon a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1547, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
We are bound by the following standard of review:
In addressing a challenge to a trial court's denial of a suppression motion, we are limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Since the Commonwealth prevailed in the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the factual ...
Buy This Entire Record For