Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 15, 2013, In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-51-CR-0000394-2013.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ.
Appellant, Shavonda Tice, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following a bench trial at which she was found guilty of driving under suspension-DUI related, a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1). We reverse and discharge Appellant.
In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement, the trial court set forth the following findings of fact:
1. [Appellant] refused a chemical test on June 23, 2012. (Notes of Testimony, March 15, 2012, p. 6). The Commonwealth was statutorily required to notify her at the time of her refusal that this would result in a license suspension. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b).
2. The Commonwealth mailed notice of suspension to 5472 Baltimore Avenue, Philadelphia, P.A. 19143, on July 30, 2012. (Notes of Testimony, March 15, 2012, p. 4, 9). This is the address on file with the Commonwealth for [Appellant]; there were no typographical errors in this mailing. Id.
3. [Appellant's] suspension went into effect on September 3, 2012. Id. at 9.
4. [Appellant] was pulled over while driving a motor vehicle on September 13, 2012. She presented her license to Officer Rodriguez upon request. Id. at 5.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/3/13, at 2.
Following her conviction, Appellant was sentenced to incarceration for a term of sixty days to be served on successive weekends. This appeal followed.
Initially, we note that Appellant preserved a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Additionally, we note that Appellant's brief includes a Table of Contents, which indicates that the Statement of Question Involved appears on page five of the brief. However, the brief does not contain either a Statement of Question Involved or a page five. Nevertheless, the Summary of Argument and Argument sections of Appellant's brief present an ample sufficiency challenge. Appellant's Brief at 7–10.
Therefore, as there is no impediment to appellate review, we shall address Appellant's sufficiency challenge. In doing so, we note that "[o]ur scope of review in a license suspension case is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence in the record, whether the trial court committed an error of law, and whether the court's decision is a ...