Com. v. Reed (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S04037-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMIE REED Appellant No. 2188 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 9, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002190-2012 BEFORE: STEVENS, P.J., GANTMAN, J., and LAZARUS, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J. Filed: February 26, 2013 Jamie Reed appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County following his convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol;1 driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance;2 and driving without a license.3 After careful review, we affirm on the opinion authored by the Honorable Patricia H. Jenkins. On January 5, 2012, on a cold dry night, Reed crashed his car into two parked cars on a residential street in Chester, Pennsylvania, overturning his ____________________________________________ 1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1). 2 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(3). 3 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1501. J-S04037-13 vehicle and causing substantial damage to the parked cars. The owner of one of the parked cars ( Owner ) called police, ran to the overturned car and saw Reed, the sole occupant, crawl out of the car window. Owner said she recognized the smells of alcohol and marijuana on Reed s person. Reed repeatedly said to Owner that he need[ed] to get out of [there]. N.T. Trial, 6/27/2012, at 11. Reed attempted to leave, but Owner held onto Reed s wrist and kept him at the scene until the police arrived. Chester Police Officer Arthur Grenier ( Officer Grenier ) arrived at the scene in response to Owner s 911 call. Officer Grenier observed that Reed, who did not have a valid driver s license, had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech; that Reed was swaying back and forth; and that he had to lean on the police vehicle to keep himself upright. Id. at 34. Officer Grenier stated that Reed could not perform field sobriety tests because he was unsteady on his feet. Id. Officer Grenier asked Reed what had happened, and Reed responded that he whipped a turn and hit a parked car. Id. at 35. Officer Grenier asked Reed if he had been drinking; Reed answered that he just got done smoking some weed. Id. Reed agreed to laboratory blood testing. Reed s blood was tested for alcohol but not for marijuana. Reed stipulated that his blood-test analysis showed that he had a blood alcohol level of .07%. At the time of Reed s arrest, Officer Grenier had been on the police force for ten months; he received a 6-month basic training in driving under the influence (DUI) investigations at the Delaware County Police Academy, -2- J-S04037-13 and participated in at least six DUI investigations. Based on his observations at the scene of the accident, Officer Grenier concluded that Reed was not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle due to his intoxication caused by ingestion of alcohol and marijuana. Following a non-jury trial held on June 27, 2012, the Court found Reed guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol; driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance; and driving without a license. On July 9, 2012, Judge Jenkins imposed the following sentence for driving under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance: three to six months incarceration; 80 hours of community service; a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000; restitution; and costs and fees. court also ordered him to complete safe driving classes.4 The In addition, the court imposed a fine of $200 for driving without a license. This timely appeal follows, in which Reed raises one issue for our review: Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance under 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3802(a)(1) and (d)(3) where the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that . . . Reed was impaired to a degree that rendered him incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle as a result of ingesting alcohol, or a combination of drugs and alcohol. Brief of Appellant, at 4. ____________________________________________ 4 The conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol merged for sentencing purposes. -3- J-S04037-13 Reed challenges his convictions under the following statute: § 3802. Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance (a) General impairment. -(1) An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle. ¦ (d) Controlled substances. -- An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances: ¦ (3) The individual is under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual s ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802. Reed claims that the Commonwealth should have presented expert testimony to sustain a conviction under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(3), driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance. Reed argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his DUI convictions and that, therefore, the judgment of sentence for DUI should be vacated. In her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, Judge Jenkins analyzes Reed s claims and correctly determines that: (1) Reed was operating the motor vehicle that struck two parked cars on the evening of January 5, 2012; (2) -4- J-S04037-13 Reed was substantially impaired while operating the motor vehicle and was incapable of safe driving; (3) based on the totality of the circumstances, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Reed was driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and marijuana; and (4) the evidence obviates any need for expert testimony regarding the causal nexus between Reed s ingestion of marijuana and his inability to operate a motor vehicle safely. After careful review of the parties briefs, the record and the relevant law, we agree with Judge Jenkins analysis and affirm on the basis of her opinion. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Jenkins decision in the event of further proceedings. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.