Com. v. Patel, D. (judgment order)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S64007-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. DHRUV PATEL : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 682 MDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001435-2016 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD*, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania FILED DECEMBER 08, 2017 appeals from an order suppressing the results of a blood test administered after Appellee, Dhruv Patel, was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. The Commonwealth argues Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016), does not invalidate Pennsylvania’s doctrine of implied consent when the defendant is charged with driving under the influence of narcotics.1 However, the Commonwealth concedes that Commonwealth v. Ennels, ____________________________________________ 1 The factual record before the suppression court consisted entirely of a six sentence stipulation of facts and the DL-26 (Chemical Testing Warnings) form signed by Patel. Neither of these documents reference the narcotics which were revealed in the blood test. * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S64007-17 167 A.3d 716 (Pa. Super. 2017), controls the outcome in this case. See Appellant’s Brief, at 4. The Commonwealth indicates that it desired to preserve the issue while its petition for reargument en banc in Ennels was pending. That petition was denied, and Ennels thus stands as controlling precedent in this case. See Sorber v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 680 A.2d 881, 882 (Pa. Super. 1996). As the Commonwealth recognizes, Ennels rejected the argument it raises in this appeal. We therefore conclude that no relief is due. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/10/2017 -2- J-S64007-17 -3-

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.