Com. v. Cugno, D. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A10008-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DAVID PAUL CUGNO Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2451 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 30, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000598-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 03, 2018 Appellant, David Paul Cugno, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance or a combination of drugs (“DUI”).1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court correctly set forth the relevant facts and some of the procedural history of this case. We add that Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 31, 2017. The trial court did not order and Appellant did not file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 1925(b). Appellant raises the following issue for our review: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT A JURY ____________________________________________ 1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A10008-18 TRIAL FOR A FIRST OFFENSE DUI BECAUSE A DUI IS COMMENCED BY THE FILING OF A BILL OF INFORMATION AND ARTICLE I SECTION 9 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES A RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE VICINAGE, WHEN THE PROSECUTION IS STARTED BY INDICTMENT OR BILL OF INFORMATION? (Appellant’s Brief at 3). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas C. Branca, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 16, 2017, at 4-14) (finding: Pennsylvania law has repeatedly held that defendant has no right to jury trial for DUI offense, where maximum penalty is six months’ incarceration; crimes that carry maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment or less are considered “petty offenses” for which no right to jury trial exists; notwithstanding language of Article I Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, on which Appellant relies, Pennsylvania appellate courts have repeatedly held that defendant is not entitled to jury trial for first offense DUI under United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; maximum penalty for Appellant’s DUI offense is six months’ imprisonment; thus, Appellant was not -2- J-A10008-18 entitled to jury trial). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judge McLaughlin joins this memorandum. Judge Ransom did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/3/18 -3- Circulated 06/20/2018 03:57 PM
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.
