Com. v. Martinez, M. ( 2017 )

J-S01045-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
MILTON MARTINEZ : No. 583 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order entered April 5, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-67-CR-0002330-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 28, 2017
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Order granting
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Milton Martinez (“Martinez”).
We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the factual history underlying
the instant appeal, which we adopt as though fully restated herein. See
Trial Court Opinion, 4/5/16, at 2-5.
Briefly, while Martinez was driving his pickup truck on Interstate 83 in
York County, a mattress fell from the bed of the truck and onto the highway.
Three to four mattresses, tied with string, remained in the bed of the truck.
Two vehicles stopped behind the mattress on the highway. A tractor-trailer
then struck the vehicles from behind, killing one person and injuring a
second person.
J-S01045-17
Police subsequently charged Martinez with one count each of homicide
by vehicle, aggravated assault by vehicle and involuntary manslaughter; and
two counts of recklessly endangering another person.1 Martinez filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. After a hearing, the trial court granted
Martinez’s Petition. Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed the instant timely
appeal, and a Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) Certification that the trial court’s Order will
terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution of the offense.
The Commonwealth presents the following claim for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING [MARTINEZ’S]
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, HOLDING THAT THE
COMMONWEALTH DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE
AGAINST [MARTINEZ]?
Brief for the Commonwealth at 4.
The Commonwealth claims that in granting Martinez’s Petition, the trial
court improperly “used a weight analysis, wholly ignoring well-established
law that credibility is not at issue in a prima facie preliminary hearing.” Id.
at 16. The Commonwealth asserts that “weight and credibility of evidence
are not factors at this stage of proceedings.” Id. at 17 (emphasis in
original). According to the Commonwealth, it presented evidence that
Martinez acted recklessly. Id. at 20. In support, the Commonwealth states
that Martinez drove on Interstate 83 with several mattresses stacked on the
top of the sides of the truck bed, and that Martinez “improperly” tied the
mattresses down to his truck with “lightweight string.” Id. at 21. The
1
See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3732, 3732.1; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2504, 2705.
-2-
J-S01045-17
Commonwealth contends that Martinez “did not sufficiently tie the
mattresses to his truck is evidenced by the fact that one of the mattresses
came loose on the highway, flew in the air, and landed in the center of the
right lane of [Interstate] 83.” Id. After the accident, the string “was
dangling loosely” and was not “secured tightly in any fashion.” Id. (citation
omitted). The Commonwealth further argues that the trial court improperly
relied on the actions of Pennsylvania State Trooper Matthew Kabacinski
(“Trooper Kabacinski”) in addressing whether Martinez had acted recklessly.
Id. at 22-23.
In reviewing a trial court’s order granting a defendant’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus,
we must generally consider whether the record supports the trial
court’s findings, and whether the inferences and legal
conclusions drawn from those findings are free from error. A
trial court may grant a defendant’s petition for writ habeas
corpus where the Commonwealth has failed to present a prima
facie case against the defendant. A prima facie case exists when
the Commonwealth produces evidence of each of the material
elements of the crime charged and establishes sufficient
probable cause to warrant the belief that the accused committed
the offense. Notably, the Commonwealth does not have to
prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Further,
the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth so that inferences that would support a
guilty verdict are given effect.
Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360, 363 (Pa. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
In its Opinion addressing Martinez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
and its Opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court set forth
-3-
J-S01045-17
its reasons for granting habeas corpus relief, and addressed the
Commonwealth’s claim raised on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/16,
at 2-5; Trial Court Opinion, 4/6/16, at 5-7, 10-12. We agree with the trial
court’s reasoning and conclusion, as set forth in its Opinions, and affirm on
this basis. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/16, at 2-5; Trial Court Opinion,
4/6/16, at 5-7, 10-12.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/28/2017
-4-