Com. v. Wells, A. ( 2020 )

J-S43026-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
ARTHER THOMPSON WELLS
Appellee No. 178 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered January 29, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No: CP-02-CR-0001403-2019
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2020
The Commonwealth appeals from the amended order entered on
January 29, 2020 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, granting
the petition for writ of habeas corpus of Appellee, Arther Thompson Wells
(“Wells”), and dismissing several criminal charges stemming from a fatal
motor vehicle accident. Upon review, we affirm.
A December 6, 2017 accident on State Route 28 in Allegheny County
involved four vehicles and resulted in the death of Zachary Wilkoski, whose
Ford Mustang was struck from behind by a tractor-trailer operated by Wells.
Wells told an officer at the scene that he was looking over his left shoulder at
the time of the accident, as he was attempting to merge into the left lane of
the roadway. Following an investigation, Wells was charged with one count
J-S43026-20
each of homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, recklessly
endangering another person, and reckless driving.1
At the conclusion of a February 8, 2019 preliminary hearing, the charges
were held for court. Wells filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking
dismissal of the charges, contending the Commonwealth could not
demonstrate that Wells acted with the requisite mens rea to establish a prima
facie case supporting the charges. The trial court agreed and entered an order
on January 29, 2020, dismissing the charges. This timely appeal followed.
Both the Commonwealth and the trial court complied with Rule 1925.
The Commonwealth presents one issue for our consideration:
I. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the
Commonwealth’s evidence failed to present a prima [facie]
case and in granting [Wells’] petition for habeas corpus?
Commonwealth Brief at 4.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion filed on March 9, 2020, the trial court set
forth the relevant standard of appellate review for an order granting a pre-
trial writ of habeas corpus, and provided a thorough summary of the evidence
adduced at the preliminary and habeas corpus hearings, including findings
from the investigating officer, and appropriately did so in a light most
favorable to the Commonwealth. The court then reviewed the charges at
____________________________________________
175 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2504(a) and 2705, and 75 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 3736, respectively. Wells was also charged with following too closely,
75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3310(a). However, that charge is not at issue in this appeal.
-2-
J-S43026-20
issue, noting a mens rea of recklessness or gross negligence is required to
establish a prima facie case for each crime. Relying on this Court’s decisions
in Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 203 A.3d 1115 (Pa. Super. 2019), and
Commonwealth v. Karner, 193 A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. 2018), the trial court
concluded the Commonwealth presented evidence of inattentiveness, falling
short of the required mens rea for the crimes charged, and, therefore, the
dismissal of the charges was appropriate.2
Based on our review of the record and relevant case law, we find the
trial court conducted an appropriate review and analysis in determining the
Commonwealth failed to establish the required mens rea. Consequently, we
____________________________________________
2 In Wyatt, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that the
Commonwealth established negligence, carelessness, or inattentiveness at
best on the part of the driver of tractor-trailer who crossed a grassy median
on I-380, struck another tractor-trailer and a passenger bus, leaving three
dead and five others seriously injured. In Karner, we affirmed the trial court’s
conclusion that the Commonwealth established negligence, not recklessness,
for a driver who was exceeding the speed limit when his Ford pickup rear-
ended a sedan, spinning the car across a parking lot and into a building,
injuring the driver of the sedan and killing her husband/passenger. By
contrast, in Commonwealth v. Huggins, 836 A.3d 862 (Pa. 2003), the
Commonwealth did establish a prima facie case when a driver fell asleep while
operating a 15-passenger van that was overloaded with 21 children and three
adults and, while traveling approximately 78 mph in a 55 mph zone, awoke
just before rear-ending a sedan, causing the van to veer to the right and hit
an embankment, flipping the van, which came to rest on its passenger side,
and killing two children and injuring several other passengers. See also
Commonwealth v. Bostian, 232 A.3d 898 (Pa. Super. 2020)
(Commonwealth established a prima facie case, especially in terms of the
mens rea requirement of recklessness, in Amtrak train derailment case).
-3-
J-S43026-20
conclude that the record supports the trial court’s findings and that the
inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings are free of error.
Therefore, we affirm the January 29, 2020 order and adopt as our own, and
incorporate herein by reference, the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned
March 9, 2020 opinion.3 In the event of further proceedings, the parties shall
attach a copy of the March 9, 2020 opinion to their filings.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2020
____________________________________________
3 Although we incorporate the trial court’s opinion in its entirety, we note that
this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Sanders, 3562 EDA 2017 (Pa.
Super. filed February 3, 2020), cited on page 6 of the trial court’s opinion, has
been withdrawn.
-4-
1-OPINION
Circulated 11/23/2020 12:34 PM