Com. v. Hensley, C. ( 2022 )

J-S35020-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
CECIL WAYNE HENSLEY :
:
Appellant : No. 298 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 26, 2021,
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004103-2020.
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MARCH 09, 2022
Cecil Wayne Hensley appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his conviction for two counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”),
one alcohol-related and one drug-related, arising from the same incident.
Hensley challenges only the sufficiency of his drug-related conviction. Upon
review, we reverse that conviction.
After a bench trial, the trial court found the following facts:
On June 12, 2020, Trooper David Owens of the
Pennsylvania State Police, (herein “PSP”), was driving north
on Delta Road in York County, when he observed a car going
south bound at a high rate of speed. [Hensley’s] car “blew
[Trooper Owens’s] doors right off as [he] was traveling.”
[Hensley’s] speed gained Trooper Owens’s attention, who
also noted [Hensley] was driving erratically.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35020-21
Additionally, [Hensley’s] center brake light was not
operating. Trooper Owens initiated a traffic stop and
approached the driver. Trooper Owens observed a strong
odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle and
[Hensley] exhibited glassy eyes and thick slurred speech.
[Hensley] was asked if he had anything to drink. [Hensley]
responded that he drank one tall Natty Ice beer. Trooper
Owens asked if [Hensley] drank a twenty-four (24) ounce
beer, and defendant responded yes.
Trooper Owens then administered Standard Field Sobriety
[Tests] (herein “SFST”). The first SFST Trooper Owens
demonstrated was the walk and turn test. [Hensley]
performed poorly and showed signs of impairment on six (6)
out of eight (8) clues on the walk and turn. Trooper Owens
then had [Hensley] perform the one-legged stand. While
performing this SFST, [Hensley] again performed poorly;
[Hensley] raised his arms, put down his foot, and was
swaying. [Hensley] stated to Trooper Owens that he had a
small amount of marijuana in his front pocket. Trooper
Owens pulled out an envelope that had a piece of paper in
it which had residue of marijuana inside.1
In Trooper Owens’s opinion, [Hensley] was too impaired
to drive. [Hensley] then was placed into custody and taken
to York County Central Booking. [Hensley] was read the
DL26-B form in which Defendant refused chemical testing.
The Motor Vehicle Recording (herein “MVR”) was played for
the court, which essentially confirmed Trooper [Owens’s]
testimony.
[Hensley] did indicate to Trooper Owens that his eardrums were
blown out. [Hensley] testified that he incurred the injury five days
prior to the date in question, when he hit his head when
swimming. [Hensley] testified that his injuries were treated by a
physician at Wellspan Outpatient Urgent Care. He further stated
that the injury caused [Hensley’s] balance to be off; [Hensley]
described being dizzy, in extreme pain, and had loss of hearing.
[Hensley] did not put forth any supporting evidence of an injury.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/23/21, at 2-5 (footnotes and citations omitted).
____________________________________________
1Hensley later told Trooper Owens and testified at trial that it was a Four
Loko alcoholic beverage. N.T., 12/8/20, at 22, 33.
-2-
J-S35020-21
In addition to the above facts, our own review of the record, including
the portions of the MVR played at trial, reveals that Hensley took an alcohol
breathalyzer test at the scene and was informed by Trooper Owens that the
result exceeded the legal limit. N.T., 12/8/20, at 23 (indicating Hensley’s BAC
test result was a .104).
Originally, the Commonwealth only charged Hensley with Driving Under
the Influence of Alcohol — General Impairment — First Offense. 75 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 3802(a)(1) (emphasis added), and a summary offense that is not at issue
on appeal. On the day of the trial, however, after giving prior notice to
Hensley, the Commonwealth requested to amend the information to add a
charge of Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana)
— General Impairment — First Offense. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2) (emphasis
added). N.T., 12/8/20, at 5-6. Hensley objected, but the trial court allowed
the amendment. Significantly, the Commonwealth chose not to charge
Hensley under Section 3802(d)(3) which prohibits driving 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.”
Following a non-jury trial, the court found Hensley guilty of all three
charges and imposed sentence at the same proceeding. The trial court
determined that the two DUI counts merged for sentencing purposes, and
imposed sentence under Section 3804(c). That section applies to individuals
who violate Section 3802(a)(1) (“DUI-alcohol”) and refused a breath or
-3-
J-S35020-21
blood test, or who violate Section 3802(d) (“DUI-controlled substance”). The
court imposed the minimum sentence under Section 3804(c): a period of
incarceration of three days to six months, a mandatory fine of $1,000, costs
of prosecution, and standard treatment requirements related to a DUI offense.
The court denied Hensley’s post-sentence motion, and this timely appeal
followed. Both Hensley and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.
On appeal, Hensley only challenges his DUI-controlled substance
conviction. He raises a single issue:
Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain [Hensley’s]
Driving under the Influence of a Controlled Substance
conviction where there was no evidence Hensley was
specifically impaired by a controlled substance as required
for his conviction?
Hensley’s Brief at 4.2
Preliminarily, we disagree with the trial court’s suggestion that this
appeal is moot. The trial court observed that it independently convicted
Hensley of DUI-alcohol, and because Hensley’s two convictions merged, he
would have received the same sentence even if the evidence was insufficient
to support his DUI-controlled substance conviction. See Trial Court Opinion,
4/23/21, at 15. However, under the facts of this case, the minimum sentence
____________________________________________
2In his Rule 1925(b) concise statement, Hensley also challenged the weight
of the evidence supporting his DUI-controlled substance conviction. He
abandoned that argument before this Court.
-4-
J-S35020-21
for these two convictions is slightly different. Compare 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
3804(a)(1)3 with Section 3804(c)(1)4.
Because the record reflects that Hensley submitted to breath testing,
the minimum sentence for his DUI-alcohol conviction would involve no
incarceration, but rather a mandatory minimum of six months of probation,
____________________________________________
3 (a) General impairment.--Except as set forth in subsection (b) or (c), an
individual who violates section 3802(a) (relating to driving under influence of
alcohol or controlled substance) shall be sentenced as follows:
(1) For a first offense, to:
(i) undergo a mandatory minimum term of six months' probation;
(ii) pay a fine of $300;
(iii) attend an alcohol highway safety school approved by the
department; and
(iv) comply with all drug and alcohol treatment requirements
imposed under sections 3814 (relating to drug and alcohol assessments)
and 3815 (relating to mandatory sentencing).
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(a).
4 (c) Incapacity; highest blood alcohol; controlled substances.--An
individual who violates section 3802(a)(1) and refused testing of breath under
section 1547 (relating to chemical testing to determine amount of alcohol or
controlled substance) or testing of blood pursuant to a valid search warrant
or an individual who violates section 3802(c) or (d) shall be sentenced as
follows:
(1) For a first offense, to:
(i) undergo imprisonment of not less than 72 consecutive hours;
(ii) pay a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000;
(iii) attend an alcohol highway safety school approved by the
department; and
(iv) comply with all drug and alcohol treatment requirements
imposed under sections 3814 and 3815.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(c).
-5-
J-S35020-21
and a lesser fine of $300. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(a)(1). By contrast, Hensley’s
DUI-controlled substance conviction involved the higher minimum penalties
that the court imposed under Section 3804(c), including jail time and a $1,000
fine. Thus, if the evidence was insufficient to support the DUI-controlled
substance conviction, Hensley would be entitled to a lesser sentence on his
DUI-alcohol conviction. Thus, this issue is not moot, and we will address the
merits of Hensley’s sufficiency claim.
Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is as follows:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether viewing all of the evidence admitted at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there
is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and
substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we
note that the facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may
be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of
fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means
of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the
above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all
evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the
finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses
and weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all,
part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532, 540-41 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en
banc) (citation omitted). Moreover, although the fact finder may make
reasonable inferences from the testimony presented, the “inferences must
-6-
J-S35020-21
flow from facts and circumstances proven in the record, and must be of such
volume and quality as to overcome the presumption of innocence and satisfy
the jury of an accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth
v. Scott, 597 A.2d 1220, 1221 (Pa. Super. 1991). “The trier of fact cannot
base a conviction on conjecture and speculation and a verdict which is
premised on suspicion will fail even under the limited scrutiny of appellate
review.” Id. Finally, “[b]ecause evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law,
our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013).
Hensley challenges his DUI-controlled substance conviction. The DUI
statute prohibits a person from operating a vehicle when “[t]he individual is
under the influence of 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(d)(2).
Therefore, to convict a defendant under this section, the Commonwealth must
establish three elements: 1) that the defendant drove; 2) while under the
influence of a controlled substance; and 3) to a degree that impairs his
defendant’s ability to drive safely. Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 .3d 1231,
1239 (Pa. 2011).
Hensley does not dispute that he drove on the night of the incident. The
crux of Hensley’s argument challenges the Commonwealth’s evidence
regarding the remaining two elements. Although he admitted to consuming
-7-
J-S35020-21
“a little bit of weed” earlier in the evening, Hensley asserts that there was no
evidence that he was high at the time he was pulled over, or that he was
under the influence of marijuana to a degree that impaired his ability to drive.
Hensley Reply Brief at 2. Hensley argues that the indications of marijuana
impairment are fundamentally different from those stemming from alcohol
intoxication, and that the Commonwealth did not show his impairment was
due to marijuana. Hensley Brief at 14-17; Reply Brief at 3. He notes that
“behavioral signs of impairment from alcohol include slurred speech, poor
balance and the odor of alcohol. Conversely, the signs of impairment from
marijuana include tremors, incomplete thoughts and the odor of marijuana.”
Hensley’s Brief at 14 (citing Charles Scoot Courrege, Drugged Driving: How
the Legalization of Marijuana Has Impaired the Ability of the Louisiana DWI
Law, 44 S.U.L.Rev. 423, 438 (Spring, 2017)).
Hensley concedes that the Commonwealth’s evidence supported a
conviction for DUI-alcohol. Trooper Owens observed a strong smell of alcohol,
Hensley had glassy eyes and slurred speech, and he did poorly on two balance
field sobriety tests (the walk and turn test and the one-legged balance test).
Hensley Brief at 14, 16. Additionally, Hensley admitted to drinking a large can
of high-alcohol-content beer within a few hours of driving and his BAC
exceeded the legal limit.
By contrast, he argues a lack of evidence to support the conviction for
DUI-controlled substance. Trooper Owens never mentioned the smell of
-8-
J-S35020-21
marijuana, either burnt or unburnt, coming from the car or Hensley. Id. at
14. There was no evidence of tremors or incomplete thoughts. To the
contrary, Hensley was responsive and cooperative during the traffic stop. Id.
at 17. There was no admission of marijuana use close in time to driving, or
evidence of the amount of marijuana consumed. The empty pouch with
marijuana residue gave no indication of the time or amount of the drug
Hensley consumed. As such, Hensley contends the Commonwealth did not
prove his DUI-controlled substance charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
In response, the Commonwealth claims it has no burden to show how
high Hensley was when he was pulled over. Commonwealth’s Brief at 13. It
relies on Hensley’s admission that he smoked a little bit of weed that night
and that an empty pouch of marijuana residue was found on Hensley. Also,
Hensley was impaired that evening. And, he refused a chemical blood test.
To begin our analysis, we note that evidence of consumption of a drug,
standing alone, is insufficient to prove impairment. Commonwealth. v.
Etchison, 916 A.2d 1169, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2007) (reversing a DUI-controlled
substance conviction when the only evidence of impairment was the presence
of metabolites of cannabinoids in the defendant’s blood and when an expert
witness testified that the presence was not an indication of current
impairment); see also Gause (reversing a DUI-controlled substance
conviction because, inter alia, the Commonwealth presented no evidence that
the defendant has recently ingested marijuana or that “an odor of marijuana
-9-
J-S35020-21
emanated from his person or from his vehicle at the time he was stopped”).
Instead, impairment evidence should be drawn from the factual
circumstances. Commonwealth. v. DiPanfilo, 993 A.2d 1262, 1267 n. 5
(Pa. Super. 2010) (describing a hypothetical scenario in which an officer pulls
over a suspect for driving erratically and encounters a cloud of marijuana
smoke and typical signs of heavy marijuana use).
Here, the trial court based its decision to convict Hensley of DUI-
controlled substance on the following:
[Hensley] repeated and voluntarily offered to Trooper
Owens that [he] had marijuana in his pocket. While Trooper
Owens did not recover any amount of marijuana on
[Hensley] that the trooper deemed chargeable, [Hensley]
did state “I smoked a little bit of weed” in response to
whether [he] consumed any illegal drugs.
[The trial court] observed a substantial portion of the
MVR and considered Trooper Owens[‘s] testimony that
[Hensley], by his own accord, told the trooper that [he]
smoked marijuana prior to driving his vehicle. [Hensley]
refused to have any chemical testing. [Hensley] also
conflicted his statements when telling Trooper Owens what
kind of alcohol [he] consumed that night. Based upon the
evidence before the court, including the testimony and
observations of [Hensley] and the MVR, there was sufficient
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that [Hensley] was
impaired by drugs to the point he was incapable of safe
driving.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/23/21, at 10-11. As explained below, none of this
evidence, either alone or when considered together, supports Hensley’s DUI-
controlled substance conviction.
- 10 -
J-S35020-21
First, Hensley’s admission of smoking marijuana is evidence that he
consumed it at some point prior to operating the vehicle but does not suggest
it caused his impairment. Section 3802(d)(2) only prohibits operating a
vehicle while “under the influence of a drug . . . to a degree which impairs the
individual’s ability to safely drive.” See Commonwealth v. Williamson, 962
A.2d 1200, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“the Commonwealth does not need to
prove or show the amount of the controlled substance involved in the
prosecution” for violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). Rather, the offense only
requires proof that the defendant was under the influence to a degree that
causes impairment”) (emphasis original). The language of Section 3802(d)(2)
therefore requires that the consumption of a controlled substance must be
sufficient to cause impairment; conversely, some consumption of a controlled
substance may not be sufficient to cause impairment.
Thus, Hensley’s admission is not in itself probative evidence that he was
impaired from marijuana. Although the trial found that Hensley admitted to
smoking marijuana “prior to driving,” the record is devoid of any evidence to
establish that his consumption was recent enough to “form a clear connection
between marijuana use and impairment.” Gause, 164 A.3d at 537 (Pa. Super.
2017). It instead merely establishes the first element of the offense: that
Hensley consumed a controlled substance.
In this regard, we disagree with the Commonwealth’s assertion that it
“has no such burden” to establish “how high [Hensley] was.” Commonwealth’s
- 11 -
J-S35020-21
Brief at 13. On the contrary, it is entirely the Commonwealth’s burden to
prove that Hensley was sufficiently “high” to “impair[] [his] ability to safely
drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.”
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). Gause, supra.
The trial court also determined that Hensley was impaired due to drug
consumption based on footage depicted in the Motor Vehicle Recording “MVR.”
Trial Court Opinion, 4/23/21, at 10-11. We have reviewed the portions of the
MVR shown to the trial court and do not believe they depict any evidence of
impairment by drugs distinguishable from impairment by alcohol. Thus, the
MVR likewise is insufficient evidence to sustain Hensley’s conviction for DUI-
controlled substance.
Next, the trial court cites Hensley’s refusal to undergo chemical testing
after his arrest as evidence that he was guilty of DUI-controlled substance.
Under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(e) of the Vehicle Code, such a refusal is admissible
evidence in any summary or criminal proceeding involving violations of the
DUI statute. This evidence may be used to show consciousness of guilt.
Commonwealth v. Bell, 211 A.3d 761, 773 (Pa. 2019). No presumption
arises from the evidence of refusal, but it may be considered along with other
factors. 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1547(e).
Evidence of refusal alone is not sufficient evidence, because the
Commonwealth must show more than consumption of a controlled substance;
it must also demonstrate that the controlled substance caused the
- 12 -
J-S35020-21
impairment. Griffith, supra. Thus, even assuming that the results of a
chemical test would have been positive for the presence of marijuana, here
no other indicia showed that Hensley was impaired from marijuana to the
degree that he could not safely operate his vehicle. Had there been no
indication that Hensley was under the influence of alcohol above the legal
limit, his refusal of chemical testing might be evidence of his guilt for DUI-
controlled substance. Then, we would have unexplained signs of impairment
along with a refusal to undergo chemical testing, from which we could infer
that the cause of the impairment was the marijuana. However, those are not
the facts in the case presently before us. Instead, the evidence strongly
suggests alcohol impairment.
The trial court further found that Hensley’s conflicting statements about
the alcohol he consumed was sufficient to show impairment from marijuana.
Shortly after Trooper Owens pulled Hensley over, he asked him if he had
anything to drink that night, to which Hensley responded he drank a “Natty
Ice.” N.T., 12/8/20, at 16. Approximately nine minutes later, Trooper Owens
asked Hensley again what he had consumed, and Hensley said he drank a
Four Loko. Id. at 22. On cross-examination, however, Hensley reiterated that
he had only consumed a Four Loko that night. Id. at 33. He was not asked
about the discrepancy in his answers. Both beverages are high-alcohol-
content beer; thus, the inconsistent testimony about the brand is immaterial.
- 13 -
J-S35020-21
Although the Commonwealth suggests that Hensley changed his story
and fabricated his alcohol consumption to draw attention away from his
marijuana use, Trooper Owens plainly detected an odor of alcohol, and not
marijuana, coming from Hensley and his vehicle. N.T., 12/8/20, at 35.
Moreover, these conflicting statements are also consistent with alcohol
intoxication and are not indicative of recent marijuana use, sufficient to
sustain Hensley’s conviction for DUI-controlled substance.
Finally, the trial court’s reliance upon Trooper Owens’s observations
following the traffic stop as supporting Hensley’s DUI-controlled substance
conviction is not supported by the record. In short, Trooper Owens’s
testimony was insufficient to connect Hensley’s impairment with his admission
of marijuana use. Trooper Owens testified that he smelled alcohol coming
from Hensley’s vehicle and Hensley himself, Hensley had “glassy eyes and
thick slurred speech,” and Hensley “showed signs of impairment on six out of
eight clues” in the field sobriety test. N.T., 12/8/20, at 9-12. Trooper Owens’s
only mention of marijuana was to say that Hensley admitted to possessing it
on his person and that he obtained a small bag from Hensley’s pocket
containing marijuana “flakes” and “residue” that “wasn’t really anything.” Id.
at 13, 27.
At no point did Trooper Owens testify that Hensley showed signs of
impairment due to marijuana, or that he detected the smell of marijuana
coming from Hensley’s vehicle or on his person. Although the trooper’s
- 14 -
J-S35020-21
testimony, which the trial court credited, established that Hensley was
impaired, it did not establish or even suggest that the impairment resulted
from a controlled substance other than alcohol.5 To be sure, the Officer did
not arrest Hensley for DUI-controlled substance on the night of his arrest; he
only charged him with DUI-alcohol and a summary traffic offense. Trooper
Owens’s testimony was not sufficient to sustain Hensley’s conviction under
Section 3802(d)(2).
In Gause, supra, a police officer pulled Gause over for a traffic
violation. When she approached the vehicle, she smelled alcohol and Gause
stated that he had consumed “one 12-ounce can of beer.” Gause, 164 A.3d
at 535. Gause then completed field sobriety tests “with varying levels of
success.” Id. On cross-examination, defense counsel elicited from the officer
that she neither smelled nor saw marijuana. Id. Moreover, the officer
testified that “[Gause’s] speech was not slurred and that, outside of the field
sobriety tests, [Gause’s] balance and coordination were fine.” Id.
The police officer in Gause went on to testify, however, that she gives
the “Romberg Test” when “she suspects marijuana usage because she
associates eyelid tremors, as in this case, with marijuana usage.” Id.
Although Gause “submitted himself to a drug recognition evaluation, he
refused chemical testing.” Id.
____________________________________________
5 As noted above, Hensley’s breathalyzer result further supports this
conclusion.
- 15 -
J-S35020-21
Based on this evidence, a jury convicted Gause of two DUI counts, DUI-
alcohol and DUI-controlled substance. The trial court found the two counts
merged for sentencing purposes, sentenced him to five years of intermediate
punishment, and denied his post-sentence motion. Gause filed a timely
appeal to this Court.
Among the issues raised by Gause, was whether the trial court erred in
permitting the officer to render her opinion that body tremors and eyelid
tremors were indicative of marijuana usage, as well as a claim that the
evidence was insufficient to support his Section 3802(d)(2) conviction.6
In addressing the first issue, we found that the police officer’s testimony
was incompetent and that the trial court should have excluded it under
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 701. See Gause, 164 A.3d at 537-540. As to
the sufficiency challenge, the Court concluded:
Without [the officer’s] testimony, the evidence even when
viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, did not support a conviction of DUI-
controlled substance. In fact, there was a total lack of proof
that Gause was under the influence of a drug to a degree
that his ability to safely drive was impaired. Thus, the
conviction under subsection 3802(d)(2) cannot stand.
Gause, 164 A.3d at 540.
____________________________________________
6 Gause also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his Section
3802(a)(1) conviction. We agreed and reversed his judgment of sentence for
that conviction as well. See Gause, 164 A.3d at 540-42.
- 16 -
J-S35020-21
Here, as in Gause, there was a total lack of proof that Hensley’s ability
to drive safely was impaired by his marijuana use. The only evidence of
record—Hensley’s admission that he had smoked an unknown quantity of
marijuana at an unknown time prior to driving—even when considered in a
light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, did not support
a conviction of DUI-controlled substance.7
In sum, while the evidence was sufficient to show Hensley’s impairment
on the night in question was caused by the consumption of alcohol, it was
insufficient to show that the impairment was caused by marijuana use. As a
result, we must reverse Hensley’s DUI-controlled substance conviction under
Section 3802(d)(2), vacate his judgment of sentence on that count, and
remand for resentencing consistent with this memorandum.
Conviction reversed. Judgment of sentence vacated in part. Case
remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 03/09/2022
____________________________________________
7We note that in situations where there is evidence of both alcohol and drug
consumption, but inadequate evidence of which substance cause the
defendant’s impairment, the proper violation upon which to charge a DUI
defendant would be Section 3802(d)(3).
- 17 -