Com. v. Chapman, S.

J-S76019-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
STEPHEN JAMES CHAPMAN
Appellant No. 921 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 9, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-20-SA-0000037-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED FEBRUARY 4, 2015
The trial court convicted Appellant, Stephen James Chapman, of the
summary offense of driving while operating privilege is suspended, DUI
related. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 7543(b)(1). Chapman does not dispute that his
driver’s license was suspended at the time of the incident. On appeal,
Chapman simply maintains that the Commonwealth presented insufficient
evidence to sustain the conviction as “there was no direct evidence that [he]
operated the vehicle in question.”1 Appellant’s Brief, at 3.
The Commonwealth need not produce direct evidence that Chapman
operated the vehicle, “but may instead rely on circumstantial evidence
____________________________________________
1
For our standard of review, see Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d
107, 111 (Pa. Super. 2014).
J-S76019-14
creating the inference that the vehicle had been in motion in order to meet
its evidentiary burden.” Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356, 361 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
Here, Trooper John Michalak testified that he observed a parked
minivan situated partially in the lane of travel. There was no one in the
minivan. The only person in the vicinity was a man, later identified as
Chapman, across the road using a cell phone. Chapman informed the
trooper that he had been driving a group of Amish home and that the vehicle
broke down. See N.T., Summary Appeal Hearing, 5/9/14, at 7-8, 11. The
passengers were no longer there as someone else came and picked them up.
Chapman’s argument centers on the fact that Trooper Michalak did not
observe him driving the minivan firsthand. But he did not need to. There is
an abundance of circumstantial evidence that Chapman was the driver:
Chapman admitted to the trooper that he was the driver of the vehicle;
there were no other people present on the rural stretch of road; and the
vehicle was left partially in the lane of travel. The trial court credited Trooper
Michalak’s testimony. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/14, at 3.
The Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain the
conviction.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-2-
J-S76019-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/4/2015
-3-