Commonwealth v. Ishankulov

275 A.3d 498

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Anvar ISHANKULOV, Appellant

No. 830 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted January 26, 2022

Filed April 20, 2022

Johnathan J. Sobel, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Kevin R. Steele, District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Robert M. Falin, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Stanley J. Konoval, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

OPINION BY DUBOW, J.:

Appellant, Anvar Ishankulov, appeals from the March 17, 2021 Judgment of Sentence of a fine of $10,200 plus additional court costs imposed following his conviction for violating the Restrictions of Use of Highways and Bridges statute, 75 Pa.C.S. § 4902. Appellant raises challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence as well as the imposition of the fine and argues that the fine was excessive and unconstitutional. Upon review, we affirm.

The relevant procedural and factual history, as gleaned from the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, is as follows. In 2016, the County Line Road Bridge ("the Bridge") in Horsham was experiencing some structural damage, which prompted the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to conduct an engineering study of the Bridge. The engineering study rated the Bridge as capable of withstanding ten tons, or approximately 20,000 pounds, and consequently the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lowered the Bridge weight limit to that amount. Signs indicating the weight limit of the Bridge were posted both westbound and eastbound in intervals two miles ahead, one mile ahead, 1000 feet ahead, and within 25 feet of the end of the bridge. On February 24, 2020, Appellant drove a 56,300-pound tractor-trailer over the County Line Road bridge heading west. After Appellant crossed the Bridge, Police Officer Barrington Ramsay from the Horsham Township Police Department stopped Appellant's tractor-trailer and directed him to a weighing station. Upon learning that Appellant's tractor-trailer weighed 56,300 pounds, over twice the legal weight limit for the bridge, Officer Ramsay issued a citation for overweight vehicle.

On March 17, 2021, after the magisterial district judge found Appellant guilty and Appellant filed a timely summary appeal, the trial court held a non-jury trial de novo . The trial court heard testimony from Officer Ramsay, who is a twenty-three-year veteran of the Horsham Township Police Department and a state certified weight master.¹ The Commonwealth also submitted numerous exhibits without objection, including an engineering report that deemed the Bridge weight restriction to be necessary because the Bridge was deteriorating. Appellant testified on his own behalf.

Officer Ramsay testified in accordance with the above-stated facts. Additionally, Officer Ramsay explained that there was a warning sign at the intersection of Park Road and County Line Road, visible from Park Road if you looked left. Appellant testified, in relevant part, that he was traveling on Park Road when he turned left onto County Line Road and was unable to turn his 53-foot vehicle around, so he proceeded to cross the bridge.

On the same day, the court found Appellant guilty of violating Section 4902(a) pertaining to Restrictions of Use of Highways and Bridges and imposed a sentence of $10,200 in fines plus additional court costs.

Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. The evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to find [Appellant] guilty, in a non-jury trial, of violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 4902(a) where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that advance information signs were erected pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 4902(e) at the intersection nearest [the] end of the [B]ridge in the direction [Appellant] was traveling.

2. The trial court erred in not imposing a fine pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 4902(g)(2) for a violation under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4902(b) of up to $500.

3. The trial [c]ourt erred in imposing a fine of [ ] $10,200 [ ] pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 4902(g)(1) for a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 4902(a), as there was no proof as to the basis for the imposition of said fine. The fine was both incorrect and excessive.

4. The evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to find [Appellant] guilty, in a non-jury trial, of violating 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 4902(a) where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that restriction signs [were] erected pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 4902(e) designating the restrictions within 25 feet of each end of [the B]ridge of a portion of highway restricted in the direction Appellant was traveling.

Appellant's Br. at 4 (reordered for ease of disposition).²

Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary conviction heard de novo by the trial court is limited to a determination of whether the trial court committed an error of law and whether competent evidence supports the findings of fact. Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi , 814 A.2d 249, 251 (Pa. Super. 2002). "The adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Parks , 768 A.2d 1168, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2001). "An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court has rendered a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, has failed to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will." Id. (citation omitted).

Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. "When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is sufficient to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Reaser , 851 A.2d 144, 147 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). "In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder." Commonwealth v. Melvin , 103 A.3d 1, 39–40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Additionally, the Commonwealth need not establish facts and circumstances that preclude every possibility of innocence. Commonwealth v. Estepp , 17 A.3d 939, 943 (Pa. Super. 2011). "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." Id. (citation omitted). Notably, the Commonwealth may sustain its burden by presenting wholly circumstantial evidence. Melvin , 103 A.3d at 40. "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 the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence." Id. (citation omitted).

In his first issue, Appellant avers that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that the placing of the road signs complied with Section 4902(e). Appellant's Br. at 11. Specifically, Appellant argues that there was no testimony that the Commonwealth placed an "advance informational sign at the intersection nearest each end of the restricted bridge" as required by Section 4902(e). Id. at 14 (citing 75 Pa.C.S. § 4902(e), emphasis omitted). Appellant's argument fails.

Section 4902(a)(1) allows the Commonwealth to impose weight restrictions on vehicles utilizing highways or bridges after conducting an appropriate engineering and traffic study, and provides:

The Commonwealth and local authorities with respect to highways and bridges under their jurisdictions may prohibit the operation of vehicles and may impose restrictions as to the weight or size of vehicles operated upon a highway or bridge only when they determine by conducting an engineering and traffic study as provided for in the department regulations that the highway or bridge may be damaged or destroyed unless use by vehicles is prohibited or the permissible size or weight of vehicles is reduced.

75 Pa.C.S. § 4902(a)(1).

Relevant to this appeal, Section 4902(e) requires the Commonwealth to erect "restriction signs" designating the restrictions within 25 feet of each end of the restricted bridge. Id. at § 4902(e). When the restriction does not begin at an intersection, Section 4902(e) also requires the Commonwealth to place additional "advance informational signs" at the closest intersection to the bridge to allow drivers to avoid the restricted bridge. Id. Finally, Section 4902(e) provides that no person can be convicted of violating subsection (a) unless the restriction sign is posted as required at the ends of the bridge, but clearly states that "failure to post any advance informational sign shall not constitute a defense to a violation of this section." Id. (emphasis added).³

Here, Appellant argues that he turned from Park Road left onto County Line Road and did not observe any advance informational signs and, therefore, the Commonwealth did not meet their burden.

The statute clearly rejects Appellant's argument as stated. As the trial court opined: "[ Section] 4902(e) makes clear that the failure to post any advance information sign does not permit a driver to nonetheless drive an overweight vehicle over a bridge." Trial Ct. Op., dated 4/28/21, at 4 (unpaginated). We agree.

As stated above, Section 4902(e) clearly provides that "failure to post any advance informational sign shall not constitute a defense to a violation of this section." 75 Pa.C.S. § 4902(e). As the statute bars the absence of an advance informational sign as a defense, even if the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence that there was an advance informational sign, or if Appella...