TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTS HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR DUI IN A PARKING SPACE

The Superior Court, in the case of Commonwealth v. Lees, No. 1625 MDA 2015 (March 24, 2016), has held that the trial court improperly granted habeas corpus relief to Appellee when it found that the Commonwealth did not establish a prima facie case that the parking space Appellee drove in was part of a trafficway as defined by the Motor Vehicle Code.

FACTS

On August 15, 2014, Lees was charged with two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”), reckless driving, and careless driving. During a pre-trial hearing held pursuant to Lees’ request for habeas corpus relief, the trial court determined that Lees had been parked in a parking space marked with a number on a portable concrete curb, that she proceeded forward over the concrete curb marked with the number, into the grass and into the green electrical box, and that she did not drive anywhere else. Further, the trial court found that there was absolutely no evidence that Lees had been in actual physical control of a vehicle in the parking lot in general. The Commonwealth and Lees stipulated that the grassy area between the curb and the green electrical box is not a “highway” or “trafficway.” Finally, the parties stipulated that Lees did not operate her vehicle anywhere except in her parking space and the grassy area into which she drove.

On August 25, 2015, the court granted Lees habeas corpus relief and dismissed all charges against her. The Commonwealth filed an appeal and this opinion followed.

ISSUE

WHETHER A PRIMA FACIA CASE WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PARKING SPACE, WHICH WAS CLEARLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES OR BOUNDARY LINES OF A COMMON AREA PARKING LOT, WAS A “HIGHWAY” OR “TRAFFICWAY” OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA?

HOLDING

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth at this stage, established a prima facie case.

REASONING

It is first important to note that the relevant scope and standard of review for a grant of a habeas
corpus petition is whether a prima facie case was established. For the relief to have been denied, the Commonwealth had to show sufficient probable cause that the defendant committed the offense, and the evidence should be such that if presented at trial, and accepted as true, the judge would be warranted in allowing the case to go to the jury.

When deciding whether a prima facie case was established, the Superior Court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. The standard does not require that the Commonwealth prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a habeas corpus hearing.

As to the case at hand, the Motor Vehicle Code governs “serious traffic offenses” which occur “upon highways and trafficways throughout this Commonwealth.” DUI is classified as a serious traffic offense. The Motor Vehicle Code further defines “Highways” and “Trafficways” as follows:

“Highway.” The entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. The term includes a roadway open to the use of the public for vehicular travel on grounds of a college or university or public or private school or public or historical park.

“Trafficway.” The entire width between property lines or other boundary lines of every way or place of which any part is open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right or custom.

Pennsylvania law recognizes that roadways in private areas, or areas restricted to permit-holders, can still meet the “public use” requirement for purposes of Sections 3101, 102 and the DUI statute. Even if restricted by signs, if a parking lot is used by members of the public, it is a trafficway for purposes of meeting the “serious motor vehicle offense” standard.

In Lees’ case, the Commonwealth and Lees stipulated that Lees drove her motor vehicle within her parking space, onto an adjacent grassy area, and the grassy area was not a trafficway.

The Commonwealth also presented Lees’ deed, which specifically indicated she owned a townhome in the complex but, the deed made no mention of a parking space. Additionally, the Commonwealth offered testimony that Lees struck a green electrical box located on the grassy area.

The Superior Court reiterated the Commonwealth’s burden at a habeas corpus hearing, i.e. – to demonstrate evidence of each element of the charges, committed on a highway or trafficway in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth did not have to prove the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage of the proceedings. Lees’ argument for habeas corpus relief at the hearing rested on a distinction between the parking lot generally and a private parking space. The Commonwealth was able to show that Lees’ asserted ownership of the parking space was unclear both as to right and custom.

The stipulations of the parties confirmed that Lee drove her vehicle while intoxicated, over the tire stop of the parking space, and onto an adjacent grassy area where she struck a green electrical box. And, the evidence given at the hearing by Lees and the Commonwealth’s witnesses showed that members of the public routinely used the parking lot. The Superior Court therefore concluded that this evidence satisfied the “public use” requirement of a “traffic” way under the DUI statute.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S24043-16o%20-%201025952166724229.pdf?cb=1

DISCLAIMER – The information contained in this article is for general guidance on the subject matter only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information in this article. Case summaries are primarily excerpted directly from the decisions authored by the Courts. The decisions are cited and linked and the reader is encouraged to read the entire decision. Accordingly, the information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and services. As such, it should NOT be used as a substitute for consultation with a McMahon & Winters Law Firm attorney. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should always consult with a McMahon & Winters Law Firm attorney.