Appellant’s brief at 5 (capitalization omitted). , Appellant’s -argument relies heavily on the United States,(Supreme Court’s holding in Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013), which he maintains extends a constitutional right to refuse to consent to chemical testing. Since both of appellant’s issues aver that appellant was exercising a constitutional right by refusing to consent to chemical testing, we must first determine whether McNeely establishes a constitutional right to refuse to submit to chemical testing in a DUÍ investigation. Our cases prior to McNeely indicate that no such constitutional right is afforded. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1141-1142 (Pa.Super.2007) (en banc), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 679, 982 A.2d 509 (2007) (<HOLDING>). In McNeely, unlike in the instant appeal, the
holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction holding that there is no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under the implied consent law holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search holding under state constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent