he observed Grimes revving the engine of the truck for some five minutes before investigating the situation. Moreover, when Chief Emeriek arrived at the scene, he witnessed Grimes sitting in the driver’s seat of the pickup truck continuing to rev the engine. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to show that Grimes was in physical control of the truck. Compare Crum, 362 Pa.Super. at 113-17, 523 A.2d at 801-02 (finding that evidence that defendant was found slumped across the front seat of a car with the motor running and lights on was sufficient to support the inference that the defendant was in control of the machinery of the motor vehicle as is required for a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol) with Commonwealth v. Price, 416 Pa.Super. 23, 610 A.2d 488 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Grimes next argues that the trial court erred
holding the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the juvenile a front seat passenger of a vehicle occupied by four persons was in possession of marijuana recovered from a crumpled piece of newspaper behind the drivers seat holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary holding that evidence that defendant was sitting in the drivers seat of the ear which was not running and held keys to trunk in his hand did not rise to the level of actual physical control necessary to support a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol holding conviction for possession was supported by sufficient evidence when a firearm was found under the passenger seat where the defendant had been sitting and the arresting officer observed the defendant trying to place something in the glove compartment which when searched yielded an ammunition clip matching the gun under the seat holding that the defendant possessed a stolen automobile in which he was found sitting not even driving