The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently reversed and remanded an appellant’s DUI conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s June 2016 ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota.
In August 2013, following a jury trial, appellant Hemant Kohli was found guilty of one count of DUI. The jury also found that Kohli had refused to submit to a blood test. Two months later, the trial court sentenced Kohli to 18 to 36 months in prison, followed by two years’ probation. Kohli did not file a direct appeal.
Albert Williams appealed his convictions for general impairment driving under the influence (DUI), recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and fleeing or attempting to elude police. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated the judgment, and remanded for resentencing–specifically, regarding Williams’ being convicted of three counts for the same conduct.
In April 2014 at approximately 2:20 a.m., City of Pittsburgh Police Officer Lee Myers observed a Dodge driven by Williams make a left turn through a red light. Officer Myers began to follow Williams, and Williams proceeded to crash into a concrete barrier. Before Officer Myers could get to the site of the crash, Williams backed up the car and then began driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Officer Myers activated his lights and sirens and began to pursue Williams, who was traveling at over 25 miles per hour. Continuing to travel in the wrong direction, Williams drove through several intersections with stop signs. Williams eventually crashed the car again, disabling it, and then fled on foot before Officer Myers arrested him at gunpoint.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently upheld an appellant’s DUI conviction, reasoning that the appellant waived his right to counsel by ignoring the trial court’s repeated directions for him to retain counsel.
On June 21, 2015, Officer Fennell observed appellant William Demenczuk fail to yield to a stop sign. Officer Fennell activated his lights and siren in an attempt to effectuate a traffic stop. Demenczuk did not stop but continued driving to his residence. When Demenczuk exited the vehicle, he began screaming at Officer Fennell, who noticed an odor of alcohol on his breath. After Officer Fennell called for backup, he conducted field sobriety testing. Demenczuk was unable to recite the alphabet and could not complete the finger-to-nose test.
A.A. (a minor) appealed her adjudication of delinquency on charges of DUI, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and a traffic violation. On appeal, A.A. solely challenged the juvenile court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.
In January 2015, Sergeant Still of the Halifax Area Regional Police Department was on a routine traffic patrol when he observed a sedan straddling the center yellow lines. He conducted a check on the registration and found that it was expired, and then he initiated a traffic stop.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently rejected an appellant’s contention that her sentencing as a repeat offender for her DUI conviction resulted in ex post facto punishment.
In January 2015, appellant Kriz Kizak was charged with DUI General Impairment/Incapable of Safe Driving (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(A)(1)) and DUI Highest Rate of Alcohol (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(B)) for a December 2014 incident. She pled guilty in May 2015. In July, Kizak was sentenced under the second charge to undergo imprisonment in the Centre County Correctional Facility for a period of not less than 30 days nor more than six months. Kizak was sentenced as a second offender because she was also charged with DUI for an incident that occurred on September 24, 2014. Moreover, Kizak was accepted into the Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) program on the first offense DUI. Kizak filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently reversed and remanded a defendant’s DUI convictions in light of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Missouri v. McNeely.
In December 2012, Philadelphia Police Officer Amina Oliver observed defendant Stacey Lane’s vehicle blocking a lane on Loudon Street. Lane exited his car and shouted: “Stacey Lane got love for Logan.” (Logan is the name of the neighborhood where the incident occurred.) Lane continued to scream at passing cars. Officer Oliver noticed that Lane had dilated pupils, and his body and car smelled strongly of PCP. Oliver called for a police car to take Lane to the hospital.
A Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed appellant Ryan O. Langley’s appeal of his convictions of DUI and driving at an unsafe speed. The court upheld prior precedent holding that (1) an information is required to include facts that might increase the penalty when setting forth the essential elements; and (2) a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial for DUI because the Pennsylvania legislature has categorized the violation as petty for the purposes of a defendant’s jury trial rights.
In November 2013, police responded to a report of a car accident in Lower Merion, Pennsylvania. While investigating the scene, officers spoke with Langley and noticed the odor of alcohol on his breath. After failing field sobriety testing, Langley was placed under arrest for DUI. His BAC was determined to be .092%.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently quashed Zebrick Hyreshie Jones’s appeal from his DUI judgement as untimely.
In April 2014, Trooper Allar arrived beside a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of I-81. Trooper Allar observed damage to the hood and passenger side of the vehicle and a broken front-passenger window. The appellant was in the process of changing the left rear tire, while his girlfriend remained in the passenger seat. Trooper Allar inquired Jones as to the cause of the accident, to which he replied: “I slipped and hit a tractor trailer.”
Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog