Articles Posted in DUI Sentence

Pennsylvania, like most states, increases the penalty imposed on people found guilty of DUI with each subsequent conviction. Until recently, DUI charges that were resolved via ARD did not count as prior offenses for the purposes of DUI crimes. As discussed in a recent Pennsylvania opinion, though, the law has since changed. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated, it is sensible to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what steps you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was involved in a collision and subsequently arrested after failing field sobriety tests. Chemical testing revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.188%. The Commonwealth charged him with multiple offenses, including DUI-Highest Rate and Recklessly Endangering Another Person (REAP). He pled guilty to DUI-Highest Rate and REAP in exchange for the dismissal of other charges, with a recommendation for sentencing according to Pennsylvania guidelines.

It is reported that at the time of the plea, legal precedent prohibited the courts from considering a DUI resolved through ARD as a prior offense. However, by the time of sentencing, that precedent had been overruled. Consequently, on January 9, 2023, the court sentenced the defendant to the mandatory minimum of 90 days’ incarceration for DUI-Highest Rate, treating it as a second offense, and imposed a term for the REAP conviction. The defendant filed a post-sentence motion, claiming the court erred in its classification and sentencing. The trial court denied this motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

Pennsylvania’s statutory sentencing scheme for DUI offenses permits the courts to impose greater penalties for each subsequent DUI conviction. Generally, it is easy to ascertain whether a conviction constitutes a first, second, or third offense. The issue can become convoluted, however, when a defendant faced with DUI charges was previously charged with a DUI crime and entered into an ARD program but was not actually convicted. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling addressing the novel question of whether prior acceptance of ARD equates to a prior conviction for purposes of imposing sentences for second or subsequent DUI crimes, ultimately ruling that it did. If you are charged with a second or higher DUI offense, you could face substantial penalties if you are found guilty, and it is critical to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options for protecting your liberties.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI crimes in July 2019. He was subsequently arrested and charged with a second DUI offense the following month. In February 2020, the defendant entered the ARD program for the charges arising out of his first arrest and then entered a negotiated guilty plea for the charges arising out of his second arrest.

Reportedly, the court deferred sentencing in the second case. Before the sentence was imposed, however, the court ruled that the provisions in the DUI law that equated accepted into ARD to a prior conviction for sentencing purposes were unconstitutional. The court sentenced the defendant as a first time offender, after which the Commonwealth appealed.   Continue reading

A conviction for a DUI crime does more than just show up on your driving record; it is a criminal conviction that can result in a lengthy prison sentence. While the Pennsylvania courts have some degree of discretion in determining what constitutes an appropriate sentence in a DUI case, the sentences they issue must be reasonable; if they are not, they may be appealable. Recently, a Pennsylvania court issued a ruling discussing what constitutes a reasonable sentence in a DUI case, in a matter in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s request to vacate his sentence. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is prudent to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI crimes on three separate occasions within the span of 13 months. He pleaded guilty in all three cases and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 69 months and 270 days to 192 months and 270 days, which included consecutive 90 day sentences for driving while his license was suspended. He filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. He then appealed.

Demonstrating a DUI Sentence Constitutes an Abuse of Discretion

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing such a lengthy sentence. Before addressing the defendant’s specific challenges to his sentences, the court examined whether his sentences were lawful, noting that it had the authority to address illegal sentences on its own accord. Continue reading

Generally, the Pennsylvania courts must abide by statutory guidelines when sentencing people convicted of DUI crimes. As such, sentences that exceed the maximum penalties under the guidelines may be deemed unlawful. The court can consider aggravating factors when issuing sentences, however, and in some cases, such factors could result in an increased penalty, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a Pennsylvania DUI matter. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a dedicated Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to determine your rights.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI, which was his first offense. He pleaded guilty, and in exchange, the Commonwealth withdrew several other criminal charges and recommended a sentence in the low-end of the standard range. During the defendant’s colloquy, the court noted that the offense was graded as a first-degree misdemeanor, which was not typical for a first offense DUI, due to the fact that there was a minor in the car at the time of the defendant’s arrest.

Allegedly, the court further explained that the defendant could face up to five years imprisonment. The defendant confirmed that he understood and admitted to the elements of the crime, including the fact that a child under the age of two was in his car when he was arrested. The court sentenced the defendant to three years imprisonment. He went through numerous rounds of appeals, arguing in part that his sentence was illegal because it exceeded the maximum penalty for first-time offenses under the statutory guidelines. Continue reading

Under Pennsylvania law, if you are convicted of DUI have one or more prior DUI convictions, the law requires the courts to impose increased penalties. It is important to note, however, that only DUI convictions within the past ten years are considered when determining if a DUI defendant has prior convictions. Recently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania clarified when the ten year period begins to run, in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for a second DUI offense.  If you are currently charged with your second DUI offense, it is sensible to confer with an assertive Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding your potential defenses.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested in June 2006 for a DUI. He was subsequently convicted in March 2007. He was stopped a second time in July 2016 after an officer observed him repeatedly traveling over the fog line while driving. He was arrested for suspicion of DUI, and a chemical blood test revealed his BAC to be 0.21%. He was then charged with DUI – highest rate of alcohol, which the Commonwealth deemed his second offense. He filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the Commonwealth incorrectly deemed his charge as a second offense, due to the fact that his previous offense occurred more than ten years prior to his second arrest. The trial court rejected his argument, and the defendant was convicted, after which he appealed.

Calculating the Ten-Year Look-Back Period

The court noted that section (a) of the statute regarding prior offenses deemed a prior offense as a conviction, while section (b), which defined the timing of a prior offense, stated that the prior offense must have occurred within ten years of the date a defendant is sentenced for the second offense. The defendant argued that section (b) overrode section (a), and therefore the ten-year period begins to run on the date the prior offense was committed, not when the defendant was convicted for the prior offense.

Continue reading

It is common knowledge that a criminal defendant cannot be convicted more than once for the same crime. Thus, if a criminal defendant is convicted for multiple crimes arising out of the same act it may constitute double jeopardy in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania analyzed the issue of whether a sentence for multiple DUI convictions for the same instance of driving while intoxicated violated the defendant’s rights. If you live in Pennsylvania and are charged with a DUI it is crucial to engage an assertive Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assist you in protecting your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with numerous crimes, including three counts of driving under the influence – general impairment. He pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced, in part, to six months of probation for the DUI charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal due to the fact that he was sentenced for three DUI convictions for one drunk driving incident, in contravention of Pennsylvania law.

Fifth Amendment Right Against Double Jeopardy

On appeal, the defendant argued that his three DUI convictions were almost identical, in that each charge alleged that he drove a vehicle after consuming a sufficient amount of alcohol to render him incapable of driving, operating, or controlling the vehicle safely. As such, he argued that his sentences for two of the convictions must be vacated because they violated the State and Federal Constitutions on double jeopardy grounds. Specifically, the defendant argued that his sentence must be vacated because he could not be subjected to multiple punishments for the same incident of driving under the influence.

Continue reading