Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

Although the seminal DUI case of Birchfield v. North Dakota was decided three years ago, courts continue to analyze its impact on DUI cases throughout the country, including in Pennsylvania. For example, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently addressed the issue of whether the Birchfield ruling should be applied retroactively to vacate sentences handed down prior to the ruling. If you are a resident of Pennsylvania currently charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to consult a diligent Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your options.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentence

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI – general impairment in September 2015, which was his third DUI offense. The defendant entered an open guilty plea. He was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 18 months to five years, which included a sentence enhancement due to his refusal to submit to a blood test to determine his BAC level. He did not file an appeal following his sentencing. In August 2016, however, following the Birchfield ruling, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his sentence was illegal. His petition was dismissed, after which he appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court ruling, finding that Birchfield did not apply retroactively. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Birchfield’s Impact on Sentences Issued Due to a Failure to Submit to a Blood Test

Generally, a new rule of criminal procedure does not apply to convictions that were final at the time the rule was developed. New substantive rules may be applied retroactively, however, as well as rules that are deemed watershed rules of criminal procedure. In other words, these are rules that involve the essential fairness and correctness of criminal matters. In contrast to substantive rules, procedural rules are intended to improve the accuracy of a sentence or conviction by modifying the manner in which a defendant’s guilt is determined.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

DUI defendants have numerous rights under the state and federal constitutions, including the right to a speedy trial. As demonstrated in a recent case, if the Commonwealth fails to prosecute a case in a timely manner, it can result in a dismissal of all charges. If you are charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania, it is prudent to speak with a skillful Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged in January 2017 with DUI, driving with a suspended license and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The defendant’s preliminary hearing was scheduled for February 2017, but it was continued and later waived. Numerous conferences were scheduled over the next several months, but they were largely continued or unattended by the defendant. A pre-trial conference was held on September 27, 2018, during which the defendant’s attorney made an oral motion arguing that the Commonwealth violated the defendant’s right to a prompt trial. A hearing was held in November 2018, after which the court dismissed the charges against the defendant. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing the charges.

Right to a Prompt Trial

Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a trial must commence within 365 days of when a criminal complaint is filed. It further states that any delays caused by the Commonwealth will be included in calculating the time during which the trial must commence, but any other delays will be excluded. Rule 600 protects the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Thus, in assessing whether a defendant’s right to a prompt trial has been violated, consideration must be granted to society’s right to an effective prosecution of criminal cases.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Simply because a person is charged with a DUI does not mean that they will be found guilty. Rather, to obtain a conviction, the Commonwealth must not only prove the elements of the DUI crime a person is charged with, but it must also prove that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion a crime was being committed prior to detaining the defendant. What constitutes sufficient evidence of reasonable suspicion was recently discussed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in a case in which the defendant was convicted of four counts of DUI.   If you were recently charged with a Pennsylvania DUI offense, it is vital to retain a diligent Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assist you in formulating a compelling defense.

Factual Background of the Case

Reportedly, the arresting officer observed the defendant sitting in an idle vehicle with the motor running, but no lights on in the early hours of the morning. The vehicle was on a suburban street that recently experienced several break-ins. When the defendant observed the arresting officer’s car, the defendant moved his vehicle to the end of a nearby cul-de-sac. The officer ran a check on the defendant’s license plate, which was registered in another county. The officer then approached the defendant and questioned him regarding his reasons for being in that neighborhood at that time.

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with four counts of DUI. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he stopped the defendant, and therefore the stop violated the defendant’s constitutional rights. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and he was convicted on all counts, after which he appealed. On appeal, he argued that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him, and therefore the arrest was improper. The court rejected the defendant’s argument and affirmed his conviction.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, there are numerous DUI crimes a person can be charged with, including DUI – combined influence of alcohol and drugs. In a recent case decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the court addressed what constitutes sufficient evidence to convict a person of DUI – combined influence. If you reside in Pennsylvania and are charged with a DUI crime it is important to meet with a trusted Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your charges and what evidence the Commonwealth may introduce against you at trial.

Facts Surrounding the Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that at approximately 1:00 pm, while a police officer was conducting an investigation due to a report of erratic driving, he observed the defendant driving down the street. The defendant stopped her vehicle and advised the officer she wanted to speak with him, after which the officer directed the defendant to move her car to the side of the road. When the officer approached the defendant’s vehicle, he noticed a strong odor of alcohol. He asked the defendant to exit her vehicle. The defendant complied and admitted to consuming a beer at 9:30 am.

It is alleged that the officer then asked the defendant to submit to field sobriety testing. During the tests, she showed signs of impairment, but she passed two of the three tests she performed. The defendant then submitted to a blood test. Her BAC was 0.076% and her test results indicated the presence of Diazepam and Nordiazepam in her blood. She was subsequently charged with and convicted of DUI – combined influence. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was insufficient to prove her impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, to convict a defendant of DUI – highest rate of alcohol, the Commonwealth must prove, in part, that the defendant had a BAC of at least 0.16%. Even if chemical testing establishes that a defendant’s BAC is 0.16%, however, the Commonwealth should not be able to obtain or sustain a conviction unless it can also prove that the defendant drove within two hours of when his or her BAC was established. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove DUI – highest rate of alcohol, in a case in which the defendant’s conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence. If you are Pennsylvania resident charged with DUI, it is essential to consult a skillful Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to aid you in developing a strong defense.

Factual Background

Allegedly, around 2:00 am on July 29, 2017, the police were dispatched to an area in which they observed a car stranded in floodwaters and the defendant standing nearby. The police approached the defendant, who stated that he was traveling home from work and stopped to have a few drinks at a nearby bar. After the defendant left the bar to continue driving home, he drove into the flooded area and his car became marooned. The police noticed that the defendant was slurring his speech, had glassy eyes, and an odor of alcohol.

Reportedly, the police then asked the defendant to submit to field sobriety testing and a breath test, both of which he failed. He was then arrested. A subsequent blood test revealed his BAC to be .174. The time of the blood test was 3:15 am. The defendant was charged with DUI – highest rate of alcohol and was convicted following a bench trial. The defendant appealed, arguing the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was insufficient to obtain a conviction.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

It is not uncommon for Pennsylvania drivers to be charged with DUI following a traffic stop for other alleged traffic violations. The police must have a reasonable basis for conducting a traffic stop, however, and if they lack sufficient cause to stop a driver any evidence recovered during the stop may be inadmissible. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania addressed what constitutes adequate grounds for effectuating a stop in a case in which a defendant was charged with DUI following a stop for driving unsafely. If you are faced with a DUI charge arising out of a stop for a different alleged traffic violation you should meet with a seasoned Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your case and what defenses you may be able to set forth to avoid a conviction.

Factual Background of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant was driving on a Pennsylvania road at 11:00 pm on a Friday evening. A police officer traveling in the opposite direction observed the defendant cross the center line, after which the officer made a U-turn and began following the defendant. The officer reportedly then watched the defendant go over the center line two more times. Additionally, the officer watched the defendant cross over the fog line approximately six or seven times. The officer turned on his patrol lights and stopped the defendant for violating provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code.

It is alleged that when the officer approached the defendant’s car the defendant was fumbling around, had bloodshot, glassy eyes, and smelled of alcohol. The officer asked the defendant to submit to breath and field sobriety testing, but the defendant refused. Additionally, the defendant reportedly became combative when the officer asked him if he had been drinking that night. The officer ultimately arrested the defendant, who was charged with DUI, general impairment. Prior to his trial, the defendant moved to suppress any evidence obtained during the traffic stop, which the trial court denied. The defendant was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania’s implied consent law, anyone driving on Pennsylvania roads is presumed to consent to chemical testing. While an individual who is suspected of DUI is permitted to withdraw his or her consent, it can result in civil penalties, such as the loss of his or her license. Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the provision of the implied consent statute that permits the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of a person’s refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test as proof of knowledge of guilt. If you are charged with a DUI following a refusal to submit to a blood test it is critical to engage an aggressive Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assist you in formulating an effective defense.

Facts of the case

Reportedly, the defendant, who was suspected of DUI, was transported to the Lycoming County DUI center. Upon arrival, he was read the PennDOT DL-26 form, after which he refused to submit to a blood draw. He was charged with DUI general impairment. Prior to the trial, the defendant filed a motion to preclude evidence of his refusal to submit to a blood test, which the court denied.

Allegedly, during the trial, the arresting officer testified that the defendant would not submit to a blood test following his arrest. The defendant was convicted after which he filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of his refusal to submit to a blood test, arguing that his right to refuse testing was protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The trial court granted the motion. The Commonwealth subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal. The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed and remanded. The defendant then sought review.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pennsylvania DUI charges are like any other criminal charge, in that the Commonwealth is required to prove each element of the alleged crime to obtain a conviction. One of the elements that the Commonwealth must prove in DUI cases is that the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently analyzed the issue of what constitutes physical control in a case in which the defendant appealed his DUI conviction due to the fact he was not driving when he was investigated by the police. If you are charged with a DUI but were not driving your vehicle when you were stopped it is essential to speak with a skilled Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss what defenses you may be able to set forth to avoid a conviction.

Factual Background

It is alleged that the police observed an SUV parked perpendicular to the roadway at 9:15 pm. The headlights were on and the SUV was running. The back wheels of the SUV were in a ditch. The defendant was standing very close to the SUV and had a key for the SUV in his pocket. There were no other people in proximity to the SUV. The defendant was restrained by the police and arrested and charged with DUI and operating a vehicle without a valid inspection. Following a bench trial, the court found that the defendant was highly intoxicated at the time of his arrest and convicted him of both charges. The defendant appealed.

What Constitutes Physical Control of a Vehicle

The issue on appeal was whether the mere fact that the defendant was intoxicated and in close proximity of the SUV was sufficient to show that he operated the SUV while intoxicated. The court noted that the evidence produced at trial does not have to preclude every possibility of innocence. Further, the court stated that the fact finder is free to believe, all, some, or none of the evidence presented.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In many Pennsylvania DUI cases, the Commonwealth will rely on the results of a blood test to prove a defendant’s intoxication. Recent changes in the law require a police officer that is investigating a person for suspicion of DUI to obtain a warrant to compel the person to undergo a blood test. The police do not need a warrant, however, if a person voluntarily consents to submit to a blood test. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently discussed what constitutes valid consent, in a case in which it overturned the defendant’s DUI conviction for DUI highest rate of alcohol. If you are charged with DUI highest rate of alcohol or another DUI crime it is vital to engage a seasoned Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to fight to preclude any evidence the Commonwealth should not be permitted to use against you.

Factual Background

Allegedly, a police officer stopped the defendant due to a broken headlight. The officer that stopped the defendant observed an odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant and noticed that his speech was slurred. As such, the officer asked the defendant to exit his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. The defendant failed the tests and was placed under arrest. The officer then asked the defendant if he was willing to provide a blood sample for blood alcohol testing. The defendant replied, “yes.” The defendant did not ask any additional questions and was not advised that he would face additional penalties if he refused the test.

Reportedly, the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.232% and he was charged with DUI – highest rate of alcohol and DUI – general impairment. He filed a motion to suppress the result of his blood test on the grounds that his consent was invalid. The court denied his motion, and the defendant was convicted on both counts. He subsequently appealed.
Continue reading