Articles Posted in DUI Appeal

Published on:

by

Challenges to DUI convictions often turn on disputes about when a defendant consumed alcohol and whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove impairment at the time of driving. A recent decision demonstrates how Pennsylvania courts evaluate these arguments and how review focuses on the adequacy of proof rather than credibility disputes. If you are charged with a DUI offense in Pennsylvania, it is smart to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that law enforcement responded to a domestic disturbance in Indiana County in the late afternoon. Officers received information that the defendant had been drinking prior to leaving the scene in a silver vehicle. A trooper traveling along a nearby roadway soon located a vehicle matching the description parked outside a convenience store.

Allegedly, the trooper observed the defendant exit the driver’s side of the vehicle and walk into the store. That alcohol was not sold in the convenience store, which occupied one side of a building shared with a pizza shop. The trooper contacted the defendant inside, directed him outside, and observed multiple signs of impairment, including a staggered gait, the odor of alcohol, and bloodshot eyes. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, the law governing sentencing for driving under the influence (DUI) has undergone significant scrutiny in recent years, particularly concerning whether prior participation in the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program can be treated as a “prior offense” for enhanced sentencing. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania court reaffirms that, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Shifflett, courts may no longer consider a defendant’s prior acceptance of ARD as a prior offense for sentencing enhancement purposes. If you are charged with a DUI offense in Pennsylvania, it is smart to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

Case Setting

It is reported that the defendant pled guilty on July 11, 2024, to one count of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The trial court identified the charge as a third DUI offense within a ten-year span and sentenced the defendant to a term of twelve months less one day to twenty-four months less one day. This sentence was based on the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s 2016 acceptance of ARD constituted a prior offense under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806(a)(1). Because the inclusion of the ARD increased the severity of the offense classification, the court graded the violation as a felony of the third degree.

It is alleged that the defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the consideration of a prior ARD violated constitutional principles articulated in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). Specifically, the defendant maintained that a prior offense could only be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not by judicial finding. The appeal was timely under the prisoner mailbox rule, which deems a pro se prisoner’s filing as submitted on the date it is handed to prison authorities for mailing. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, the definition of “vehicle” under the DUI statute is broadly construed, encompassing more than just traditional automobiles. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania court reaffirmed that bicycles, including motorized variants, fall within the statutory framework for driving under the influence. If you are facing DUI charges, even in cases involving nontraditional vehicles, it is essential to understand how broadly these laws apply and to consult with an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was detained on a Pennsylvania highway while operating a battery-powered, two-wheeled cycle. The cycle lacked pedals, lights, and turn signals, and was incapable of displaying a license plate. Despite these deficiencies, the vehicle reached speeds of up to seventeen miles per hour. The defendant was convicted following a bench trial of DUI, operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock, and driving while his license was suspended or revoked.

It is alleged that this was not the defendant’s first encounter with Pennsylvania’s DUI statutes, as the conviction marked his third such offense. The trial court imposed a sentence that included three months of incarceration with eligibility for work release, followed by electronic monitoring and probation. The defendant thereafter filed an appeal, raising constitutional and statutory arguments against the scope of the DUI statute and the definition of electric bicycles under Pennsylvania law. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) of a controlled substance does not require proof of the identity of the drug, chemical testing, or the presence of paraphernalia. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania court demonstrates this principle, affirming a DUI conviction based solely on officers’ observations, field sobriety testing, and the defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood test. If you are charged with DUI involving controlled substances, it is crucial to understand that circumstantial evidence alone may suffice for a conviction, and you should promptly consult with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was pulled over by Pennsylvania State Troopers in the early hours of the morning for driving without headlights and weaving into oncoming traffic. The stop occurred in Bucks County near a Wawa parking lot, where the defendant eventually complied after initially failing to stop. Upon approaching the vehicle, troopers allegedly observed signs of impairment, including jittery behavior, glassy and bloodshot eyes, and delayed pupillary response. The defendant’s speech was described as overly talkative and tangential, and his responses to questions were rambling and inconsistent.

It is alleged that after obtaining the defendant’s documentation and conferring about their observations, the troopers asked him to exit the vehicle. The defendant refused repeatedly for several minutes before eventually complying. At that point, based on his demeanor and physical indicators, the troopers suspected impairment by a controlled substance and conducted field sobriety testing. According to the officers, the defendant showed multiple signs of impairment during the horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand tests. He stepped off the line, missed heel-to-toe contact, swayed, and used his arms for balance. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, a DUI conviction does not necessarily require blood alcohol testing or field sobriety results. Rather, courts are permitted to consider circumstantial evidence, including a defendant’s behavior, appearance, and manner of driving, to determine whether the individual was incapable of safe operation due to alcohol consumption. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed this principle, holding that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported a DUI conviction even in the absence of chemical testing or direct observation of drinking. If you are charged with a DUI, it is important to understand what evidence may be used against you, and you should consult a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant attended a can-release party at a local brewery on August 6, 2022, arriving around noon and remaining at the event for over three hours. Witnesses observed the defendant seated in the same location throughout the afternoon. When the event ended, the defendant entered his vehicle and attempted to leave the parking lot. He accelerated rapidly and crashed through the wall of the brewery, then reversed through the parking lot and onto a nearby street.

It is reported that the police arrived shortly thereafter and observed the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle. The officer who responded to the scene reportedly noted signs of intoxication, including glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and delayed responses. According to the officer’s report, the defendant admitted that he had been drinking and acknowledged that he had struck the building. It is further reported that the officer attempted to conduct field sobriety testing, but the defendant claimed injury from the crash and was transported to the hospital before any tests could be administered. The defendant left the hospital prior to the officer’s arrival, and no blood alcohol test was conducted. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, driving with a license suspended due to a DUI conviction carries serious consequences, including mandatory sentencing provisions and enhanced penalties for repeat offenses. When a defendant enters a guilty plea to such a charge, the law provides a structured framework for evaluating whether the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. As such, later attempts to revoke that plea or seek a different sentence can be challenging. A recent Pennsylvania DUI case illustrates these principles, emphasizing that post-sentence efforts to withdraw a guilty plea must demonstrate a manifest injustice and that negotiated plea agreements generally foreclose discretionary sentencing challenges. If you are facing charges for driving with a suspended license or seeking to contest a prior plea, it is essential to understand the legal standards involved and work with a qualified Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was arrested for driving while his license was suspended due to a prior DUI conviction. The Commonwealth noted that this was not the defendant’s first such incident, as he had previously been cited twice before for driving with a suspended license under similar circumstances.

It is further reported that the defendant entered into a negotiated guilty plea on July 1, 2024, to one count of driving with a DUI-suspended license in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b). As part of the agreement, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months of restrictive probation, with the first six months to be served on house arrest. The record indicates that the defendant completed both a written guilty plea colloquy and an oral colloquy in court, during which he affirmed his understanding of the charges, potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania DUI cases, constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure play a critical role when chemical testing is involved. However, when blood is drawn by medical personnel for treatment rather than at the direction of law enforcement, Fourth Amendment protections may not apply. A recent Pennsylvania decision illustrates this distinction and explains how hospital-initiated medical testing can be used as evidence in DUI prosecutions. If you are facing DUI charges, a knowledgeable Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney can help you challenge any violations of your constitutional rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that police and emergency medical personnel responded to a one-vehicle rollover crash, where the defendant’s car was discovered upside down on its roof. Emergency responders observed that the defendant had not been wearing a seatbelt and exhibited visible injuries. Due to concerns about possible internal trauma, EMS recommended that the defendant be transported to a hospital. The defendant initially refused but later agreed to go. The responding officer did not direct or participate in the decision to transport the defendant.

It is further alleged that hospital staff, upon evaluating the defendant, restrained and sedated him before conducting a blood draw. At no point did the defendant provide consent for the draw. The officer at the scene was told by EMS personnel that they detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant. The officer later obtained a search warrant for the results of the blood test that had already been conducted by the hospital. The defendant moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing that the hospital staff were acting as agents of the state and that the blood draw violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In DUI trials, proper jury instructions are essential to ensuring a fair trial and guiding jurors through the applicable legal standards. As such, disagreements over jury instructions can lead to unjust outcomes, and may be grounds for pursuing an appeal, as illustrated in a recent Pennsylvania case. If you are facing DUI charges in Pennsylvania, it is critical to work with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney who can assert all relevant procedural and constitutional protections on your behalf.

It Is Reported That the Defendant Refused a Blood Draw Despite a Valid Warrant

It is reported that in October 2022, a police officer encountered the defendant near a parked vehicle in the roadway with its hazard lights on. The officer allegedly observed signs of alcohol impairment, conducted field sobriety tests, and arrested the defendant for DUI. The officer transported the defendant to a DUI processing center and read him the Pennsylvania DL-26 form, advising him of the consequences of refusing a chemical test. The defendant refused to submit to a blood draw.

It is further reported that the officer obtained a search warrant for a blood sample and returned with the defendant to the processing center. The officer showed the defendant the warrant but did not allow him to physically read or handle it. The defendant again refused the blood draw. Rather than compel compliance, the officer charged the defendant with obstruction of the administration of law under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101, citing the refusal to comply with a valid warrant. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Repeat DUI offenses in Pennsylvania carry increasingly severe penalties, and mandatory sentencing laws limit judicial discretion in imposing penalties. A recent Pennsylvania decision in which the court upheld a sentence for a third DUI highlights the strict statutory mandates governing DUI sentencing and serves as a reminder that prior convictions can significantly impact future penalties. If you are facing DUI charges, understanding the potential consequences is essential, and consulting a skilled Pennsylvania DUI attorney can help you navigate your case effectively.

Case History

It is reported that the defendant pleaded guilty to DUI – controlled substance and driving with a suspended license. The trial court sentenced the defendant to one to seven years in a state correctional facility, marking the defendant’s third DUI conviction. Additionally, the court imposed a mandatory $1,000 fine for driving on a suspended license.

Allegedly, because this was the defendant’s third DUI conviction, the law required that the sentence run consecutively to the sentence the defendant was already serving for a prior DUI conviction. The defendant was previously sentenced to a five-year probationary term, which was set to expire in 2027. The trial court ruled that the new sentence could not begin until the defendant had completed the probationary period from the prior conviction. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania, traffic stops often serve as the basis for DUI investigations, and courts frequently examine whether an officer had probable cause to initiate a stop. This was demonstrated in a recent decision from a Pennsylvania court, which discussed the evidentiary standards for traffic stops based on window tint violations and how they can lead to DUI charges. If you are accused of committing a DUI offense, it is smart to consult an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney regarding what steps you can take to protect your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was stopped by law enforcement in April 2022 after an officer observed that the vehicle’s window tint appeared to be excessively dark, allegedly preventing the officer from seeing inside. The stop occurred between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. in a dimly lit area, where the officer determined that the tint level might not comply with Pennsylvania law. After running a background check on the vehicle, the officer learned that the registered owner had only a photo identification card, prompting further investigation.

It is alleged that after stopping the vehicle, the officer detected signs of impairment upon approaching the defendant. The defendant reportedly exhibited bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol. The officer conducted field sobriety tests, during which the defendant displayed multiple indicators of impairment. The defendant was then placed under arrest and transported for chemical testing. The results reportedly indicated the presence of alcohol and controlled substances in the defendant’s system, leading to multiple DUI charges. Continue reading