Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania’s DUI laws, it is unlawful for anyone to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance. Controlled substances include not only drugs that were obtained illegally but also medications that were lawfully prescribed by a physician. In other words, simply because a motorist’s use of a controlled substance is lawful does not mean that they cannot be found guilty of DUI while driving under the influence of that substance. This was clarified in a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a case in which the court rejected the defendant’s argument that medical marijuana differed from marijuana in that it was not a controlled substance. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about your possible defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that an officer observed the defendant driving erratically. As such, the officer pulled the defendant over and began to question him. The defendant submitted to field tests which indicated to the officer that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance. As such, the officer arrested the defendant for suspicion of DUI.

Reportedly, a subsequent blood test indicated that the defendant had marijuana compounds and the metabolites of such compounds in his system. He was charged with driving while under the influence of a controlled substance and, following a trial, was found guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing that medical marijuana was not a controlled substance. Continue reading

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

The Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions protect people from unreasonable searches. This means, among other things, that a DUI suspect cannot be compelled to submit to a blood test absent a warrant. There are some exceptions to this rule, though, such as when exigent circumstances exist. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed what constitutes an adequate urgent situation to allow the warrant requirement to be set aside in a DUI case in which the defendant appealed his conviction. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is crucial to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant drove his car onto train tracks, after which a train collided with the car and pushed it a quarter of a mile. When first responders arrived at the scene of the accident, the defendant was outside of his vehicle while his fiancé and their daughter were still inside the car. The fiancé was pronounced dead at the scene, and the defendant and his daughter were transported to the hospital for treatment.

It is reported that an officer that investigated the accident smelled marijuana coming from the car. Thus, he directed another officer to interview the defendant at the hospital and obtain a legal blood draw. When that officer arrived at the hospital, the defendant was restrained and drifting in and out of consciousness, and could not consent to a blood test. His blood was drawn prior to the officer’s arrival, though. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Typically, DUI charges arise out of traffic stops. The police must have reasonable grounds for pulling a motorist over, however, and if they do not, the Commonwealth may be precluded from introducing the evidence obtained via the stop at trial, regardless of how persuasive it is. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed probable cause in a ruling in which it ultimately dismissed an order suppressing the results of a chemical test in a DUI case. If you are accused of driving while intoxicated, it is smart to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assess your potential defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that a police officer observed the defendant driving on a highway for two and a half miles in the middle of the night. During that time, he saw the defendant meander over the fog line several times. He subsequently pulled the defendant over and, when speaking with him, noticed an odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was asked to submit to a field sobriety test; he agreed and performed some of the tasks incorrectly. He then agreed to submit to a breath test. Following the test, the officer arrested the defendant. The defendant moved to suppress the results of the breath test at trial, arguing that the officer had reasonable cause to stop the defendant. The trial court granted the motion, and the Commonwealth appealed.

Probable Cause to Arrest a DUI Suspect

On appeal, the court agreed with the Commonwealth and reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that in order to arrest the defendant for DUI, the officer needed to have probable cause to believe that the defendant was impaired to the extent that he could not drive safely. Probable cause is present when the circumstances and facts that are within the officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest and that they believe constitute reasonably trustworthy information are adequate to merit a reasonable person to develop the belief that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, people can be convicted of DUI crimes even if they are not observed driving while intoxicated. The prosecution must nonetheless prove that a crime actually occurred in order to prove a DUI defendant’s guilt, though, and if they cannot, the charges against the defendant should be dismissed. This concept, known as corpus delecti, was the topic of a recent Pennsylvania ruling in which the court upheld the defendant’s DUI conviction. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is prudent to confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to determine what defenses you may be able to set forth.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the police responded to a call indicating there was a vehicle on the side of a highway. When they arrived at the scene, they found the defendant standing on the side of the road with a gash and a lump on his head. When they spoke with him, he smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet. He stated he had been drinking earlier in the day and had driven to his current location.

It is alleged that the defendant was taken to the hospital, where he consented to a blood draw which revealed his BAC to be over twice the legal limit. He was charged with DUI – the highest rate. He moved to have his incriminating statements precluded from evidence pursuant to the corpus delecti rule, but the court denied his motion. He was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Pennsylvania legislature established sentencing guidelines but afforded the courts some discretion when issuing sentences. If a criminal defendant believes that a court abused its discretion, it can file an appeal. Recently, a Pennsylvania court issued an opinion discussing the factors weighed in determining whether a sentence is unjust in a case in which a defendant who pleaded guilty to DUI received a sentence of two to ten years imprisonment. If you are accused of a DUI offense, you could face significant penalties if convicted, and it is smart to meet with a  Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was arrested for DUI after he crashed his tree into a pole. The defendant admitted to drinking alcohol prior to the crash but refused to submit to a blood test. A passenger who was riding in the vehicle sustained serious injuries. The defendant was charged with numerous crimes.

Allegedly, the defendant entered into a plea deal in which he agreed to plead guilty to DUI, aggravated assault while DUI, reckless driving, and operating a vehicle without financial responsibility in exchange for the Commonwealth withdrawing all other charges. The agreement did not contain any provisions regarding the defendant’s sentence. Following his guilty plea, he was sentenced to two to ten years in prison. He appealed, arguing his sentence was unjust. Continue reading

Published on:

by

It is well-established that, under Pennsylvania law, it is unlawful to operate a vehicle while intoxicated. This means not only that people cannot drive if they are impaired due to the consumption of alcohol but also that they can be accused of DUI crimes if they operate a car while under the influence of metabolites or controlled substances. Recently, a Pennsylvania court issued a ruling discussing the evidence the Commonwealth must introduce to support a conviction for a DUI controlled substance. If you are charged with driving while under the influence of prescription or illicit drugs, it is advisable to contact a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to discuss your case.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is alleged that the investigating officer responded to a call reporting that a man was unconscious inside an SUV. When he arrived at the scene, the officer observed the defendant sleeping in the driver’s seat of the SUV, which was parked by an intersection. The keys were in the ignition, and the vehicle was running. The officer awoke the defendant and asked him a series of questions. The defendant was unable to spell or write his name, was drooling, and his speech was slurred.

It is reported that the defendant agreed to submit to field sobriety testing, and the test results indicated he was impaired. He consented to a blood test, the result of which indicated the presence of numerous controlled substances. The Commonwealth charged him with DUI controlled substance and convicted him following a bench trial. He then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pennsylvania, like many states, has an implied consent law. In other words, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, everyone who drives a motor vehicle in Pennsylvania is deemed to consent to the chemical testing of their breath if they are stopped for suspicion of DUI. As such, if a person refuses to submit to a breath test, their license must be suspended. The police must provide a DUI suspect with an O’Connell warning, however, and the suspect must knowingly refuse to submit to the test in order for civil penalties to be imposed. Recently, a Pennsylvania court addressed the issue of whether a driver that does not speak English could consciously refuse to submit to a breath test, ultimately ruling that he could not. If you are accused of a DUI offense or refusal to submit to chemical testing, it is smart to meet with a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to evaluate your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that a police officer witnessed the defendant driving erratically for several minutes. The officer then stopped the defendant and attempted to question him. The defendant, who did not speak or understand English, appeared intoxicated. Using hand gestures, the officer asked the defendant how much he drank that evening, and the defendant motioned that he had three alcoholic beverages.

Reportedly, the officer then read the defendant the O’Connell warning advising him that if he did not provide a breath sample, his license could be suspended. The warning was written in English. The officer then asked the defendant to submit to a breath test, but the defendant stated no. The defendant also refused to sign the portion of the form indicating he had been advised of the warnings therein. The department of transportation subsequently suspended the defendant’s license.  The defendant appealed the suspension, and the trial court granted his appeal. The department of transportation then appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Legislators, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and other interested parties have advocated for legislation mandating that all new vehicles come equipped with alcohol detecting devices to prevent people from driving while intoxicated for the past several years. The US House of Representatives recently enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that contains an Advanced Impaired Driving Technology (AIDT) provision that Mothers Against Drunk Driving described as the single most significant legislation passed in the organization’s forty-one-year history. While no one disputes the hazards of driving while impaired, mandatory alcohol monitors may infringe on people’s rights and cause a slew of other problems. If you’ve been charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania, it’s in your best interests to speak with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options.

The Proposed Technology

Allegedly, the AIDT section of the Act establishes a threshold that Mothers Against Drunk Driving estimates will avoid nearly ten thousand drunk driving deaths each year. Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s President further stated that the law will basically eliminate the leading cause of mortality on America’s highways. She suggested that technology is required to prevent unsafe driving practices used by those who fail to make the correct decisions when it comes to getting behind the wheel after drinking.

The act provides that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must to undertake a process to establish rules and set a standard for impaired driving safety systems on all new vehicles within three years. NHTSA is anticipated to evaluate technology such as alcohol detection systems, which use sensors to determine whether a driver is intoxicated and, if so, stop their car from driving. Automobile makers will have two to three years to implement the safety standard once it is established. Continue reading