Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog
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.
Allegedly, while the appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 335 A.3d 1158 (Pa. 2025), which expressly invalidated the statutory provision permitting an ARD acceptance to be treated as a prior offense. The Shifflett court held that § 3806(a)(1) was facially unconstitutional to the extent that it allowed an ARD disposition to enhance penalties under § 3804. In light of this precedent, the defendant argued that his sentence, based in part on a prior ARD, was illegal and that he must be resentenced as a second-time offender rather than a third.
It is reported that the Commonwealth opposed the appeal, arguing that Shifflett should not apply retroactively, asserting that the decision represented a “new rule” under the three-part test articulated in Blackwell v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Commission, 527 Pa. 172, 589 A.2d 1094 (Pa. 1991). The Commonwealth also contended that any error was harmless because the defendant knowingly pled guilty as a third-time offender and that his prior ARD was a matter of public record.
ARD and DUI Penalties
The court rejected the Commonwealth’s arguments and agreed with the defendant that the sentence was illegal. The Superior Court emphasized that Shifflett did not announce a new rule of law but instead declared the relevant statutory provision facially unconstitutional. As such, courts were obligated to apply Shifflett to any case on direct appeal involving § 3806(a)(1). Citing established principles, the court noted that Pennsylvania appellate courts apply the law as it exists at the time of their decision, particularly when reviewing the legality of a sentence.
The court further held that the harmless error doctrine could not save the trial court’s sentence because the underlying sentencing statute was unconstitutional and non-severable. Drawing on Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 636 Pa. 37, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016), the panel explained that an error arising from reliance on an invalid statute cannot be considered harmless. Even if harmless error could apply, the Superior Court observed that the trial court explicitly relied on the ARD disposition to classify the DUI as a third offense and to impose a felony-grade penalty. Therefore, the defendant’s sentence could not stand.
The court also declined the Commonwealth’s suggestion to remand merely for resentencing without mandatory minimums. Instead, it directed that the case be remanded for full resentencing as a second-offense DUI, free from the unconstitutional enhancement. The panel noted that resentencing should be conducted by the trial court, which is best positioned to reassess the overall sentencing scheme in light of the new legal landscape.
Talk to a Trusted Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you are facing DUI charges in Pennsylvania and have previously completed ARD or another diversionary program, it is critical to understand how recent appellate decisions may affect your case. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney who remains at the forefront of changes in DUI law and appellate procedure. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact Attorney Cooper at (215) 542-0800 or reach out through the online contact form.