Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George Thomas Shifflett

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered whether a defendant’s prior acceptance of accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD) for a DUI may be treated as a prior offense for purposes of imposing an enhanced sentence under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. Applying Alleyne and related precedent, the Court held that treating the prior ARD disposition as a prior offense for sentencing purposes was unconstitutional and reversed the Superior Court’s order remanding the case for resentencing.

Holdings

1. A defendant's prior acceptance of ARD cannot be viewed as the equivalent of a prior conviction for purposes of the Apprendi prior-conviction exception because ARD proceedings lack the constitutional safeguards accompanying a criminal conviction.
2. A defendant's prior acceptance of ARD cannot be equated with a guilty plea for purposes of the Apprendi-Alleyne prior-conviction exception.
3. When used under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 to increase the penalty for a subsequent DUI under § 3804, a defendant's prior acceptance of ARD is a fact that must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt; the statutory treatment of ARD as a prior offense for that purpose is unconstitutional.
4. The portion of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 that permits a prior acceptance of ARD to serve as the basis for an enhanced sentence under § 3804 is facially unconstitutional.
5. The reference to ARD is severable from the remainder of § 3806(a), so only the provision treating acceptance of ARD as a prior offense is invalidated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether treating a defendant's prior acceptance of ARD for a DUI offense as a prior offense for purposes of imposing an enhanced sentence under 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3804 and 3806 violates the Sixth Amendment and due process principles recognized in Apprendi and Alleyne.
2. Whether a prior acceptance of ARD is sufficiently equivalent to a prior conviction or guilty plea to fall within the Apprendi-Alleyne prior-conviction exception.
3. Whether the statutory provision treating ARD as a prior offense is facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional only as applied.
4. Whether the ARD provision in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806(a) is severable from the remainder of the statutory definition of prior offense.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded