Commonwealth v. Shifflett

Summary

This is a dissenting opinion by Justice Brobson of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Shifflett. The opinion addresses whether Pennsylvania's Vehicle Code provision treating acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) as a prior DUI offense violates Apprendi and Alleyne. Justice Brobson would uphold the provision, or alternatively treat any deficiency as an as-applied issue remediable through an augmented ARD colloquy rather than declaring the statute facially unconstitutional.

Holdings

1. In Justice Brobson's view, a defendant who requests and accepts ARD voluntarily waives certain procedural safeguards in exchange for the ARD disposition, and Section 3806(a) is therefore not unconstitutional insofar as it treats the prior ARD acceptance as a prior offense for sentencing after a subsequent DUI conviction.
2. In Justice Brobson's view, a defendant's request for and acceptance into ARD alone constitutes a valid waiver of the relevant constitutional safeguards; a separate written waiver is not required, although a colloquy is a useful procedural device.
3. Even assuming that Section 3806(a) and the ARD rules create a constitutional deficiency because defendants are not specifically informed that ARD may be used as a prior offense or that acceptance may waive Apprendi- and Alleyne-related safeguards, the proper remedy would be as-applied relief for defendants who were not adequately colloquied, not facial invalidation of the statute.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a defendant's prior acceptance of ARD may constitute a prior offense for sentencing on a subsequent DUI conviction under 75 Pa. C.S. § 3806(a) without violating Apprendi and Alleyne.
2. Whether acceptance into ARD constitutes a voluntary waiver of procedural safeguards, including the right to a jury trial and the requirement that the Commonwealth prove every element of the prior DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether Section 3806(a), even if constitutionally deficient in some circumstances, should be declared facially unconstitutional or instead applied only to defendants who were not adequately informed of the consequences of accepting ARD.

Disposition

other