Commonwealth v. Dirosa

In Commonwealth v. Dirosa, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his DUI conviction, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c). The defendant argued that the evidence did not establish he drove his car to a Wawa or that he was in actual physical control of the car while sitting in it at the Wawa parking … Read more

Commonwealth v. Atkinson

Commonwealth v. Atkinson involved an appeal from a trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss based on the principles of compulsory joinder, 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. In 2013, Atkinson was arrested and charged with DUI and a summary violation of the Motor Vehicle Code (MVC). Two months later, she was found guilty of the … Read more

Commonwealth v. Middaugh

In March 2014, Appellee was convicted of DUI. The clerk’s office was required to send PennDOT a record of the conviction within ten days after its occurrence. See75 Pa.C.S. § 6323(1)(i). For some reason, that office waited twenty-eight months after the ten-day deadline had passed to notify PennDOT of the conviction. When PennDOT received the … Read more

Commonwealth v. Given

The Pennsylvania Superior Court began the opinion in Commonwealth v. Given by letting the appellant know all the ways in which he waived his claims and filed a bad brief. But the Court sua sponte addressed a sentencing issue. The appellant was convicted of two counts of DUI, one count for having marijuana in his … Read more

Commonwealth v. Donoughe

In Commonwealth v. Donoughe, the defendant was charged with DUI and accepted into the ARD program. Pursuant to a written policy, ninety days after the defendant was accepted into ARD, the Pennsylvania State Police destroyed the mobile recording video of the arrest. But the defendant got kicked out of ARD and proceeded to trial. He … Read more

Commonwealth v. Clemens

In Commonwealth v. Clemens, the Pennsylvania Superior Court was asked to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for DUI-General Impairment and Resisting Arrest. Given the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the opinion covered the facts in great detail. The Court held that, even though the officers never explicitly stated to … Read more

Commonwealth v. Hill

In Commonwealth v. Hill, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the defendant’s separate sentences for his convictions of two counts of 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(a)(1) and 3804(c)(1), based on a single criminal act, were a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Section 3802 is entitled “Driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance.” 75 … Read more

Commonwealth v. Brown

The defendant in Commonwealth v. Brown argued that the trial court erred when it imposed a sentence above the mandatory minimum for DUI, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(2), an ungraded misdemeanor and his first such offense in ten years. The PA Superior Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion when … Read more

State v. Faber

In State v. Faber, the Appellate Division remanded, holding that the lower court failed to reference either the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) or the necessity of an ignition interlock device in it’s sentencing order.

Commonwealth v. Gaston

In Commonwealth v. Gaston, the defendant’s DUI prosecution was in the pretrial stage when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Birchfield v. North Dakota. The defendant moved to suppress his blood draw based on Birchfield, but the Superior Court held that the evidence need not be suppressed because the defendant consented to the … Read more