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
The 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 bloodstream, … Read more
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
In Commonwealth v. Clemens, the 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 Clements … Read more
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
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
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.
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
In Commonwealth v. Smith, the Superior Court held that a police officer had probable cause to stop the defendant after the officer observed him traveling approximately 70 mph on a highway with a speed limit of 55 mph.
The Superior Court vacated the defendant’s convictions for homicide by vehicle, DUI, and related charges. Citing Birchfield, the Court ruled that the police unlawfully obtained the defendant’s blood test results from the hospital when the authorities did so without a warrant.