It is saddening to note that 311 people died on Pennsylvania roads in 2021 due to alcohol-related vehicular accidents. The figure represents 25 percent of all traffic deaths in the state.
It is also worth noting that the national rate of traffic fatalities has reduced in the last three decades from 40 percent in 1990 to 28 percent in 2021. This feat could not be possible without the collaborative effort of all concerned stakeholders. However, driving under the influence (DUI) is still the second most human factor in deadly car accidents.
Pennsylvania was one of the latecomers in enacting a felony DUI statute. Before 2018, no matter how many DUI convictions an individual had, the offense grading never surpassed misdemeanor-one. The General Assembly passed Act 153 in 2018, which made Governor Tom Wolf sign the state’s first felony DUI statute into law that year.
The law takes effect when the court convicts an impaired motorist of a third crime in ten years with a minimum of twice the legal limit for alcohol or a fourth driving under influence at any impairment phase.
The Act also specified longer prison terms for offenders who caused a fatality due to a repeat DUI breach. In 2022, the Assembly enacted Act 59 of 2022, called “Deana’s Law,” to further amend and expand the Pennsylvania DUI law.
According to the novel law, an individual with two past offenses charged with a third DUI, with an alcohol level of .16 or more, declining a blood test, or a DUI with controlled substances, is guilty of a felony-three. If the person had three or more crimes in the past, they are guilty of felony-two. The new Act is also explicit on consecutive sentencing for some DUI offenders and announces an 18-month driver’s license suspension for a felony of second-degree DUI conviction.
As the new and more stringent law came into full force, the Pennsylvania Superior Court clarified the status of a prior DUI or accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD) when grading a subsequent DUI. The Superior Court’s decision on Commonwealth v. Chichkin in the spring of 2020 will make this discourse highly practical.
The authorities charged Igor Chichkin on December 8, 2017, with DUI in Philadelphia. The defendant had a prior DUI charge where he got ARD.
After acceptance into the ARD initiative, a defendant does not need to plead guilty or not guilty. After completing the program, the court will dismiss the charges, and the defendant can seek expungement.
Before the pronouncement on Chichkin’s case, if the police arrested a defendant within ten years of taking ARD, they could charge him with a DUI second offense with a compulsory minimum of 30 days in prison. ARD was a prior crime in Pennsylvania for sentencing reasons.
Chichkin went to trial for his new crime, and the court convicted him of driving under influence. Due to his previous ARD, the judge sentenced him to one to six months in prison. However, he appealed the sentencing, citing the landmark U.S. Supreme Court verdict on Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013).
According to the Alleyne court, the Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused a right to trial by an impartial and objective judge, which is only feasible if the jury has access to all the details and facts of the offense. If an element of the offense heightens the compulsory minimum punishment, it must be beyond a reasonable doubt and submitted to the jury.
Hence, the court deleted Chichkin’s compulsory minimum sentence. The decision caused uproars within courts and prosecutors. Second crimes turned into first ones.
Prosecutors contemplated trying and proving the past DUI charge during the new DUI trial to establish the first and second DUI convincingly. Those who decided to drive while under the influence multiple times got a second bite of the apple, merciful treatment for two distinct DUIs.
However, the Superior Court undid Chichkin after more than two years of second bites. An en banc panel of the court overruled Chichkin in Commonwealth v. Richards. The court disagreed with Chichkin’s conclusion that an accused’s past acceptance of ARD is not a prior conviction.
According to the court, it is a voluntary decision of a defendant to participate in the ARD program. Acceptance into the ARD program is not equivalent to the procedural safeguards of a conviction after trial. According to Section 3806(a), an earlier ARD acceptance is a prior DUI crime for subsequent sentencing purposes.
Due to the Superior Court’s overruling, the prosecution of repeat DUI offenders has returned to its position before 2020. An ARD and two more DUIs will lead to a felony-three, which has a maximum of seven years jail term.
“Make sure to speak with a lawyer right away if you are arrested and accused of DUI. DUI convictions have serious repercussions, including jail time, license suspension, and fines.” says attorney David Lish from Grand Canyon Law Group.
Of course, there is probably more to come on this matter, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court might be the final decider!
