Com. v. Depoe, J., 376 MDA 2017

On June 6, 2015, police stopped Jeff Depoe for erratic driving, administered three field sobriety tests (which he failed), discovered his license was suspended, and arrested him.
At the station Depoe was read PennDOT DL-26 and refused a breath test; he signed the DL-26 form.
The Commonwealth charged Depoe with DUI—general impairment (graded as a first‑degree misdemeanor due to breath‑test refusal) and driving while operating with a suspended or revoked license.
On October 24, 2016, Depoe entered an open guilty plea to both counts; sentencing was deferred for a PSI report.
On January 13, 2017, the court sentenced Depoe to 90 days for the suspended‑license conviction and a consecutive 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment for the DUI—above the aggravated guideline range; Depoe filed post‑sentence motions and appealed.
The trial court relied on the PSI and emphasized Depoe’s age, education, substantial work history, extensive prior criminal history including six prior DUI arrests, and multiple supervision violations when explaining the upward departure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence above the aggravated guideline range	Commonwealth: sentence within statutory limit and justified by defendant’s record and PSI	Depoe: court failed to adequately explain upward departure, ignored rehabilitative needs, unduly focused on prior record, and mischaracterized the guideline range	Court affirmed: sentencing court did not abuse discretion; reasons (age, education, work history, extensive prior DUIs and supervision violations) supported the upward sentence and PSI presumption applies

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (addressed constitutionality of warrantless breath tests; referenced re enhanced penalties context)
Commonwealth v. Giron, 155 A.3d 635 (Pa. 2017) (held enhanced penalties for breath‑test refusal do not violate Birchfield)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (holding that a sentence outside guidelines without adequate on‑record reasons presents a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (presumption that court considered mitigating information when PSI provided)
Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing abuse)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four‑part test for reviewing discretionary aspects of sentencing)