Com. v. Hayes, G.
2021 Pa. Super. 232
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- Hayes was convicted in Pennsylvania of DUI offenses; at sentencing the court imposed five years’ probation and treated the 2019 offense as a second DUI because it excluded a 2011 Maryland PBJ (probation before judgment) DWI.
- Hayes had Maryland DWI arrests in 2011 and 2014; Pennsylvania charged him in 2019 with DUI, third offense, and the Commonwealth sought to use the 2011 PBJ as a prior offense under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806(a).
- The Maryland certified record showed a July 14, 2011 disposition: plea listed as not guilty with a PBJ disposition recorded; Hayes moved to bar admission of that prior PBJ, relying on Commonwealth v. Chichkin's holding about ARD.
- The Pennsylvania sentencing court treated Maryland PBJ as equivalent to Pennsylvania ARD, concluded it was not a conviction cloaked with due-process protections, and therefore excluded it from prior-offense counting under § 3806(a).
- On appeal the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Maryland PBJ is a post-guilt, judicially granted disposition requiring a determination of guilt (guilty plea, nolo contendere, or finding), and therefore qualifies as an "other form of preliminary disposition" under § 3806(a); the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing as a third-offense DUI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Maryland PBJ qualifies as a "prior offense" under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806(a) | PBJ can only be entered after a guilty plea, nolo contendere, or finding of guilt, so it is a preliminary disposition that counts as a prior offense | PBJ is like Pennsylvania ARD: no conviction is recorded if conditions satisfied, so it cannot be counted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt per Chichkin | Held: PBJ requires a prior determination of guilt under Maryland law and therefore qualifies as an "other form of preliminary disposition" under § 3806(a); sentencing court erred in excluding it |
| Whether the fact of a prior conviction must be proven to a jury at trial (Apprendi/Alleyne concerns) | Because PBJ reflects a prior guilt determination, Alleyne/Apprendi safeguards are satisfied and the prior may be found at sentencing | Chichkin: pretrial dispositions like ARD must be treated as facts and submitted to jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Held: Superior Court did not reach this constitutional issue because resolution on the PBJ statutory/functional question was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa. Super. 2020) (held ARD cannot be treated as a prior conviction for mandatory-minimum DUI sentencing absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (judge-found facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum violate Sixth Amendment)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Myers v. State, 496 A.2d 312 (Md. 1985) (distinguishes conviction from a mere determination of guilt; explains Maryland PBJ framework)
- Commonwealth v. Lutz, 495 A.2d 928 (Pa. 1985) (describes ARD as a prosecutorial pretrial diversionary program)