Com. v. Kohli, H.
Com. v. Kohli, H. No. 101 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On January 1, 2013 police stopped Hemant Kohli after observing fast approach, partial roll-through of a stop sign, and erratic braking; officers detected odor of alcohol, unsteady gait, slurred/incoherent speech, and failed field sobriety tests.
- Kohli admitted having drinks earlier that evening, denied present impairment, and later refused hospital blood testing, citing a skin condition and infection concerns.
- A jury convicted Kohli of DUI (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1)) and found he refused a blood test; Kohli was sentenced October 21, 2013 to 18–36 months’ imprisonment (third DUI), but did not file a direct appeal.
- Kohli obtained PCRA relief to file a nunc pro tunc direct appeal; he raised (1) insufficiency of the evidence and (2) illegality of the mandatory minimum sentence (Alleyne challenge).
- The Superior Court adopted the trial court’s sufficiency analysis and rejected Kohli’s sufficiency/weight claims; but it vacated the mandatory minimum sentence under Birchfield as applied to warrantless blood draws and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kohli) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI (§ 3802(a)(1)) | Kohli: driving not impaired — only one drink ~7 hours earlier, minor traffic deviations, passed some tests, no BAC proof | Commonwealth: totality (driving conduct, odor, unsteady gait, slurred/incoherent speech, failed FSTs) supports general-impairment conviction | Held: Evidence sufficient; jury reasonably credited officers and convicting evidence |
| Illegality of mandatory minimum sentence based on refusal to submit to blood test (imposition under § 3804(c)(3)) | Kohli: jury did not find necessary facts beyond reasonable doubt to trigger mandatory minimum; refusal-based enhancement is unconstitutional post-Birchfield | Commonwealth: relied on statutory enhanced penalties for refusal and prior DUIs | Held: Birchfield prohibits criminalizing refusal of a warrantless blood draw; mandatory minimum based on such refusal improperly imposed — sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood draws cannot be criminalized under implied-consent; breath tests permissible incident to arrest)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Teems, 74 A.3d 142 (Pa. Super. 2013) (blood-alcohol testing is not required to prove a § 3802(a)(1) general-impairment DUI)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (enumerating types of evidence—behavior, FSTs, appearance, odor, speech—that may prove general impairment under § 3802(a)(1))
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (sentencing statutory-authority issues implicate legality of sentence and may be raised sua sponte)