Com. v. Mosley, A.
Com. v. Mosley, A. No. 2401 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- In May 2015 Arthur Lee Mosley, Jr. was arrested at/near a DUI checkpoint and taken to the county DUI processing center, located in the county correctional facility.
- At the facility he received Pennsylvania implied-consent warnings (75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(2)) and consented to a warrantless blood draw; his BAC tested at the statutory "highest rate."
- Mosley was tried in April 2016, convicted of DUI—highest rate (third offense) and DUI—general impairment (merged for sentencing), and sentenced June 30, 2016 to 9–24 months’ incarceration plus 3 years’ probation.
- He did not file any pretrial suppression motion challenging voluntariness of consent to the blood draw.
- After trial but before sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota (June 23, 2016), holding states may not impose criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless blood test and that misleading advisories may require reevaluation of consent.
- Mosley appealed, arguing Birchfield required a new trial because his consent followed an advisory that threatened enhanced criminal penalties for refusal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield requires remand/new trial because Mosley consented to a warrantless blood draw after being advised refusal could bring enhanced criminal penalties | Mosley: Birchfield undermines voluntariness of consent where police advisories suggested criminal penalties for refusal; consent was therefore tainted and requires reevaluation | Commonwealth: Mosley never preserved a suppression challenge below, so Birchfield should not be applied retroactively to his case | Court: Denied relief—because Mosley did not challenge voluntariness in the trial court, the new rule in Birchfield does not apply retroactively to his unpreserved claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding states may not impose criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless blood test and requiring reevaluation of consent when advisories are partially inaccurate)
- Commonwealth v. Tilley, 780 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2001) (new constitutional rules issued during direct appeal do not apply retroactively unless the issue was preserved at all stages below)
- Commonwealth v. Cabeza, 469 A.2d 146 (Pa. 1983) (preservation requirement for retroactive application of new rules)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendant must have raised and preserved the issue below to obtain retroactive application of a new constitutional rule)