Com. v. Stanford, J.
3508 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- John Stanford (identifies as Robert Waller) was convicted in Philadelphia Municipal Court of driving under the influence of marijuana and appealed for a trial de novo to the Court of Common Pleas.
- Stanford failed to appear for the de novo trial; the Common Pleas dismissed his appeal and entered a new judgment of sentence under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1010(B).
- Stanford challenged the admissibility of blood-test evidence, arguing his consent was involuntary under Birchfield v. North Dakota because police warned of penalties for refusing a blood draw.
- At the time of the stop, Pennsylvania law imposed enhanced penalties for drivers who refused a blood draw and were later convicted of DUI (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804), a warning similar to the one held problematic in Birchfield.
- The Superior Court recognized that Birchfield announced a new rule applying to cases pending on direct review but held that issues must be preserved at all stages to be raised on appeal; Stanford did not raise the consent challenge below via a new-trial motion.
- Because Stanford did not preserve the suppression/consent claim in the trial court, and he was not challenging the legality of his sentence, the Superior Court deemed the claim waived and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stanford's consent to a blood draw was involuntary under Birchfield | Stanford: Officer’s warning of penalties rendered consent involuntary under Birchfield | Commonwealth: Issue waived because Stanford failed to raise consent challenge in trial court/new-trial motion; sentence legality not implicated | Waived for appeal; judgment affirmed |
| Whether Birchfield’s new rule applies retroactively to cases on direct review | Stanford: Birchfield governs and requires suppression rehearing | Commonwealth: Even if Birchfield is retroactive, preservation requirement applies | New-rule retroactivity acknowledged, but preservation required; not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding motorists cannot be criminally punished for refusing a blood test and consent warnings tied to penalties can render consent involuntary)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (new rules apply to cases pending on direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applied Birchfield to Pennsylvania DUI context and remanded for reevaluation of consent)
- Commonwealth v. Tilley, 780 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2001) (issues must be preserved at all stages for new rules to apply on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (exception to preservation exists for legality-of-sentence challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 146 A.3d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2016) (failure to raise consent/suppression below waives the claim on appeal)