Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Popielarcheck, A.
190 A.3d 1137
| Pa. | 2018Background
- Alexis Popielarcheck was stopped for impaired driving in 2014; blood tests showed multiple controlled substances. She pleaded guilty in 2015 to two first‑degree misdemeanor DUI counts (second offense).
- Pre‑sentence drug/alcohol assessments recommended inpatient treatment; she completed a short inpatient program but had a poor prognosis and history of relapse.
- The trial court sentenced her to a two‑year county intermediate punishment (CIP) flat term (120 days house arrest then 20 months supervision) and awarded credit for time in treatment.
- The Commonwealth argued the Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(d)) required imposition of the statutorily available maximum (five years) when the assessment found need for further treatment.
- The Superior Court affirmed; the Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide whether section 3804(d)’s mandatory maximum applies when the court imposes a CIP sentence under the Sentencing Code (42 Pa.C.S. § 9763).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Popielarcheck) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(d) (Vehicle Code) requires imposition of the statutorily available maximum when a defendant assessed as needing further treatment is sentenced to CIP | § 3804(d) applies regardless of whether sentencing is under the Sentencing Code; no statutory language permits bypassing § 3804(d)’s mandatory maximum | § 3804(d) applies only when a defendant is sentenced pursuant to Chapter 38 (total confinement minimum‑maximum); CIP is a determinate flat term under Chapter 97 so § 3804(d) does not apply | The Supreme Court held § 3804(d) does not apply to CIP sentences; the Sentencing Code and Vehicle Code provide independent, alternative schemes and the trial court properly imposed a two‑year CIP term |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cullen‑Doyle, 164 A.3d 1239 (Pa. 2017) (standard of review for statutory interpretation; plenary review)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 104 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2014) (purpose of § 3804(d) is to extend parole authority to ensure completion of treatment for total confinement sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 14 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2011) (use plain statutory language to ascertain legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 164 A.3d 503 (Pa. Super. 2017) (CIP sentences are determinate flat terms and do not include minimum‑maximum structure)
- Commonwealth v. Kleinicke, 895 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2006) (contrast indeterminate minimum‑maximum sentencing with determinate flat sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (CIP created as intermediate option between probation and incarceration to address treatment and jail overcrowding)