Commonwealth v. Dennis
164 A.3d 503
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Robert Louis Dennis pleaded guilty to one count of DUI (first-degree misdemeanor) and driving without a license; sentencing was scheduled for October 27, 2015.
- Pre-sentencing requirements: a Court Reporting Network (CRN) evaluation and a full drug/alcohol assessment under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3814; Dennis qualified for a full assessment due to prior DUI and a BAC of .268% (> .16%).
- Dennis complied with the CRN evaluation but could not pay the assessor’s $100 upfront fee for the full assessment; Allegheny County providers required advance payment, while in-jail assessments are paid via court costs.
- The trial court refused to waive or defer the fee, rejected adding it to court costs, revoked Dennis’s bond, and remanded him to jail so the county could perform the assessment without upfront payment; Dennis was jailed ~15 days while the assessment was completed.
- At sentencing the court credited Dennis for time served, imposed 90 days house arrest and 18 months probation, and Dennis appealed challenging the pre-sentencing incarceration for nonpayment as violating statute and constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Dennis's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is moot because Dennis received credit for time served | Not moot; policy requiring upfront fee likely to recur and apt to elude review | Moot because Dennis was released and received credit | Not moot — court exercises review under repetition/avoidance principle |
| Whether court lawfully jailed Dennis pre-sentencing for inability to pay $100 assessment fee required under § 3814 | Court lacked authority to incarcerate for nonpayment without finding defendant able to pay; statute and due process/ equal protection implicated | Court acted within authority; Dennis waived claim by agreeing to jail | Error of law: trial court lacked statutory authority to incarcerate for nonpayment absent ability-to-pay hearing; did not reach constitutional claims |
| Whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 706’s ability-to-pay protections apply pre-sentencing when court requires upfront payment | Rule’s protections should extend pre-sentencing; incarcerating indigent for fee is repugnant to justice | Rule applies to sentencing context only; court relied on local policy | Court: although Rule 706 literally applies post-sentencing, its protections must be observed pre-sentencing before incarcerating a defendant for nonpayment; trial court erred by not following those procedures |
| Legality of the sentence (whether § 3804(d) required maximum five-year exposure) | Dennis/ Commonwealth argued sentence as imposed was illegal if court intended indeterminate house-arrest up to statutory max | Trial court contended § 3804(d) required imposing statutory maximum when assessment called for more treatment | Sentence was legal: § 3804(d) applies only to total confinement; intermediate punishment/house arrest requires a definite term, so court’s definite house-arrest sentence was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 104 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2014) (county obligated to ensure availability of required DUI assessments and sentencing must await completion)
- Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 874 A.2d 623 (Pa. 2005) (courts should avoid constitutional questions by construing statutes where possible)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (incarceration for failure to pay revocation of probation requires inquiry into ability to pay; unequal treatment based on wealth violates Due Process/Equal Protection principles)
- Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40 (1967) (indigent defendants are entitled to necessary instruments to vindicate legal rights; access to justice cannot depend on wealth)
- Pa.R.Crim.P. 706 cited via authority in opinion (procedural rule requiring ability-to-pay hearing before incarcerating for costs — discussed though not a case)
- Commonwealth v. Pinko, 811 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super. 2002) (intermediate punishment requires definite term; no minimum/maximum indeterminate term like total confinement)
- Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 1088 (Pa.Super. 2016) (§ 3804(d)’s mandatory maximum applies only where total confinement is imposed)
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa.Super. 2002) (mootness doctrine and exceptions where issues are capable of repetition yet evade review)