Commonwealth v. Farrow
168 A.3d 207
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Early morning June 22, 2014, Farrow drove a red vehicle that struck two parked cars and fled; officers found her near a damaged red car about a quarter mile away appearing intoxicated. She became combative and refused breath test at station.
- Commonwealth charged Farrow with three counts of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) (one count including refusal enhancement § 3804(c), one including accident/property-damage enhancement § 3804(b)) and one summary unattended-vehicle offense.
- Nonjury trial resulted in convictions on all counts. At sentencing the court imposed a short jail term and probation on count one; entered “guilty without further penalty” at counts two and three; and sentenced on the summary count. No post-sentence motion was filed.
- On appeal Farrow argued the multiple DUI convictions/sentences violated double jeopardy because § 3804 enhancements are sentencing factors, not separate offenses. She sought vacatur of two of the three DUI convictions.
- The Superior Court treated the “guilty without further penalty” entries as sentences for double jeopardy analysis, concluded multiple convictions/sentences for the same § 3802(a)(1) act were impermissible, vacated convictions/sentences at counts one and two, affirmed conviction at count three but vacated its sentence and remanded for resentencing, and affirmed the summary count.
Issues
| Issue | Farrow's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convicting and entering sentences (including "guilty without further penalty") on multiple § 3802(a)(1) counts arising from the same act violates double jeopardy | Multiple convictions/sentences impermissible because § 3804 enhancements are sentencing factors, not separate crimes; two convictions should be vacated | Alleyne/Apprendi require notice of enhancement facts; charging separate counts (or enhancement as elements) is necessary; separate convictions permissible if enhancements are treated as elements | Court held multiple convictions/sentences violated double jeopardy where a single § 3802(a)(1) act produced multiple convictions and the court entered "guilty without further penalty" (treated as sentences); vacated counts one and two, and vacated sentence at count three and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether § 3804 penalty enhancements are elements (requiring separate allegation) or sentencing factors | § 3804 sets mandatory penalties (sentencing scheme), not separate substantive offenses; thus should not be charged as separate counts | Enhancements can be viewed as elements for Alleyne/Apprendi purposes; Commonwealth must give notice, which can be done by separate counts | Court recognized Alleyne obligations but concluded § 3804 enhancements are sentencing factors and charging identical § 3802 counts with separate enhancements can generate double jeopardy problems; recommended single § 3802 count with enhancements pled as subparts |
| Whether Ball v. United States requires vacatur of duplicate convictions under Pennsylvania law | Analogizing to Ball: duplicate convictions (even without extra punishment) cause collateral consequences and must be vacated | Pennsylvania double jeopardy jurisprudence focuses on multiple punishments, not mere convictions; Ball not applied in Pa. | Court declined to adopt Ball wholesale but accepted that "guilty without further penalty" is a sentence under Pa. law and can create impermissible multiple punishments; vacatur appropriate here |
| Preservation: whether issue waived for failure to object before trial court | Issue may be raised as legality of sentence/double jeopardy and is not waivable | Issue waived if not preserved below | Court ruled claim implicated legality of sentence/double jeopardy merger principles and therefore could be raised on appeal (not waived) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985) (vacated duplicate convictions where one offense subsumed the other; separate conviction has independent collateral consequences)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing prescribed penalty range are elements that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory minimum-relevant facts must be submitted to the factfinder and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2011) (§ 3804 enhancements are penalty provisions; cautioned against charging duplicate § 3802 counts to allege enhancements)
- Commonwealth v. Langley, 145 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. 2016) (upheld charging one DUI count that included notice of multiple § 3804 enhancements)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (refusal to submit to a blood test cannot always be punished absent consent or warrant; limits on enhanced penalties for blood-test refusal)