Commonwealth v. Hoffman
123 A.3d 1065
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On Jan. 1, 2011 Michael Hoffman crashed his car while intoxicated in Philadelphia and refused a breath test; he had a prior DUI. He was convicted in municipal court as a second-offense DUI (refusal) and sentenced to 90 days–12 months.
- Hoffman successfully reinstated his appeal rights to the Court of Common Pleas and, after a de novo proceeding, entered an open guilty plea to second-offense DUI (refusal).
- At sentencing the CCP imposed the statutory mandatory minimum 90 days with immediate parole after 90 days; Hoffman requested house arrest or placement in an intermediate punishment program (IPP). The Commonwealth did not object to an IPP evaluation.
- Trial court believed it lacked authority to impose IPP/house arrest on a second-offense Tier III DUI because of the 90‑day mandatory minimum, but acknowledged Sarapa and statutory text could permit IPP after assessment.
- The Superior Court vacated and remanded for an IPP evaluation and resentencing, concluding Hoffman is eligible for IPP assessment and the sentencing court may exercise discretion whether to impose IPP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may order house arrest or county intermediate punishment (IPP) for a second‑offense Tier III DUI subject to a 90‑day mandatory minimum | Hoffman: Sarapa and the IPP statutes permit courts to impose IPP (including house arrest) for qualified DUI offenders despite the DUI statute's mandatory minimum, so he is eligible for IPP evaluation | Commonwealth/Trial Court: The 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804 mandatory minimum (90 days) precludes substituting IPP/house arrest for the required incarceration | Superior Court: Vacated and remanded — Hoffman is entitled to IPP assessment; court may then determine (in its discretion) whether IPP/house arrest is appropriate and resentence accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sarapa, 13 A.3d 961 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts may impose intermediate punishment for qualified DUI offenders under statutory scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Stotelmyer, 110 A.3d 146 (Pa. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles; interaction of mandatory minimums and sentencing alternatives)
- Commonwealth v. Jurczak, 86 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2014) (DUI offenders must undergo drug and alcohol assessment to qualify for IPP)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (purpose and discretion related to intermediate punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Arthur Williams, 868 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2005) (legislative purpose of IPP as sentencing option between probation and incarceration)