Commonwealth v. Jurczak
86 A.3d 265
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Commonwealth appeals after jury convicted Jurczak of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(3), possession of a small amount of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia; also convicted of violating stop-sign yield-sign statute.
- Trial court sentenced Jurczak to 100 hours of community service, $1,725 in fines, and County Intermediate Punishment (CIP) consisting of 90 days of house arrest with GPS/alcohol monitoring plus nine months of probation.
- Greene County CIP Plan purportedly required DUI offenders to serve at least one-third of mandatory incarceration before becoming eligible for CIP electronic monitoring.
- Jurczak underwent a drug/alcohol assessment; it found no treatment need, leaving CIP eligibility restricted to house arrest, partial confinement, or combinations thereof.
- The Commonwealth argues the Greene County plan creates an illegal sentence; the court held the plan impermissible and affirmed the sentence as proper under the CIP Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greene County plan improperly precludes CIP eligibility for DUI offenders. | Commonwealth contends plan requires one-third confinement before CIP eligibility, violating CIP Act. | Jurczak argues plan is consistent with local policy and not mandated by statute. | Plan impermissibly bars CIP eligibility; sentence upheld. |
| Whether the trial court could impose CIP house arrest where DUI offender is not in treatment. | Commonwealth asserts CIP plan complies with statutory sequence and allocation. | Jurczak argues statute limits to house arrest/partial confinement and does not require total confinement prior to CIP. | Trial court properly sentenced within statutory options; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (confirms CIP is a sentencing option between probation and incarceration)
- Sarapa, 13 A.3d 961 (Pa. Super. 2011) ( county may not bar DUI offenders from CIP; eligibility cannot be altered by county plan)
- Arest, 734 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 1999) (pre-amendment CIP statute required treatment; invalidates incompatible sentences)
- Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (illegal sentence when no statutory authorization for the sentence exists)
- DiMauro, 642 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. 1994) (CIP eligibility and sentencing discretion principles)
- Syno, 791 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 2002) (CIP eligibility; county department cannot deny CIP contrary to statute)