Commonwealth v. Mobley
14 A.3d 887
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Mobley was convicted of two counts of DUI-general impairment under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) after a June 1, 2008 stop for failing to stop at a stop sign and evident odor of alcohol.
- Officer Johnson observed alcohol odor, disoriented demeanor, and collected a failed stop sign, slow speech, and inability to provide license.
- Backup Officer Nicols administered four field sobriety tests, all of which Mobley failed; Mobley refused the chemical test citing fear of needles.
- The trial court convicted Mobley on both DUI counts; sentencing included six months probation and ten days of intermediate punishment.
- The Commonwealth charged two counts with one alleging BAC refusal; the court later held a refusal is not an element of DUI general impairment and discussed proper charging and sentencing structure.
- This appeal concerns sufficiency of evidence to prove incapable of safe driving and the proper treatment of BAC test refusal under the DUI framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove incapacity to drive safely? | Mobley asserts no unsafe driving shown. | Mobley contends the State failed to prove unsafe driving despite DUI. | Yes; evidence including failed tests and odor supported incapacity. |
| Whether charging two DUI counts including a BAC-refusal count was proper or duplicative | Duplication potentially results from two identical offenses. | Conviction on both counts not barred if properly structured and not sentenced on both. | Affirmed; no double jeopardy since no sentence on both counts and refusal affects punishment, not guilt. |
| Whether BAC refusal affects guilt or only punishment | Refusal could elevate grading or sentencing. | Refusal is not an element of guilt; it affects penalties. | Refusal is civil in nature; does not alter guilt but can enhance punishment under §3804. |
| Appellate handling of Apprendi/Blakely lines in this context | Enhancements based on refusal may implicate Apprendi. | No Apprendi issue since the trial court found no entitlement to enhanced maximum for this case’s facts. | Not implicated; refusal did not increase the maximum (no prior offenses); enhancements remain civil in nature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mollett, 5 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sufficiency may be proven by circumstantial evidence; DUI general impairment)
- Commonwealth v. O'Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa. 1989) (breath/blood test refusals are civil proceedings; no Miranda warnings)
- Commonwealth v. Booth, 766 A.2d 843 (Pa. 2001) (statutory interpretation to ascertain legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Dellisanti, 876 A.2d 366 (Pa. 2005) (statutory construction: plain language governs when unambiguous)
- Commonwealth v. Shamsud-Din, 995 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 2010) (charges on DUI where testing refusals discussed; jurisdictional point)
- Commonwealth v. Aponte, 855 A.2d 800 (Pa. 2004) (Apprendi line; refusals and sentencing enhancements)
- Commonwealth v. Reagan, 502 A.2d 702 (Pa. Super. 1985) (double jeopardy and sentencing considerations in DUI context)
- Commonwealth v. Kearns, 907 A.2d 649 (Pa. Super. 2006) (DUI sentencing and refusal issues)
- Commonwealth v. Kleinicke, 895 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Apprendi considerations in DUI context)