200 A.3d 51
Pa.2019Background
- On July 17, 2015, police investigated reports that Samuel Monarch drove intoxicated; officers observed indicia of intoxication and asked him to submit to field sobriety, breath, and blood testing; he refused chemical testing and was arrested.
- Monarch was tried and convicted of DUI and endangering the welfare of a child; the jury specifically found he "did refuse testing of blood."
- Under the then-operative statutes, Monarch’s refusal to submit to blood or breath testing triggered an enhanced gradation and a mandatory minimum one-year sentence for repeat offenders.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016), Monarch raised on appeal that enhanced penalties based on refusal of warrantless blood testing are unconstitutional.
- The Superior Court held Birchfield invalidated enhanced penalties only for blood refusals but deemed Monarch’s sentence valid because he also refused breath testing; Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the enhanced mandatory minimum based on refusal of a warrantless blood draw is unconstitutional under Birchfield and that the jury never found a breath-refusal fact required to impose an enhanced minimum (Alleyne), so the sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enhanced penalties based on refusal of warrantless blood testing are constitutional | Monarch: Birchfield makes such enhancements unconstitutional and the claim is nonwaivable because it implicates legality of sentence | Commonwealth: Birchfield not retroactive to deny relief if defendant also refused breath testing; sentence valid on breath-refusal basis | Held unconstitutional when based on refusal of warrantless blood test; sentence vacated and remanded |
| Whether Monarch waived his Birchfield claim by failing to raise it at trial | Monarch: Claim is nonwaivable because it implicates legality of sentence; Barnes supports direct review | Commonwealth: Claim was not preserved; Birchfield should not apply retroactively | Held nonwaivable; appellate review permitted because it implicates sentence legality |
| Whether the Superior Court could rely on defendant’s alleged breath-refusal to salvage the enhanced sentence | Monarch: Breath-refusal is inseparable from blood-refusal and record does not show a knowing, voluntary breath refusal | Commonwealth: Sentence stands because defendant also refused breath testing and Birchfield permits penalties for breath refusals | Held Alleyne requires any fact that raises mandatory minimums (breath refusal) be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; jury did not find breath refusal, so sentence cannot rest on it |
| Remedy for unconstitutional enhancement | Monarch: Vacatur of enhanced mandatory minimum and remand for resentencing without the enhancement | Commonwealth: Remand only unnecessary if independent basis supports enhancement | Held vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing without the blood-refusal enhancement; cannot rely on unsubmitted breath-refusal fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible incident to arrest; warrantless blood tests impermissible and criminalizing refusal to blood tests unconstitutional)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (illegal mandatory-minimum sentencing authority renders sentence an illegal sentence for preservation purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (discussing Alleyne and jury-finding requirement for facts that increase mandatory minimums)