Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck
151 A.3d 1088
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellee Alexis Popielarcheck pleaded guilty to two counts of second-offense DUI and related traffic offenses stemming from an August 28, 2014 incident; the DUI was a first-degree misdemeanor with a five-year statutory maximum.
- Appellee underwent the statutorily required addiction assessment under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3814 and was found “in need of additional treatment.”
- At sentencing the trial court exercised its discretion under the Sentencing Code to impose County Intermediate Punishment (CIP) for two years (120 days house arrest with electronic monitoring), rather than incarcerative minimums/maximums under the DUI statute.
- The Commonwealth moved post-sentence arguing (inter alia) the trial court was required to impose the statutory maximum (five years) under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(d) because the assessment found Appellee needed additional treatment.
- The trial court amended the sentence to correct the fine and add electronic monitoring, denied the Commonwealth’s request for a five-year maximum, and the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3804(d)’s mandatory maximum applies when defendant is assessed as needing additional treatment | § 3804(d) requires the judge to impose the statutorily available maximum if the initial assessment finds additional treatment is needed | Once court sentences a defendant to CIP under the Sentencing Code, § 3804(d)’s min/max provisions do not apply | The mandatory maximum in § 3804(d) applies only where defendant is sentenced "pursuant to" the DUI chapter; CIP is an alternative under the Sentencing Code, so § 3804(d) does not apply |
| Whether the sentence’s discretionary aspects were an abuse of discretion | The court abused discretion by imposing less than the statutory maximum and failing to ensure sufficient supervision/treatment | Sentencing court permissibly exercised discretion in selecting CIP to address rehabilitation/public safety | No substantial question shown; appellate court will not review the discretionary claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (recognizing CIP as an available sentencing alternative that can avoid DUI mandatory minimums)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 104 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2014) (explaining purpose of § 3804(d)’s maximum requirement is to ensure offenders complete needed treatment)
- Commonwealth v. Jurczak, 86 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2014) (rejecting local CIP scheme that unduly limited sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013) (statutory interpretation governed by plain language and plenary appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 962 A.2d 1160 (Pa. 2009) (applying statutory construction principles to discern legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (framework for assessing whether a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)