Commonwealth v. Taylor, T., Aplt.
104 A.3d 479
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Terry Lee Taylor pled guilty to a second-offense DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(b)) and faced a 30-day to 3-month standard minimum range (statutory maximum 6 months).
- 75 Pa.C.S. § 3814 requires DUI offenders to undergo evaluations prior to sentencing; § 3814(2) mandates a full drug/alcohol Assessment before sentencing for offenders with certain criteria (e.g., a prior DUI within 10 years).
- The sentencing court proceeded without a § 3814(2) Assessment, denied Taylor’s request for intermediate punishment, imposed 45 days to 6 months, and ordered a post-sentence Assessment.
- Taylor appealed arguing the presentence Assessment was mandatory and that sentencing without it made the sentence illegal; the Superior Court affirmed, reasoning the sentence remained within the statutory range and thus not illegal.
- The Supreme Court granted allocatur to resolve whether § 3814(2) Assessment is a mandatory presentence requirement, whether it can be waived by the defendant, and whether sentencing without it implicates sentence legality.
- The Supreme Court held the Assessment is a mandatory presentence component of the DUI sentencing scheme; because Taylor could not obtain an Assessment (county had no mechanism), he did not waive it. Court vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing after compliance with §§ 3814, 3815, and 3804.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing may occur prior to completion of a § 3814(2) full Assessment | § 3814(2) requires the Assessment prior to sentencing; sentencing without it is impermissible | If sentence is within statutory range, lack of Assessment does not make sentence illegal; Assessment results would not necessarily change sentence | A sentencing court has no authority to sentence a qualifying DUI offender prior to completion of the § 3814(2) Assessment |
| Whether § 3814 is a mandatory presentence requirement or optional | § 3814’s language (“apply prior to sentencing,” use of “shall”) shows the Assessment is mandatory and intended to inform sentencing | The Assessment is an informational tool; sentencing discretion remains and statute does not render assessment mandatory for sentence validity | § 3814(2) is mandatory and part of the Legislature’s sentencing scheme; the Assessment must be completed and considered before sentencing |
| Whether a defendant can waive the § 3814(2) Assessment by failing to obtain one | Defendant cannot waive a statutory, mandatory component of the sentencing scheme any more than he can waive mandatory minimums | A defendant can forfeit or waive if he has opportunity to obtain the Assessment and fails to do so | Where the county provided no mechanism and the defendant had no realistic ability to obtain an Assessment, Taylor did not waive the requirement; waiver not recognized under these facts |
| Whether sentencing without the Assessment implicates the legality of the sentence | Sentence imposed absent mandatory statutory prerequisite is illegal even if within statutory range | Because the sentence was within the statutory range, it is not illegal; issue is discretionary, not legality | The failure to follow the Legislature’s mandatory sequential sentencing scheme implicates sentence legality despite the sentence falling within the statutory range |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (holding § 3814 Assessment must occur before sentencing; vacating sentence imposed without presentence Assessment)
- Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa.) (example of sentence illegality where mandatory sentence exceeded lawful maximum)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa.) (discussing distinction between sentencing error and sentence illegality)
- Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268 (Pa.) (treating legality/discretionary sentencing questions as pure questions of law)