186 A.3d 1036
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Becker was convicted of a DUI (prior offense) in October 2012 and had a one-year license suspension that he did not appeal; his license was restored December 17, 2013.
- Becker was charged with a second DUI (underlying offense) committed November 6, 2011, but was not convicted of that underlying offense until August 28, 2015.
- Section 3804(e)(2)(iii) of the Vehicle Code creates an exception to mandatory suspension for an ungraded misdemeanor DUI where the person is subject to section 3804(a) penalties and has "no prior offense." Whether Becker fit that exception turned on whether he had a “prior offense” as defined by section 3806(b).
- Former section 3806(b) (in effect when both offenses were committed) calculated priors by reference to convictions within ten years before the present violation occurred; Act 2014-189 amended section 3806(b) to count convictions within ten years before sentencing on the present violation and stated it applies to persons sentenced on or after December 26, 2014.
- The Department applied the amended (new) section 3806(b) because Becker was sentenced after the effective date, concluded his 2011 DUI was a prior offense, and imposed a one-year suspension; Becker appealed arguing improper retroactive application and an ex post facto violation.
Issues
| Issue | Becker's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new §3806(b) may be applied when the underlying offense was committed before amendment but sentencing occurred after effective date | New §3806(b) is retroactive; Former §3806(b) should govern because both offenses occurred before the amendment | New §3806(b) expressly applies to persons sentenced on/after Dec. 26, 2014, so it applies to Becker because his sentencing was after that date | Court held new §3806(b) properly applied because the statutory trigger is sentencing date, not date of commission |
| Whether applying new §3806(b) and imposing suspension violates ex post facto clauses | Application increases punishment retroactively and is unconstitutional | Suspension is a civil consequence, not criminal punishment; ex post facto not implicated | Court held ex post facto challenge fails because license suspension is civil, not punitive |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Commonwealth, 922 A.2d 17 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (statute does not operate retrospectively merely because some facts predate enactment)
- Gehris v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 369 A.2d 1271 (Pa. 1977) (definition of retroactive law and when application is retrospective)
- Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003) (ex post facto inquiry asks whether civil disability constitutes punishment)
- Boseman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (DUI license suspensions are civil in nature, not criminal punishment)