COMMONWEALTH оf Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. William Jesse RANDAL, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted June 23, 2003. Filed Dec. 1, 2003.
837 A.2d 1211
Michael W. Streily, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for Com., appellee.
BEFORE: DEL SOLE, P.J., JOHNSON, HUDOCK, MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES and GRACI, JJ.
OPINION BY BENDER, J.:
¶ 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed upon William Jesse Randal (Appellant) after he pled guilty to two counts of Driving Under the Influence (DUI),
¶ 2 On October 4, 2000, Appellant was sentenced on the first DUI count to serve a period of incarceration of not less than thirty days nor more than two years, less one day. No further penalty was imposed for the seсond DUI count. On the RSP count, Appellant was sentenced to a two-year period of probation, consecutive to the sentence on the first DUI count. For the summary offense, the court imposed a fine. Additionally, pursuant to Act 63,2 the sentencing court ordered Appellant “to have installed an approvеd ignition interlock device on each and every vehicle owned or registered in [Appellant‘s] name. This portion of the sentencing order is to take effect upon the restoration of [Appellant‘s] operating privileges by the Department of Transportation.” Trial Court Order, 10/4/00.
¶ 3 On October 16, 2000, Appellant filed а Petition to Modify Sentence, alleging, inter alia, that Act 63 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Consequently, Appellant requested that the sentencing court vacate the requirement that he use the ignition interlock system. Appellant‘s Petition to Modify Sentence was denied on February 12, 2001, and he filed a timely notice оf appeal to this Court. Appellant‘s appeal was consolidated with two other appeals, Commonwealth v. Harris, 521 WDA 2001, and Commonwealth v. McManus, 479 WDA 2001, both of which also raised constitutional issues with regard to Act 63. Initially, a panel decision was entered affirming the judgments of sentence in the three cases. However, that decision was withdrawn and on October 29, 2002, this Cоurt granted reargument en banc.
¶ 4 Contemporaneously with our en banc review in the instant case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was also entertaining cases that involved the constitutionality of Act 63. In Mockaitis, the Supreme Court reasoned that:
Act 63‘s delegation to the judiciary of the executive function necessary to effectuate issuance of an ignition interlock restricted license—i.e., ordering installatiоn of the interlock system(s) as a condition to applying to the Department for a restricted license, verifying compliance, and apprising the Department of the court‘s determinations—impermissibly violates the separation of powers doctrine.
Id. at 499. The Court went on to hold that this improper delegation оf executive responsibility to the judiciary was unconstitutional.
In summary, we hold that the provisions of Act 63 which delegate to the courts the executive responsibility, more properly vested in the Department of Transportation, of regulating whether and when repeat DUI offenders are entitled to conditional restоration of their operating privileges, are unconstitutional, but severable. Accordingly, those provisions are invalidated. The remaining provisions of Act 63 still authorize the Department to impose an ignition interlock restriction upon serial DUI offenders who seek restoration of their operating privileges at thе expiration of the one-year mandatory suspension of their licenses, and the Commonwealth has
Id. at 503-04. In short, the Supreme Court determined that subsections 7002(b), 7003(1), and 7003(5) of Act 63 were unconstitutional, but severable from the remainder of the Act, leaving DUI offenders, who seek restoration of their driving privileges, to apply to the Deрartment for an ignition interlock restricted license as required by
¶ 5 Also with regard to any equal protection arguments,3 the Mockaitis court “offered no view on the merits of these claims because it is apparent that, with the constitutionally infirm provisions removed from the Act, the bases for these challenges disappear.” Id. at 503. The Supreme Court recognized that these equal protection challenges could recur, but that the proper point in time to address these issues would be when a serial DUI offender would be aggrieved “by an actual determination made by the Department in enforcing the remaining provisions of the Act, [in] the administrative setting....” Id. at 503.
¶ 6 Here, in the context of allegations of ineffectiveness of trial counsel,4 Appellant argues that Act 63 violates the equal protection provisions, and the due process and ex post facto protections of both the federal and state constitutions.5
Because the portions of Act 63, which required the sentencing court to order the installation of the ignition interlock system, verify compliance, and certify the installation to the Department, have been found unconstitutional in Mockaitis, we are obligated to correct the sentence imposed upon Appellant.6
¶ 7 Our Court‘s “authority to review a sentence is governed by
¶ 8 In light of the decision in Mockaitis, it is clear that a sentencing court does not have the statutory authority to impose the requirement that a DUI offender install an approved ignition interlock system(s) on his or her motor vehicle(s). Accordingly, withоut that authority, we conclude that the sentencing court imposed what amounts to an illegal sentence, which we hereby vacate to the extent that Appellant‘s sentence imposes the requirement that Appellant install an ignition interlock system on all vehicles that he owns. Because we may amend a sentence directly, Commonwealth v. Huckleberry, 429 Pa.Super. 146, 631 A.2d 1329, 1334 (1993), we need not remand for any revisions to Appellant‘s sentence.
¶ 9 Judgment of sentence imposing the installation of the ignition interlock system is vacated. Judgment of sentence in all other respects is affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
¶ 10 Judge GRACI files a Concurring Statement.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY GRACI, J.:
¶ 1 I join the disposition of the majority and its opinion except for footnote 4. In
¶ 2 I write separately also to express my understanding of the majority‘s reliance on Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203 (Pa.Super.1998) (en banc), for the proposition that “[a]n illegal sentence can never be waived and may be reviewed sua sponte by this Court.” Opinion, at 1214.
¶ 3 I agree with the validity of this statement in the procedural posture of this case as it is before us in a timely direct appeal from a judgment of sentence. We explained Archer in Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa.Super.2001), saying, “[s]o long as jurisdictional requirements аre met, ‘[a]n illegal sentence can never be waived and may be reviewed sua sponte by this court.’ Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa.Super.1998).” In Edrington, we also directed the reader to “[s]ee generally Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214 (1999) (holding legality of sentence issue must give way to jurisdictional time limits.).” Edrington, 780 A.2d at 723. We further explained that challenges to the legality of a sentence “can be raised sua sponte by this Court, where our jurisdiction is firm.” Id. (citation omitted).
¶ 4 Here, there is no question that our jurisdiction is firm to decide this timely filеd direct appeal. Accordingly, since we can raise this issue concerning the legality of the imposition of the ignition interlock sentence sua sponte, it is inconsequential that Appellant raised it in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. Edrington, 780 A.2d at 723 (court considered challenge to the legality of sentenсe on Commonwealth‘s appeal despite fact that Commonwealth failed to file a court-ordered statement of matters complained of on appeal since court could (and did) consider legality of sentence sua sponte).
¶ 5 I am concerned, however, at the breadth of the statement by the majority that “an illegal sentence can never be waived” as it no longer has any currency, in my view, in the context of post conviction collateral appeals under the Post Conviction Relief Act,
¶ 6 There is to be sure, authority for the proposition that claims of illegality of sentence can never be waived. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Diamond, 376 Pa.Super. 485, 546 A.2d 628, 631 n. 3 (1988) (citing Commonwealth v. Fulton, 315 Pa.Super. 420, 462 A.2d 265, 266 n. 4 (1983)). These cases, of course, predate the 1995 amendments to the PCRA which added the jurisdictional time limit to such proceedings. Subsequent to those amendments our Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that “[a]lthough legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA‘s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (1999) (citation omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502, 503 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Fahy and stating that “[e]ven within the PCRA, the time limits described in
¶ 7 Edrington, as noted above, recognized this change in the law by noting that “jurisdictional requirements” had to be met to raise a challenge to the legality of sentence. Id., at 723. That was clearly the import of Edrington‘s citation to Fahy after its citation to Archer as holding that a “legality of sentence issue must give way to jurisdictional time limits.” Edrington, at 723.
¶ 8 Here, of course, there is no jurisdictiоnal problem since this direct appeal from the judgment of sentence was timely perfected. Accordingly, since we could address the issue sua sponte, it matters not that the issue was raised on direct appeal in the context of a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel.
¶ 9 With these thoughts, I join the majority.
Notes
Act 63 defines an “ignition interlock system” as: “A system approved by the [D]epartment [of Transportation] that prevents a vehicle from being started or operated unless the operator first provides a breath sample indicating that the operator has an alcohol level of less than .025%.”
focused on two “arbitrary classifications” it detected in the Act: (1) a classification which discriminates against lessees and other non-owners of motor vehicles because the Act allegedly renders them incapable of securing an interlock restricted license since the trial court cannot certify that they have installed devices on owned vehicles; and (2) a classification which allegedly discriminates against owners of multiple vehicles, by requiring them to install the devices on all owned vehicles.
Because the ignition interlock requirement was an appropriate part of the court‘s initial sentencing order under the terms of Act 63, there is no jurisdictional impediment to the court‘s entertaining a challenge to the constitutionality of the Act via a post-sentence motion. The Commonwealth‘s argument might have more force if Act 63 had vested executive and compliance responsibilitiеs in the Department, rather than the court. But, the court unquestionably was competent to rule upon a controversy involving the very statute under which it had acted. This is so regardless of whether the ignition interlock requirement, viewed in isolation, is more like a collateral civil consequence of the serial DUI offense than a “penalty.” The Commonwealth‘s “jurisdictional” complaint, in reality, implicates a mere procedural question concerning the preferred method of challenge. In this regard, we note, as the trial court did, that “[t]here is nothing abstract about the prohibition contained in the sentencing order.” Rather, that initial order, which effectuated the explicit directives of the statute, erected a condition precedent to restoration of appellee‘s license. Accordingly, the court had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge at the post-sentence stage.
Id. at 496 (emphasis in original).