Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Prior ARD Cannot Be Used to Enhance DUI Sentences
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Prior ARD Cannot Be Used to Enhance DUI Sentences
Commonwealth v. Shifflett
Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire - Criminal Defense Attorney
In a significant decision for Pennsylvania DUI law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on May 30, 2025, that using a defendant's prior acceptance of the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program to enhance sentences for subsequent DUI offenses violates constitutional protections under United States Supreme Court precedent such as Alleyne v. United States.
The Facts of Shifflet
The defendant was charged with DUI in 2022. The Commonwealth sought to treat this as a second offense based on his 2012 participation in the ARD for a prior DUI charge. Under Pennsylvania law, a second DUI offense carries mandatory minimum penalties including at least five days imprisonment, compared to six months probation for a first offense. The penalty is often more severe than that depending on the defendant’s BAC or whether the defendant had drugs in their system.
The defendant challenged the use of his prior ARD as a sentencing enhancement, arguing it violated his constitutional rights because it was not an actual conviction. The trial court agreed and sentenced him as a first time offender. The Commonwealth appealed, and the Superior Court reversed. The Superior Court ordered that the defendant be resentenced as a second time offender. The defendant sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted allocatur.
The Issue on Appeal
The case centered on the application of Alleyne v. United States. In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court held that any fact which increases or triggers a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only exception is for prior convictions, which the Supreme Court has recognized need not be re-proven to a jury.
The critical question was therefore whether ARD acceptance falls within this "prior conviction exception."
The Court's Analysis
Chief Justice Todd, writing for the majority, held that ARD does not qualify as a prior conviction for several reasons:
ARD is Not a Conviction: The Court emphasized that ARD is explicitly a pre-trial diversion program where formal criminal proceedings are suspended. No conviction results from ARD acceptance.
No Constitutional Safeguards: Unlike criminal convictions, ARD proceedings lack fundamental protections:
No requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
No admission of guilt required from the defendant at all
No jury trial
No formal evidentiary proceedings
Limited confrontation rights
Not Equivalent to a Guilty Plea: The Court rejected arguments that ARD acceptance is similar to pleading guilty. Key differences include:
No guilty plea colloquy ensuring knowing and voluntary waiver of rights
No admission to the facts of the offense
No requirement that defendants be informed their ARD could enhance future sentences
Successful completion results in dismissal and expungement, not conviction
The Court's Holding
The Supreme Court therefore held that:
Using prior ARD acceptance to enhance DUI sentences without jury determination violates Alleyne
Section 3806 of the Motor Vehicle Code is facially unconstitutional insofar as it includes ARD in the definition of "prior offense"
The unconstitutional ARD provision is severable from the rest of Section 3806
The defendant was properly sentenced as a first offender
Implications for Pennsylvania DUI Defense
This decision has significant implications for DUI cases in Pennsylvania:
For Current Cases:
Defendants facing DUI charges who have prior ARD resolutions cannot be sentenced as repeat offenders, so they will typically be facing lower mandatory minimums and maximum sentences.
The Commonwealth must now prove any prior DUI convictions (not ARD) to enhance sentences
Defense attorneys should challenge any attempt to use ARD as a sentencing enhancement both for future DUI cases and for any other types of cases
For Past Cases:
Defendants sentenced as repeat offenders based solely on prior ARD may have grounds for an appeal or post-conviction relief if the case was recent
Those currently serving enhanced sentences should consult counsel about potential remedies
For Future ARD Decisions:
The decision removes a significant consequence of accepting ARD
Defendants can accept ARD without fear it will automatically enhance future sentences
This may make ARD a more attractive option for first-time offenders
What This Means for You
If you're facing DUI charges and have a prior ARD, this decision provides crucial protection against mandatory minimum sentences. The Commonwealth can no longer use your ARD acceptance as an easy path to enhanced penalties.
However, the Court left open the possibility that if the Commonwealth can prove the underlying facts of your prior DUI offense to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, enhancement might still be possible. This would require a much more complex and difficult process for prosecutors.
The Dissenting View
Three justices dissented, arguing that ARD acceptance involves a knowing waiver of rights and that the statute could be applied constitutionally in some circumstances. However, the majority's view prevails, providing strong protection for DUI defendants.
Bottom Line
Commonwealth v. Shifflett represents a major victory for constitutional protections in DUI cases. It ensures that the severe consequences of repeat offender status cannot be imposed based solely on prior participation in a diversionary program designed to help first-time offenders avoid criminal convictions.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
