SUPREME COURT HELD PARTICIPATION IN ARD CANNOT BE USED AS A PRIOR OFFENSE FOR SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES UNLESS PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AT TRIAL
- cliff9266
- 16 hours ago
- 2 min read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. GEORGE THOMAS SHIFFLETT, decided on May 30, 2025, stated that “[i]n this discretionary appeal, we consider whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), it was unconstitutional for the trial court to consider Appellant Thomas Shifflett’s previous acceptance of accelerated rehabilitative disposition (“ARD”) for an offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs as a prior offense for sentencing purposes. For the reasons below, we answer this question in the affirmative, and, thus, reverse the Superior Court’s order.”
In short, the Commonwealth cannot use a prior ARD admission unless they take it to trial and prove it as an offense, merely accepting the ARD cannot be an automatic offense for sentencing enhancement. The Court stated "[n]or, in our view, can a defendant’s previous acceptance of ARD reasonably be equated to a prior conviction for purposes of sentencing enhancement."
"In sum, because acceptance into an ARD program does not offer a defendant any of the constitutional safeguards that accompany either a criminal conviction or a guilty plea proceeding, safeguards on which the Supreme Court’s recognition of a prior conviction exception in Apprendi and Alleyne was based, we conclude that a defendant’s previous acceptance of ARD, on its own, does not fall within the prior conviction exception contemplated in Apprendi and Alleyne. Thus, an individual’s previous acceptance of ARD, which, when construed as a prior offense under Section 3806 to increase the penalty for a subsequent conviction pursuant to Section 3804, is a fact that must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
"Thus, as Section 3806 allows a defendant’s previous acceptance of ARD to be used as a basis for an enhanced sentence under Section 3804, in contravention of Apprendi and Alleyne, we hold that it is facially unconstitutional. Nevertheless, we conclude that ARD may be severed from the remainder of the definition of “prior offense” in Section 3806."
If you or someone you know has been admitted into the ARD program and subsequently charged with a second offense DUI contact Bidlingmaier & Bidlingmaier for your free consultation.
Σχόλια