J-S66044-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

JOHN ROBERT HILTZ, :

:

Appellee : No. 584 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on February 28, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,

Criminal Division, No. CP-67-CR-0006856-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered following the open guilty plea of John Robert Hiltz (“Hiltz”) 

to driving under the influence of alcohol (second offense) (“DUI”), with 

refusal to submit to chemical testing.1 The Commonwealth disputes the trial 

court’s reliance upon this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Musau, 69 

A.3d 754 (Pa. Super. 2013), in which we interpreted 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3803 as 

providing a six-month maximum sentence for a second DUI offense with 

refusal to submit to chemical testing. See Musau, 69 A.3d at 758. 

The Commonwealth claims that the trial court improperly relied upon 

Musau, arguing that this Court’s most recent interpretation of section 3803 

provides for a five-year statutory maximum sentence. Brief for the 

 

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1), (b)(4). 
J-S66044-14

- 2 -

Commonwealth at 9 (citing Commonwealth v. Barr, 79 A.3d 668, 674 (Pa. 

Super. 2013)). The Commonwealth asserts that the grading of the offense 

is governed by 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3803, “and constitutes a Misdemeanor 1 

graded offense with a sentencing mandatory minimum of 90 days, and a 

statutory maximum sentence of five years.” Brief for the Commonwealth at 

9. Further, the Commonwealth contends that this Court’s subsequent 

decision in Commonwealth v. Barr, 79 A.3d 668 (Pa. Super. 2013),

controls.2 Brief for the Commonwealth at 9-10. 

The Commonwealth’s argument implicates the legality of Hiltz’s 

sentence and thus is appealable as of right. Commonwealth v. Grow, 

2015 PA Super 186, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 510, at *3 (en banc). As such, 

our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Id.

 

2

In Barr, a panel of this Court held that an appellant’s refusal to submit to 

chemical testing 

increased the grade of Appellant’s second DUI conviction from an 

ungraded misdemeanor to a misdemeanor of the first degree. 

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3803(b)(4). The jury’s “refusal” determination 

also increased Appellant’s statutory maximum penalty from six 

months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment and increased 

Appellant’s mandatory minimum penalty from 30 days in jail to 

90 days in jail. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3803(b)(1) and 3804(c)(2); 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 1104(1) (prescribing the statutory maximum for 

misdemeanors).

Barr, 79 A.3d at 674. 
J-S66044-14

- 3 -

Our review of the record discloses that the trial court sentenced Hiltz 

pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3803(a)(1), as in effect at the time of Hiltz’s 

sentencing. At that time, section 3803 provided, in relevant part, as follows:

§ 3803. Grading

(a) Basic offenses. –

Notwithstanding the provisions of section (b):

(1) An individual who violates section 3802(a) (relating to 

driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance) 

and has no more than one prior offense commits a 

misdemeanor for which the individual may be sentenced to 

a term of imprisonment of not more than six months and 

pay a fine under section 3804 (relating to penalties).

***

(b) Other offenses.

***

(4) An individual who violates section 3802(a)(1) where the 

individual refused testing of blood or breath, or who violates 

section 3802(c) or (d) and who has one or more prior offenses 

commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
J-S66044-14

- 4 -

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3803 (effective until October 27, 2014) (emphasis added).

3

 

On September 4, 2015, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, sitting en 

banc, filed its decision in Grow to determine whether Barr or Musau

controls in sentencing a defendant who has one prior DUI and who has 

refused chemical testing upon the second DUI. In Grow, the en banc Court, 

agreeing with this Court’s interpretation of section 3803 in Musau, held that 

“the plain language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meanings, 

indicates [that] regardless of the ... grading of the offense as a first-degree 

misdemeanor, the maximum sentence for a first or second DUI conviction is 

six months’ imprisonment.” Grow, slip opinion at 5-6 (quoting Musau, 69 

A.3d at 758). Thus, the en banc panel concluded, 

because the meaning of the statute in question is clear and free 

from ambiguity, the Statutory Construction Act provides that 

“the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of 

pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 1921(b). Moreover, we are 

constrained to consider solely the plain meaning of section 3803, 

since “only when the words of a statute are ambiguous should a 

court seek to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly 

through consideration of statutory construction factors found in 

Section 1921(c).” Commonwealth v. Brown, 603 Pa. 31, 981 

A.2d 893, 898 (Pa. 2009) []....

 

3 On October 27, 2014, the legislature amended section 3803(a) to replace 

the phrase “Notwithstanding the provisions of section (b)” with “Except as 

provided in subsection (b).” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3803(a). As Hiltz was convicted 

and sentenced prior to the amendment, the amended version is not 

applicable in this appeal.
J-S66044-14

- 5 -

Grow, slip opinion at 6-7 (footnotes omitted).4 As this Court’s en banc

decision in Grow is binding precedent, we cannot grant the Commonwealth 

relief on its challenge to the legality of Hiltz’s sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/24/2015

 

4 Nevertheless, the en banc Court in Grow considered and rejected the 

Commonwealth’s arguments that this Court’s decision in Barr controls, see 

Grow, slip opinion at 7-10 (concluding that the language in Barr, relied 

upon by the Commonwealth, is dictum and not controlling); 8-9 (stating that 

“grading and sentencing of the offense for a defendant in Grow’s position is 

hardly absurd; the result merely diverges from the typical scheme.”); 12 

(stating that although section 1921(c) of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 

Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(c), permits legislative and administrative interpretations to 

be considered when the wording of the statute is ambiguous, the language 

of section 3803 is clear and free from ambiguity).