Court Opinion

ID: 9963588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 19:28:12.363286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:52.910869
License: Public Domain

J-S07023-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                v.                             :
                                               :
  JACOB ALEXANDER KOPP                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 741 MDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 7, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-67-CR-0002235-2020

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                   FILED: APRIL 25, 2024

       Jacob Alexander Kopp appeals from the judgment of sentence imposing

five years of restrictive punishment after a jury convicted him of driving under

the influence (“DUI”) of controlled substances and related offenses.1 For the

reasons below, we affirm.

       In 2017, the Commonwealth charged Kopp with a prior DUI offense,

docketed at CP-21-CR-2401-2017. That proceeding ended with accelerated

rehabilitative disposition (“ARD”).

       Then, on July 2, 2020, the Commonwealth charged Kopp with two

counts of DUI, graded as Kopp’s second DUI, despite the prior ARD. Kopp

filed a motion to reduce the DUI counts to a first offense, based on this Court’s
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113(a)(31)(i), (a)(32) (possessing a small amount

of cannabis and possessing drug paraphernalia) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§
3313(d)(1) (driving in the righthand lane); 3802(d)(2) (DUI – controlled
substances); 3802(d)(1)(i) (DUI – controlled substances as a second offence);
and 3802(d)(1)(iii) (DUI – controlled substances as a second offense).
J-S07023-24

then-controlling decision in Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa.

Super. 2020), overruled by Commonwealth v. Richards, 284 A.3d 214 (Pa.

Super. 2022) (en banc), and Commonwealth v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227 (Pa.

Super. 2022) (en banc).

       In Chichkin, a panel of this Court held that the “provision of 75

Pa.C.S.A. § 3806(a), which defines a prior acceptance of ARD in a DUI case

as a ‘prior offense’ for DUI sentencing enhancement purposes, offends the

Due Process Clause[2] and is therefore unconstitutional.”             Id. at 971.

Accordingly, in Kopp’s motion to reduce the grading of his DUI charges, he

contended that “a prior acceptance into the ARD program to resolve an earlier

DUI charge could not be considered a ‘prior conviction’ under the DUI statute.”

Trial Court Opinion, 8/9/23, at 2.

       The trial court stayed this case, pending resolution of Richards and

Moroz. When this Court, sitting en banc, overruled Chichkin by a vote of 5-

4,3 Kopp’s case proceeded to a jury trial.

       The jury convicted Kopp, and the trial court sentenced him as described

above. The sentencing court applied Commonwealth v. Richards, 284 A.3d
____________________________________________

2 Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal

constitution, “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law . . . .”

3 Judge King, joined by then-President Judge Panella, Judge Bowes, Judge
Stabile, Judge McLaughlin, authored the majority opinion in Commonwealth
v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc), which overruled
Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa. Super. 2020). Judge (now-
Justice) McCaffery, joined by President Judge Emeritus Bender, Judge (now-
President Judge) Lazarus, and this author, dissented.

                                           -2-
J-S07023-24

214 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc), appeal granted, 294 A.3d 300 (Pa. 2023).

As such, it deemed this DUI to be Kopp’s second and imposed the higher

penalties accompanying a second DUI conviction. This timely appeal followed.

      Kopp raises three issues. In all of them, he assumes the Supreme Court

will reverse Richards and reinstate the holding of Chichkin. His claims of

error are as follows:

      1.    Assuming the [Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds] in
            Richards that acceptance into the ARD program cannot be
            equated with a prior conviction for DUI sentencing purposes,
            is Kopp’s sentence illegal for violation of Apprendi v. New
            Jersey[, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),] where the offense he
            resolved through ARD was used to increase the grading and
            maximum sentence for his DUI convictions based on facts
            not found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt?

      2.    Assuming the [Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds] in
            Richards that acceptance into the ARD program cannot be
            equated with a prior conviction for DUI sentencing purposes,
            is Kopp’s sentence illegal under Apprendi, despite the
            pretrial finding that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was
            guilty of the prior DUI resolved through ARD?

      3.    Further assuming the [Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
            holds] in Richards that acceptance into the ARD program
            cannot be equated with a prior conviction for DUI sentencing
            purposes but this Court determines that a finding that Kopp
            was guilty of the prior DUI resolved through ARD can allow
            an increase in grading and maximum penalty, is Kopp’s
            sentence illegal under Apprendi, where that finding was
            made by a judge as opposed to a jury?

Kopp’s Brief at 4. We address the three issues simultaneously.

      Kopp’s arguments all rest upon an unproven premise: namely, that the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will reverse Richards, supra. However, that

has yet to occur, and it “is beyond the power of a Superior Court panel to

                                    -3-
J-S07023-24

overrule a prior decision of the Superior Court, except in circumstances where

intervening authority by our Supreme Court calls into question a previous

decision of this Court.” Commonwealth v. Pepe, 897 A.2d 463, 465 (Pa.

Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

       “At this point in time, our High Court has done no more than grant an

appeal for the purpose of determining whether [75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806(a)] is

unconstitutional” under the Due Process Clause. Id. “Because our Supreme

Court has not yet ruled upon that question, this Court’s prior decision in

[Richards, supra, remains] binding” upon this panel. Id.

       Hence, we lack authority to grant Kopp appellate relief.4 All three issues

dismissed as meritless.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/25/2024

____________________________________________

4 We recognize that Kopp filed this appeal to preserve his appellate issues

pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Richards.

                                           -4-