Court Opinion

ID: 9388003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 16:08:12.502009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.906893
License: Public Domain

J-S35045-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    VALERIE JEAN JORDAN                        :   No. 833 MDA 2021

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 22, 2021
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at
                         No(s): CP-14-CR-0001220-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                          FILED: APRIL 19, 2023

        The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (trial court)

on Valerie Jean Jordan (Jordan) following her entry of an open guilty plea to

driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), as a first-time DUI offender.1 On

appeal, the Commonwealth contends that Jordan’s prior acceptance of

Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (“ARD”) constitutes a prior offense.

Applying this Court’s recent decisions in Commonwealth v. Richards, 284

A.3d 214 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc), appeal granted, 518 MAL 2022 (Pa.

Mar. 15, 2023), and Commonwealth v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227 (Pa. Super.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(b) (high rate of alcohol).
J-S35045-21

2022) (en banc), we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for

resentencing.

                                               I.

       The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

June 14, 2020, police arrested Jordan for DUI after a traffic stop in which they

observed signs of her impairment including a strong odor of alcohol and her

red, glassy eyes.      Jordan admitted to drinking alcohol and consented to a

blood draw, which measured her blood alcohol content at .133 percent. The

Commonwealth charged Jordan with various traffic and DUI-related offenses.

       On March 23, 2021, Jordan entered an open guilty plea to one count of

DUI (high rate of alcohol) and the remaining charges were nolle prossed. At

the May 24, 2021 sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that Jordan

must be sentenced as a first-time offender under this Court’s decision in

Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa. Super. 2020), despite her

acceptance of ARD for a 2013 DUI offense. The Chichkin Court held that the

portion of the DUI statute equating prior acceptance of ARD to a prior

conviction for purposes of imposing a mandatory minimum sentence for a

second or subsequent DUI offense was unconstitutional.        See Chichkin at

961.2 The Commonwealth objected and stated its position that Jordan should

____________________________________________

2See also 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806(a) (classifying ARD as a prior offense in a DUI
prosecution), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804 (setting forth heightened mandatory
minimum sentencing requirements for second, third and subsequent DUI
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S35045-21

be sentenced as a second-time offender. The trial court found that Chichkin

controlled and sentenced Jordan to six months of probation with restrictive

DUI conditions.3 The Commonwealth timely appealed and it and the trial court

complied with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b).

                                               II.

       The Commonwealth challenges the application of Chichkin in light of

more recent case law and requests that this case be remanded for

resentencing in light of Jordan’s prior ARD acceptance. It points to this Court’s

recent en banc decisions in Richards and Moroz, supra, which were issued

while the instant matter was pending on appeal, as controlling this issue. (See

Commonwealth’s Brief, 11/28/22, at 33-37).4 We agree.

       As we recently explained in Commonwealth v. Hummel, 2023 WL

276443 (Pa. Super. filed April 4, 2023):

             [The] Richards and Moroz [] decisions emphasize that the
       General Assembly provided that ‘ARD will constitute a prior
       offense for purposes of sentencing on a second or subsequent DUI
       conviction . . . , and a defendant is presumed to be aware of the
____________________________________________

offenses) and 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806(a) (defining a “prior offense” as “any
conviction for which judgment of sentence has been imposed, . . . acceptance
of [ARD] or other form of preliminary disposition before the sentencing on the
present violation[.]”)

3 The trial court entered an amended sentencing order on June 22, 2021, for
the apparent purpose of correcting the docket number listed in the caption.

4 Because this issue concerns the legality of Jordan’s sentence, our standard
of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See Moroz, supra
at 230.

                                           -3-
J-S35045-21

       relevant statute.’ Richards, 284 A.3d at 220 (citation omitted);
       Moroz, 284 A.3d at 233. The nearly identical decisions therefore
       expressly overruled Chichkin and held ‘the portion of Section
       3806(a), which equates prior acceptance of ARD to a prior
       conviction for purposes of imposing a Section 3804 mandatory
       minimum sentence, passes constitutional muster.’ Richards, 284
       A.3d at 220; Moroz, 284 A.3d at 233.

Id. at *1.

       Instantly, the trial court did not apply Jordan’s prior acceptance of ARD

as a prior conviction and sentenced her as a first-time offender for the current

DUI offense. As a result of our decisions in Richards and Moroz, the trial

court’s ruling based upon Chichkin, while correct at the time, must be

reversed now. See Hummel, supra at *2 (explaining that appellate courts

apply law in effect at time of decision and parties will be entitled to benefit of

any changes in law occurring before judgment of sentence is final).5

Accordingly, we vacate Jordan’s judgment of sentence and remand for

resentencing.

       Judgment of sentence vacated.             Case remanded for resentencing.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

5 We note that while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently addressed
application of Chichkin in Commonwealth v. Verbeck, 2023 WL 2342406
(Pa. filed Feb. 28, 2023), the Court was equally divided and the decision,
therefore, does not establish a binding precedent. See Hummel, supra at
*1 n.1.

                                           -4-
J-S35045-21

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/19/2023

                          -5-