Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-3283-2006 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CP-21-CR-3283-2006 : : MICHAEL W. HEFFELFINGER JR.: IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 Defendant, Michael W. Heffelfinger, Jr., was charged with Driving Under the Influence – 1 0889 Highest Rate under docket number CP-21-CR--2006. The incident giving rise to the offense occurred on January 29, 2006. Defendant was also charged with Driving Under the 2 3283 Influence – High Rate under docket number CP-21-CR--2006. The incident giving rise to this offense occurred on October 27, 2006. Defendant pled guilty to both charges on August 17, 2007. On November 27, 2007, 0889 Defendant was sentenced on the charges. For the offense under CP-21-CR--2006, Defendant was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 72 hours confinement pursuant 3283 to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(c)(1), as it was his first offense. For the offense under CP-21-CR-- 2006, Defendant was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days confinement pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(b)(2), as it was considered his second offense for sentencing purposes. The original information for both charges against Defendant listed the charges as first offenses with mandatory minimum sentences for first offenses. The Defendant was given an 3283 opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea after the Court determined that the charge at was, in 1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c) 2 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b) fact, a second offense for sentencing purposes. The Defendant declined to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant has appealed the 30-day confinement sentence for Driving Under the 3283 Influence – High Rate under docket number CP-21-CR--2006. He argues that both the 08893283 charge under CP-21-CR--2006 and the charge under CP-21-CR--2006 should have been considered first offenses for sentencing purposes. Pursuant to the recent decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Nieves, one of the charges on which Defendant was sentenced should be treated as a first offense, and the other charge should be treated as a second offense for sentencing purposes. Commonwealth v. Nieves, 935 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). In Nieves, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that although the defendant in that case pled guilty to two DUI offenses at the same time, one of the offenses was to be considered a “prior offense” for sentencing purposes per 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806. Id. at 889. According to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806: (a) General rule.-- Except as set forth in subsection (b), the term "prior offense" as used in this chapter shall mean a conviction, adjudication of delinquency, juvenile consent decree, acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition or other form of before the sentencing on the present preliminary disposition violation for any of the following: (1) an offense under section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance); . . . 0889 Because Defendant pled guilty to an offense under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802 (CP-21-CR--2006) 3283 before sentencing on the charge under CP-21-CR--2006, the first charge is treated as a 3283 “prior offense.” Therefore the charge under CP-21-CR--2006 is considered a second offense for purposes of the mandatory minimum sentences set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804. January , 2008 _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Derek Clepper, Esquire Assistant District Attorney H. Anthony Adams, Esquire Assistant Public Defender :rlm