J-S51008-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant
v.
MATTHEW SCOTT MOFFITT,
Appellee No. 2229 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 18, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005179-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, OTT, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
In this appeal, the Commonwealth contends that the sentencing court
erroneously computed the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon
Appellee Matthew Scott Moffitt with respect to a conviction for driving under
(general impairment) where Appellee refused chemical testing and had a
prior DUI. The Commonwealth acknowledges that the panel decision in
Commonwealth v. Musau, 69 A.3d 754 (Pa.Super. 2013), is applicable
herein. In Musau, a panel of this Court concluded that a defendant who is
convicted of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), refused chemical testing for
the offense in question, and had a prior DUI could be sentenced to a
maximum of only six months. The Commonwealth maintains that Musau J-S51008-14
was erroneously decided in that it improperly construed 18 Pa.C.S. § 3803.
As we are bound by the decision in question, we affirm.
Appellee was charged with DUI pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1),
which prohibits a person from driving a vehicle after consuming a sufficient
amount of alcohol so as to render him incapable of safely driving. The
offense was graded as a first degree misdemeanor. He additionally was
charged with fleeing the scene of an accident involving damage to a vehicle,
driving under DUI-related suspension, and four other summary offenses. On
March 15, 2013, Pennsylvania State Trooper Robert Schmid was on duty
and, at approximately 2:00 a.m., was called to the scene of a hit-and-run
accident on Interstate 83 North. The driver of the struck vehicle, Richard
Druck, reported that he was traveling in the right lane of the highway when
a black Jeep Cherokee approached him rapidly from behind, hit the rear of
his vehicle, entered the left lane of I-83 and drove away. Mr. Druck had the
address in Enola, Pennsylvania. Two East Pennsboro police officers traveled
to the residence, observed the vehicle in question parked in the driveway,
and contacted Trooper Schmid. They reported that the Jeep had front-end
damage consistent with involvement in a collision and that it just had been
operated since its engine and exhaust were warm when touched. Trooper
-2- J-S51008-14
told Trooper Schmid that Appellee had been driving the Jeep and recently
arrived home. Trooper Schmid asked to speak to Appellee, and Amanda
attempted to rouse Appellee, who was sleeping in a bedroom on the second
floor. When Trooper Schmid heard Amanda unable to get Appellee to
comply with her request to come downstairs, the police officer traveled
upstairs. He observed Appellee struggling to put on his pants. He displayed
signs of extreme intoxication and was arrested. After Trooper Schmid
disseminated the legal warnings about the consequences of a failure to
submit to blood alcohol testing, Appellee refused to have his blood drawn.
On September 23, 2013, Appellee pled guilty to DUI, leaving the scene
of an accident, and driving under a DUI-related suspension. The other
summary offenses were dismissed. Appellee was sentenced on November
18, 2013. After the Commonwealth acknowledged that the applicable
maximum sentence was six months, Appellee received six months
intermediate punishment for the DUI. He was jailed for ninety days and
given twelve months probation for the other two offenses.
directive to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, wherein the Commonwealth
the influence (refusal) conviction was the
-3- J-S51008-14
Appeal, 1/6/14, at 1. The Commonwealth raises that same contention 1 On appeal, the Commonwealth
presents on nd
offense) conviction was the statutory maximum allowable sentence it could
The question of the legal maximum sentence for a second DUI
conviction involving a BAC refusal relates to the legality of the sentence
imposed. Musau, supra Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are
questions of law, as are claims raising a court's interpretation of a statute.
Our standard of review over such questions is de novo and our scope of
Commonwealth v. Akbar, 91 A.3d 227, 238 (Pa.Super.
2014).
As the Commonwealth concedes, Musau, supra, applies herein, and
Musau was convicted of DUI general impairment under § 3802(a)(1) and
refused BAC testing at the time of his DUI arrest. Musau also had a DUI
____________________________________________
1 Although the Commonwealth failed to object in the trial court to application of a six-month maximum sentence, as noted in the text, infra,
issues that has traditionally not needed to be preserved through
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269, 1271 (Pa.Super. 2013). Hence, this claim is preserved for purposes of appeal.
-4- J-S51008-14
conviction within the ten years prior to the offense at issue. He was
sentenced to ninety days to five years imprisonment, and, on appeal, he
contended that the statutory maximum sentence that could be imposed was
six months. We agreed and reversed the sentence.
Our decision rested upon application of language in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3803.
We reached our result by finding a conflict between 75 Pa.C.S. § 3803(a)(1)
and § 3803(b)(4). The first provision states:
(a) Basic offenses.--Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b):
(1) An individual who violates section 3802(a) (relating to driving under 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 to pay a fine under section 3804 (relating to penalties).
75 Pa.C.S. § 3803(a)(1). On the other hand, § 3803(b)(4) provides (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
75 Pa.C.S. § 3803(b)(4). A first-degree misdemeanor is punishable by a
maximum of five years imprisonment. 18 Pa.C.S. § 106(b)(6); 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 1104(1).
The defendant in Musau argued that the use of the term
-5- J-S51008-14
that a § 3802 (a)(1) conviction with a refusal and a prior DUI could be
punishable as a first degree misdemeanor with a five-year maximum. The
Commonwealth countered with a different statutory construction that gave
§ 3803(b)(4) controlling effect over § 3803(a)(1). The panel in Musau
adopted the interpretation of § 3803 advanced by the defendant and
rejected the position that his maximum sentence could be five years.
Instead, it ruled that six months imprisonment was the maximum sentence
that can be imposed for a second DUI offense involving BAC refusal.2
Musau applies to Appellee. He was convicted of DUI general
impairment under § 3802(a)(1), refused BAC testing, and had a prior DUI.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S51008-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant
v.
MATTHEW SCOTT MOFFITT,
Appellee No. 2229 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 18, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005179-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, OTT, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
In this appeal, the Commonwealth contends that the sentencing court
erroneously computed the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon
Appellee Matthew Scott Moffitt with respect to a conviction for driving under
(general impairment) where Appellee refused chemical testing and had a
prior DUI. The Commonwealth acknowledges that the panel decision in
Commonwealth v. Musau, 69 A.3d 754 (Pa.Super. 2013), is applicable
herein. In Musau, a panel of this Court concluded that a defendant who is
convicted of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), refused chemical testing for
the offense in question, and had a prior DUI could be sentenced to a
maximum of only six months. The Commonwealth maintains that Musau J-S51008-14
was erroneously decided in that it improperly construed 18 Pa.C.S. § 3803.
As we are bound by the decision in question, we affirm.
Appellee was charged with DUI pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1),
which prohibits a person from driving a vehicle after consuming a sufficient
amount of alcohol so as to render him incapable of safely driving. The
offense was graded as a first degree misdemeanor. He additionally was
charged with fleeing the scene of an accident involving damage to a vehicle,
driving under DUI-related suspension, and four other summary offenses. On
March 15, 2013, Pennsylvania State Trooper Robert Schmid was on duty
and, at approximately 2:00 a.m., was called to the scene of a hit-and-run
accident on Interstate 83 North. The driver of the struck vehicle, Richard
Druck, reported that he was traveling in the right lane of the highway when
a black Jeep Cherokee approached him rapidly from behind, hit the rear of
his vehicle, entered the left lane of I-83 and drove away. Mr. Druck had the
address in Enola, Pennsylvania. Two East Pennsboro police officers traveled
to the residence, observed the vehicle in question parked in the driveway,
and contacted Trooper Schmid. They reported that the Jeep had front-end
damage consistent with involvement in a collision and that it just had been
operated since its engine and exhaust were warm when touched. Trooper
-2- J-S51008-14
told Trooper Schmid that Appellee had been driving the Jeep and recently
arrived home. Trooper Schmid asked to speak to Appellee, and Amanda
attempted to rouse Appellee, who was sleeping in a bedroom on the second
floor. When Trooper Schmid heard Amanda unable to get Appellee to
comply with her request to come downstairs, the police officer traveled
upstairs. He observed Appellee struggling to put on his pants. He displayed
signs of extreme intoxication and was arrested. After Trooper Schmid
disseminated the legal warnings about the consequences of a failure to
submit to blood alcohol testing, Appellee refused to have his blood drawn.
On September 23, 2013, Appellee pled guilty to DUI, leaving the scene
of an accident, and driving under a DUI-related suspension. The other
summary offenses were dismissed. Appellee was sentenced on November
18, 2013. After the Commonwealth acknowledged that the applicable
maximum sentence was six months, Appellee received six months
intermediate punishment for the DUI. He was jailed for ninety days and
given twelve months probation for the other two offenses.
directive to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, wherein the Commonwealth
the influence (refusal) conviction was the
-3- J-S51008-14
Appeal, 1/6/14, at 1. The Commonwealth raises that same contention 1 On appeal, the Commonwealth
presents on nd
offense) conviction was the statutory maximum allowable sentence it could
The question of the legal maximum sentence for a second DUI
conviction involving a BAC refusal relates to the legality of the sentence
imposed. Musau, supra Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are
questions of law, as are claims raising a court's interpretation of a statute.
Our standard of review over such questions is de novo and our scope of
Commonwealth v. Akbar, 91 A.3d 227, 238 (Pa.Super.
2014).
As the Commonwealth concedes, Musau, supra, applies herein, and
Musau was convicted of DUI general impairment under § 3802(a)(1) and
refused BAC testing at the time of his DUI arrest. Musau also had a DUI
____________________________________________
1 Although the Commonwealth failed to object in the trial court to application of a six-month maximum sentence, as noted in the text, infra,
issues that has traditionally not needed to be preserved through
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269, 1271 (Pa.Super. 2013). Hence, this claim is preserved for purposes of appeal.
-4- J-S51008-14
conviction within the ten years prior to the offense at issue. He was
sentenced to ninety days to five years imprisonment, and, on appeal, he
contended that the statutory maximum sentence that could be imposed was
six months. We agreed and reversed the sentence.
Our decision rested upon application of language in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3803.
We reached our result by finding a conflict between 75 Pa.C.S. § 3803(a)(1)
and § 3803(b)(4). The first provision states:
(a) Basic offenses.--Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b):
(1) An individual who violates section 3802(a) (relating to driving under 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 to pay a fine under section 3804 (relating to penalties).
75 Pa.C.S. § 3803(a)(1). On the other hand, § 3803(b)(4) provides (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
75 Pa.C.S. § 3803(b)(4). A first-degree misdemeanor is punishable by a
maximum of five years imprisonment. 18 Pa.C.S. § 106(b)(6); 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 1104(1).
The defendant in Musau argued that the use of the term
-5- J-S51008-14
that a § 3802 (a)(1) conviction with a refusal and a prior DUI could be
punishable as a first degree misdemeanor with a five-year maximum. The
Commonwealth countered with a different statutory construction that gave
§ 3803(b)(4) controlling effect over § 3803(a)(1). The panel in Musau
adopted the interpretation of § 3803 advanced by the defendant and
rejected the position that his maximum sentence could be five years.
Instead, it ruled that six months imprisonment was the maximum sentence
that can be imposed for a second DUI offense involving BAC refusal.2
Musau applies to Appellee. He was convicted of DUI general
impairment under § 3802(a)(1), refused BAC testing, and had a prior DUI.
Thus, that case provides that the maximum sentence applicable in this case
was six months. The Commonwealth suggests that our decision in
Commonwealth v. Barr, 79 A.3d 668 (Pa.Super. 2013), compels a
different result. However, Barr did not involve an interpretation of the
conflicting provisions of § 3803 and in no way can be construed as
invalidating Musau. Instead, in that decision, we held that the question of
whether a defendant refused BAC testing had to be submitted to a jury and
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2 We noted in Commonwealth v. Concordia, 2014 PA Super 155 n.1 that
-6- J-S51008-14
The Commonwealth also implies that the grant of allowance of appeal
in Commonwealth v. Mendez, 71 A.3d 250 (Pa. 2013), should impact
upon our decision herein. In Mendez, our Supreme Court agreed to review
the propriety of the memorandum decision in Commonwealth v. Mendez,
62 A.3d 456 (Pa.Super 2012). In Mendez, over President Judge Emeritus
advanced by the Commonwealth herein. The majority found that
§ 3803(b)(4) rather than § 3803(a)(1) applied to a § 3802 (a)(1) DUI
conviction as a second offense where the defendant refused BAC testing.
a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum explicitly set out in 75
Pa.C.S. § 3803, did not the majority violate the rules of statutory
Commonwealth v. Mendez, 71 A.3d 250 (Pa. 2013).
We cannot read any particular outcome as to this grant of allowance of
appeal, and it certainly cannot be viewed as an intention by our Supreme
Court to overrule Musau and affirm Mendez. Thus, the grant of allowance
of appeal has no impact herein.
Using the tools of statutory construction, the Commonwealth also
persuasively argues that Musau was wrongly decided and suggests that we
interpret § 3803 so as to permit a five-year maximum in this case. See
-7- J-S51008-14
e.g., Musau reading of the statue creates
absurd results contrary to the legislative
devotes a significant amount of compelling analysis to support its position
that a five-year maximum sentence is permitted in this action. While, as
outlined in Concordia, supra at n.2, this position may have merit, we
cannot overrule Musau because we are bound by that decision.
As we observed in Commonwealth v. Pepe, 897 A.2d 463,
overrule a prior decision of the Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Hull,
705 A.2d 911, 912 (Pa.Super. 1998), except in circumstances where
intervening authority by our Supreme Court calls into question a previous
decision of this Court. Commonwealth v. Prout, 814 A.2d 693, 695 n.2
Pepe that, even when our Supreme
Court has granted an appeal for purposes of determining the question before
binding. See also Regis Insurance Co. v. All American Rathskeller,
Inc., 976 A.2d 1157, 1161 n.6 (Pa.Super. 2009) (Superior Court panel
lacked the power to disregard and overrule binding prior panel decision).
Hence, we are compelled to affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-8- J-S51008-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/2014
-9-