Breaking: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Bars ARD from Being Used to Enhance DUI Sentences — Commonwealth v. Shifflett, No. 26 MAP 2024 (Pa. May 30, 2025)
May 31, 2025
🚨 Major Win for DUI Defendants: ARD No Longer a "Prior Offense" for Sentencing Enhancements
Commonwealth v. Shifflett, No. 26 MAP 2024 (Pa. May 30, 2025)
In a landmark 2025 decision, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a defendant’s prior acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) for a DUI offense cannot be used to enhance sentencing for a later DUI conviction. This decision, handed down in Commonwealth v. Shifflett, No. 26 MAP 2024, reverses a growing trend in Pennsylvania courts that treated ARD acceptances as prior offenses under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806(a) and triggered harsher mandatory minimums under § 3804.
This ruling will dramatically alter how Pennsylvania courts treat first-time DUI offenders who later reoffend—and calls into question the constitutionality of sentencing schemes that bypass a defendant’s fundamental trial rights.
🧾 Background: What Happened in Shifflett?
George Thomas Shifflett accepted ARD in 2012 for a DUI offense. A decade later, in 2022, he was arrested for another DUI. The Commonwealth charged him as a second-time DUI offender based on his prior ARD acceptance. Under Pennsylvania law at the time, ARD counted as a “prior offense” for DUI sentencing purposes, which meant mandatory jail time and higher fines.
Shifflett pled guilty in 2022 but challenged the use of his 2012 ARD to enhance his sentence. He relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Alleyne v. United States (2013) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), which state that any fact increasing the penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt—unless it's a prior conviction.
The trial court agreed with Shifflett and sentenced him as a first-time offender, imposing probation and house arrest instead of mandatory jail time.
However, the Commonwealth appealed, relying on Superior Court decisions (Richards and Moroz) that had overruled Chichkin and reinstated the practice of treating ARD as a prior offense.
⚖️ Supreme Court Analysis: No Conviction, No Enhancement
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and sided unequivocally with Shifflett. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Todd, the Court held:
“Because acceptance into an ARD program does not offer a defendant any of the constitutional safeguards that accompany either a criminal conviction or a guilty plea proceeding… a defendant’s previous acceptance of ARD… does not fall within the prior conviction exception contemplated in Apprendi and Alleyne.”
Key Legal Takeaways:
ARD ≠ Conviction: The Court reaffirmed that ARD is a non-conviction diversionary program and lacks the procedural safeguards of a guilty plea or trial.
No Jury, No Proof, No Enhancement: Since ARD acceptance is not subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt or jury review, it cannot constitutionally serve as the basis for mandatory sentence enhancement.
Facial Unconstitutionality of § 3806(a): The Court declared Section 3806(a) facially unconstitutional only to the extent it includes ARD as a prior offense for purposes of enhancing sentences under § 3804.
ARD Provision Severed: The rest of Section 3806 remains intact, but ARD can no longer be used in any case to increase mandatory DUI penalties.
📊 What This Means for DUI Defendants
This ruling effectively removes ARD from the list of qualifying prior offenses that can lead to elevated DUI sentencing. That means:
First-time DUI offenders who later reoffend can no longer be sentenced as second-time offenders based solely on ARD.
Prosecutors must now prove a prior conviction, not just an ARD, to seek enhanced sentencing.
Defense attorneys have a new, powerful constitutional argument to prevent mandatory jail time for clients who previously accepted ARD.
🛠️ Legal Strategy Moving Forward
Defense Attorneys Should:
Review past cases where clients were sentenced as repeat DUI offenders based on ARD—there may be grounds for resentencing or PCRA relief.
Challenge pending cases that use ARD to support second-offense charges.
Ensure clients are advised that ARD will no longer expose them to future enhanced DUI penalties.
Prosecutors Must:
Prove actual prior convictions, not just ARD, when seeking to increase penalties.
Avoid relying on Richards and Moroz, which have now been effectively overruled.
📚 Final Word: A Constitutional Course Correction
The Shifflett decision marks a turning point in Pennsylvania DUI law. It restores critical constitutional safeguards for defendants, emphasizing that only prior convictions proven through adversarial proceedings—not mere program participation—can justify enhanced punishment.
This ruling reinforces that rehabilitation programs like ARD must remain true to their purpose: second chances, not hidden penalties.