Commonwealth v. Shifflett (May 2025): A Landmark Ruling that Helps Repeat DUI Offenders - But Could Hurt First Time DUI Offenders
Commonwealth v. Shifflett (May 2025): A Landmark Ruling that Helps Repeat DUI Offenders - But Could Hurt First Time DUI Offenders
On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued its opinion in Commonwealth vs. Shifflett (26 MAP 2024), holding that acceptance into Pennsylvania’s ARD (Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition) program does not qualify as a “prior offense” for sentencing enhancement purposes under the DUI statute.
This decision provides relief for repeat DUI offenders who previously completed ARD. However, it has sparked backlash from some District Attorney’s Offices, who are now refusing to offer ARD to first-time DUI offenders—a troubling development with long-term consequences.
Case Background: What Happened in Shifflett?
The ARD program allows first-time DUI offenders to avoid a conviction without pleading guilty or waiving their right to a trial. When a person accepts the ARD program, he or she is not required to admit guilt, and the prosecution is not required to prove guilt. Unlike a guilty plea, entry into the ARD program does not require the explanation of and waiver of one’s constitutional right to trial. To the contrary, a person who fails to complete the ARD program maintains his or her right to a future trial if revoked from the program.
During the time a person is in the ARD program, the case is suspended while the participant completes a supervised probationary period and standard DUI conditions, including a Court Reporting Network (CRN) evaluation, a Drug and Alcohol Assessment and Alcohol Highway Safety School.
In 2012, Mr. Shifflett was admitted into and successfully completed the ARD program for his first DUI offense. In 2022, Mr. Shifflett was convicted of his second lifetime DUI offense. At sentencing, he sought to exclude evidence related to his prior acceptance of ARD, arguing that since ARD is not a prior conviction, it cannot be used to enhance sentencing on his second DUI offense. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania asserted that under Section 3806 of the Vehicle Code, that the prior acceptance of ARD counts as a prior offense, and therefore, that Mr. Shifflett must be sentenced as though he committed a second DUI offense.
Case Issue: Is the acceptance of ARD a “prior conviction” for future sentencing enhancements?
The main issue in Shifflett, is whether or not the acceptance of ARD is the equivalent of a prior conviction. If ARD can be considered a prior conviction, then the acceptance of ARD will count as a prior offense. If ARD cannot be considered a prior conviction, then the acceptance of ARD cannot count as a prior offense.
The United States Supreme Court has previously held that any fact, other than a prior conviction, which enhances a mandatory minimum penalty or maximum penalty must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. This rationale is outlined in the following cases:
Almendarez-Torres v. United States (523 U.S. 224): Outlined the “prior conviction” exception in holding that criminal statutes enhancing penalties for prior convictions do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Reoffending is considered a sentencing factor and not a separate criminal offense.
Jones v. United States (526 U.S. 227): To count as a “prior conviction” for sentencing purposes, the conviction must have been “established through procedures satisfying fair notice, reasonable doubt and jury trial guarantees.
Apprendi v. New Jersey (530 U.S. 466): Other than a prior conviction, any fact increasing the maximum penalty a person faces must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alleyne v. United States (570 U.S. 99): Expanded the Apprendi decision to hold that any fact, other than a prior conviction, which increases either the maximum penalty or minimum penalty to which a defendant may be sentenced, must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the acceptance of ARD does not contain the same constitutional protections as a guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the acceptance of ARD is not a prior conviction that can be used to enhance sentencing. Furthermore, because Section 3806’s use of ARD as a prior offense was declared unconstitutional, prosecutors cannot retroactively attempt to prove guilt on a first DUI offense in an attempt to enhance penalties on a second DUI offense.
How Shifflett Helps Repeat DUI Offenders
If you successfully completed the ARD program for your first DUI Offense, and you are currently charged with a second DUI Offense, your current case must be sentenced as a First Offense DUI. If you successfully completed the ARD program, and are charged with your third DUI, you must be sentenced to a Second Offense DUI.
Important Note: The Shifflett decision does not impact license suspensions. If you accepted ARD for a First Offense DUI, and are convicted of a new DUI offense, you will receive a Second Offense license suspension of 12-18 months, depending upon the tier of your offense.
The mandatory minimum jail sentences and statutory maximum jail sentences affected by the Shifflett decision are outlined as follows (visit our PA Penalties Page for more information):
| Offense Type | Before Shifflett | After Shifflett |
|---|---|---|
| 2nd DUI – General Impairment | 5-day min / 6-month max | 6 months probation / 6-month max |
| 2nd DUI – High BAC or Accident | 30-day min / 6-month max | 2-day min / 6-month max |
| 2nd DUI – Highest BAC / Refusal / Drugs | 90-day min / 5-year max | 3-day min / 6-month max |
| 3rd DUI – General Impairment | 10-day min / 2-year max | 5-day min / 6-month max |
| 3rd DUI – High BAC or Accident | 90-day min / 5-year max | 30-day min / 6-month max |
| 3rd DUI – Highest BAC / Refusal / Drugs | 1-year min / 7-year max | 90-day min / 5-year max |
How Shifflett May Harm First-Time DUI Offenders
In response to Shifflett, some District Attorneys have begun denying ARD to first-time DUI offenders. Since ARD can no longer count as a prior offense, they prefer to secure convictions to preserve sentencing leverage in future cases.
This is a troubling development, and many first-time DUI offenders must now choose between pleading guilty or going to trial. We anticipate future challenges to the blanket refusal of ARD, which may be deemed an abuse of discretion by the higher courts.
Charged with a DUI in Western PA? We can help.
If you’re facing a DUI in Western Pennsylvania, the implications of the Shifflett decision are significant. Understanding how this case may affect your future is crucial. For a free telephone consultation, please call 412-447-5580.