Opinion by Lazarus, J.:
The defendant was arrested for DUI and placed in the ARD program. After he had been accepted into the program but before he had completed it, he was stopped for a second DUI, and charged. The Commonwealth then successfully moved to have the defendant's first DUI taken out of ARD, and brought him to trial; he was acquitted. The defendant then pleaded guilty to the second DUI, and was sentenced as a first time offender.
The Commonwealth appealed and contended that, under the plain language of the ARD statute, acceptance of ARD, regardless of future revocation or acquittals, is sufficient for future DUI offenses to be treated as second (or subsequent) offenses. Thus, the Commonwealth argued, the defendant's acceptance of ARD for his first-offense DUI made his guilty plea a second-offense, notwithstanding the fact that he was ultimately acquitted for his first DUI.
The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth, and held that the defendant's sentence - which, as a first-DUI offense was beneath the mandatory minimum for a second-DUI - was illegal. It rejected the defendant's claims that treating an acquittal as a prior conviction violated double jeopardy, equal protection, and due process rules. It also distinguished the case before it from prior precedent that had held that ARD revocation nullifies acceptance.
The Commonwealth appealed and contended that, under the plain language of the ARD statute, acceptance of ARD, regardless of future revocation or acquittals, is sufficient for future DUI offenses to be treated as second (or subsequent) offenses. Thus, the Commonwealth argued, the defendant's acceptance of ARD for his first-offense DUI made his guilty plea a second-offense, notwithstanding the fact that he was ultimately acquitted for his first DUI.
The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth, and held that the defendant's sentence - which, as a first-DUI offense was beneath the mandatory minimum for a second-DUI - was illegal. It rejected the defendant's claims that treating an acquittal as a prior conviction violated double jeopardy, equal protection, and due process rules. It also distinguished the case before it from prior precedent that had held that ARD revocation nullifies acceptance.
