Erin Elizabeth Quinn had been looking at a likely 90 days in county prison and five years of probation for her second DUI in eight months.

On Monday, she was sentenced in York County Common Pleas Court to six days in county prison and six months probation.

Since 2004, when Pennsylvania DUI laws were revamped to address recidivism, a first DUI conviction comes with a 72-hour minimum county prison sentence. A second conviction gets 90 days in county and a third conviction gets one year, possibly in state prison. The maximum sentence for repeat offenses is five years, typically handed down as probation or a sentencing "tail."

Quinn's sentence is equal to two consecutive first-offense DUIs. And a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, issued Oct. 23 in another York County DUI case, holds that Quinn's sentence is appropriate.

The key part of the court's decision is: For a DUI offender to be subjected to harsher penalties for subsequent DUIs, the commonwealth must establish there was a previous DUI conviction, according to Quinn's attorney, Rick Robinson.

Quinn pleaded to both DUIs on the same day. Since she had not been "convicted" of her first DUI before committing her second DUI, there was no "prior" conviction.

Quinn has Patrick A. Haag Sr., another York County drunken driver, to thank for her sentencing break.

It was Haag's appeal of his second DUI conviction that led to the Supreme Court's ruling on sentencing.

Haag had been stopped for drunken driving

Advertisement
at 11:40 p.m. Jan. 12, 2006. After submitting to a blood test and being charged with drunken driving, he was released into the custody of his wife. At 1 a.m. Jan. 13, 2006, he was arrested again after being spotted driving by police.

In 2007, Haag was found guilty of both DUIs. At his penalty hearing, Judge Michael J. Brillhart determined he had committed a first and second offense and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum 72 hours in county prison for the first DUI conviction and 30 days for the second.

Haag appealed the 30-day sentence to the state Supreme Court. The court vacated that and remanded the case to York County for re-sentencing. Haag is to appear in court next month.

The Supreme Court ruling may open the door to petitions for relief from an unknown number of DUI offenders serving prison time or on parole for second or subsequent offenses, York County First Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Boyles said.

He estimated not many DUI offenders would be within their appeal periods and noted the Supreme Court's decision did not make any reference to its finding being retroactive.

But Boyles said he expects "a flood" of petitions challenging sentences anyway. He predicted, "They probably won't go anywhere. I don't think you'll see sentences being overturned."

Local defense attorney John Ogden, who represented Haag, estimated there may be 50 or 60 DUI offenders from York County now serving sentences similar to Haag's and another 1,000 still serving their five-year parole "tail." He said there could be others in state prison for violating parole on a sentence they should not have received.

"But," Ogden said, "this is not a loophole. It's the way the legislature intended the law to be interpreted. All the Supreme Court said was, 'Follow the law.'"

Ogden said the state legislature revamped the DUI laws to address recidivism. He said in cases such as Haag's and Quinn's, recidivism was not an issue because neither driver had undergone the court-ordered requirements of a DUI conviction -- incarceration, counseling and treatment.

Ogden said the way county courts addressed subsequent DUI sentencing before last week's Supreme Court ruling dated back to another York County case.

In 2005, John Moody was sentenced to one to five years for his third DUI. His attorney, Harry Ness, argued at the time Moody had not been sentenced for his second DUI and therefore his third DUI should be a second offense for sentencing purposes.

Judge John C. Uhler disagreed and sentenced Moody in accordance with a third offense.

Moody appealed to the state Superior Court, which affirmed Uhler's decision. That court held "the timing of sentencing for a prior DUI -- whether it occurs before or after the arrest for the subsequent DUI -- is not relevant . . ."

And that has been standard procedure in York County ever since, said senior prosecutor Scott McCabe.

McCabe also expects to see a large number of appeals asking for correction of "an illegal sentence" in light of the Supreme Court decision.

"An illegal sentence can be corrected at any time," McCabe said. "And the Supreme Court is saying, 'These are illegal sentences.'"

ARGUING FOR HARSHER PENALTIES

The recent state Supreme Court ruling bars county judges from sentencing repeat DUI offenders to enhanced penalties -- enacted to combat recidivism -- unless the commonwealth can prove the driver has a "prior conviction" that predates the new DUI charge.

That raises the possibility of a drunken driver racking up multiple DUIs before that first conviction and at sentencing facing only the mandatory minimum penalties. The mandatory minimum for a first-offense DUI is 72 hours in county prison.

"They are minimum sentences," Max Little, traffic safety resource prosecutor for the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, said, emphasizing the word minimum.

Little, a former Sullivan County District Attorney, said he would suggest that county prosecutors not challenge petitions seeking to vacate DUI sentences that come under the Supreme Court's ruling.

But, he said, prosecutors can argue at DUI sentencing hearings for penalties above the mandatory minimum if the circumstances call for it.

"I'd tell them, 'Don't be afraid to argue for additional time,'" he said.