Commonwealth v. Richard Michael Kolesar: Pennsylvania Superior Court Clarifies Mandatory Consecutive Sentencing for Fifth DUI Conviction

Commonwealth v. Kolesar, 2024 Pa. Super. 220 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)

In Commonwealth v. Richard Michael Kolesar, 2024 PA Super 166, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the mandatory consecutive sentencing requirements under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c.2) for a defendant's fifth DUI conviction. This landmark decision reinforces the state’s stringent approach to DUI offenses, clarifying the interpretation of § 3804(c.2) and its application to all third and subsequent DUI offenses, including general impairment.

Case Background

Richard Michael Kolesar was convicted of multiple charges following a series of events on June 9, 2023. The convictions included:

• Burglary (18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4)) – Unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime.

• Theft by Unlawful Taking (18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a)) – Appropriation of another's property without permission.

• Criminal Mischief (18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(5)) – Intentional damage to property.

• Evading Arrest or Detention on Foot (18 Pa.C.S. § 5104.2(a)) – Attempting to flee on foot to avoid lawful arrest.

• Driving Under the Influence (DUI) (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1)) – General impairment while operating a motor vehicle.

This case marked Kolesar’s fifth DUI conviction, triggering the application of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c.2), which mandates consecutive sentencing for third and subsequent DUI offenses. The conviction raised a crucial legal question regarding the interpretation of this statute and its applicability to general impairment DUIs under § 3804(a).

Factual Overview

On June 9, 2023, Kolesar was arrested after a series of criminal activities, including burglary, theft, and evading law enforcement on foot. The events culminated in his fifth DUI offense, categorized under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) for general impairment. This specific DUI charge did not involve a high blood alcohol content, controlled substances, or a refusal to submit to chemical testing.

Despite the general impairment classification, the trial court interpreted 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c.2) to require consecutive sentencing for his DUI conviction due to his status as a repeat offender with more than two prior DUI offenses. Consequently, Kolesar received the following sentences:

• Burglary: 3 to 23 months of incarceration.

• DUI (General Impairment): 9 to 23 months of incarceration, ordered consecutively to the burglary sentence and his two prior DUI convictions from 2022.

This sentencing structure was challenged on appeal, leading to a detailed examination of § 3804(c.2) by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Legal Issues on Appeal

Kolesar’s appeal centered on a complex issue of statutory interpretation:

• Does § 3804(c.2) require consecutive sentencing for all third and subsequent DUI convictions, including general impairment offenses under § 3804(a), or does it only apply to the most serious DUI offenses under § 3804(c)?

Appellant’s Arguments

1. Ambiguity in Statutory Language:
   Kolesar argued that § 3804(c.2) was ambiguous and should be interpreted in his favor under the rule of lenity, limiting its application to only the most severe DUI offenses under § 3804(c), such as highest blood alcohol and controlled substance DUIs.

2. Legislative Intent and Structure:
   Kolesar contended that because the consecutive sentencing provision was placed in § 3804(c.2), it should apply exclusively to offenses under § 3804(c). He argued that if the legislature intended it to apply to all DUI offenses, it would have created a separate subsection for consecutive sentencing.

3. Judicial Misinterpretation:
   He asserted that the trial court erred by applying § 3804(c.2) to his general impairment DUI conviction, resulting in an illegal sentence due to a misinterpretation of legislative intent.

Commonwealth’s Counterarguments

1. Plain Language of the Statute:
   The Commonwealth argued that the plain language of § 3804(c.2) applies to any sentence imposed “under this section,” referring to the entire § 3804, not just § 3804(c).

2. Legislative Choice of Words:
   By using the word “section” instead of “subsection,” the legislature clearly indicated its intent to apply consecutive sentencing to all DUI offenses listed under § 3804, including general impairment under § 3804(a).

3. Purpose of Consecutive Sentencing:
   The Commonwealth emphasized the legislative intent to impose stricter penalties on repeat DUI offenders, ensuring enhanced punishment through mandatory consecutive sentencing for third and subsequent convictions.

Superior Court’s Analysis and Decision

Statutory Interpretation and Plain Meaning

The Superior Court conducted an in-depth statutory analysis, emphasizing:

• Plain Language and Legislative Intent: The court found no ambiguity in § 3804(c.2), interpreting the phrase “under this section” to mean all DUI offenses within § 3804, including general impairment under § 3804(a).

• Hierarchy of Statutory Terms: The court highlighted the clear distinction between “section” and “subsection,” noting that if the legislature intended to limit the consecutive sentencing mandate to § 3804(c), it would have used “subsection” instead of “section.”

• Guidance from Precedent: The court relied on Commonwealth v. Cousins, 212 A.3d 34 (Pa. 2019), which distinguished between “section” and “subsection” in statutory interpretation, supporting the application of § 3804(c.2) to all offenses listed under § 3804.

Legislative Purpose and Policy Considerations

The Superior Court underscored the policy objective behind § 3804(c.2):

• Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Offenders: The court emphasized the legislature’s intent to impose harsher penalties on repeat DUI offenders by mandating consecutive sentences for third and subsequent convictions, irrespective of the specific DUI category.

• Uniform Application of Consecutive Sentencing: By interpreting § 3804(c.2) to apply to all offenses under § 3804, the court ensured consistent and uniform application of the law to all repeat DUI offenders.

Final Ruling

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s sentencing decision, ruling that:

1. § 3804(c.2) applies to all third and subsequent DUI convictions, including general impairment under § 3804(a).

2. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for Kolesar’s fifth DUI conviction.

3. The sentence was legal, consistent with legislative intent and statutory language.

Implications and Legal Significance

For DUI Defense Strategies

• Limited Defense Options: The decision significantly restricts defense strategies for third and subsequent DUI convictions, reinforcing mandatory consecutive sentencing for all DUI categories.

• Emphasis on Prior Offenses: Defense attorneys must thoroughly assess clients’ DUI histories, as any third or subsequent conviction will result in consecutive sentences.

For Pennsylvania DUI Law

• Uniform Sentencing Structure: The ruling standardizes the sentencing structure for all repeat DUI offenders in Pennsylvania, ensuring harsher penalties for multiple convictions.

• Clarification on Statutory Interpretation: The decision provides clear guidance on interpreting statutory terms, particularly the distinction between “section” and “subsection.”

The Commonwealth v. Kolesar ruling marks a pivotal interpretation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c.2), mandating consecutive sentencing for all third and subsequent DUI convictions in Pennsylvania. The Superior Court’s decision reinforces the state’s strict approach to repeat DUI offenses, ensuring enhanced penalties for habitual offenders.

About The Town Law LLC

The Town Law LLC is a premier criminal defense firm in Philadelphia, specializing in DUI defense and complex criminal litigation. Our experienced attorneys stay ahead of legal developments to provide strategic defense tailored to each client’s unique circumstances. If you’re facing DUI charges or need legal advice, contact us today for a consultation.

The Town Law LLC – Philadelphia’s Trusted DUI Defense Attorneys.