§ 3806. Prior offenses.
(a) General rule.--Except as set forth in subsection (b), the term "prior offense" as used in this chapter
shall mean any conviction for which judgment of sentence has been imposed, adjudication
of delinquency or other form of preliminary disposition before the sentencing on the
present violation for any of the following:
(1) an offense under section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled
substance);
(2) an offense under former section 3731;
(3) an offense substantially similar to an offense under paragraph (1) or (2) in another
jurisdiction; or
(4) any combination of the offenses set forth in paragraph (1), (2) or (3).
(b) Timing.--
(1) For purposes of sections 1553(d.2) (relating to occupational limited license), 1556
(relating to ignition interlock limited license), 3803 (relating to grading), 3804
(relating to penalties) and 3805 (relating to ignition interlock), the prior offense
must have occurred:
(i) within 10 years prior to the date of the offense for which the defendant is being
sentenced; or
(ii) on or after the date of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced.
(2) The court shall calculate the number of prior offenses, if any, at the time of sentencing.
(3) If the defendant is sentenced for two or more offenses in the same day, the offenses
shall be considered prior offenses within the meaning of this subsection.
(4) When the completion date of the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program or
a pretrial diversion program substantially similar to Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition
in another jurisdiction for an offense under section 3802 or a substantially similar
offense in another jurisdiction is more than 10 years prior to the date of the offense
for which the defendant is being sentenced, a prior conviction for violating section
3802(h)(1) shall be treated as a prior offense for the underlying violation of section
3802.
(Nov. 29, 2004, P.L.1369, No.177, eff. imd.; Oct. 27, 2014, P.L.2905, No.189, eff.
60 days; May 25, 2016, P.L.236, No.33, eff. imd.; Dec. 22, 2025, P.L.363, No.58, eff.
imd.)
2025 Amendment. Act 58 amended subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b)(4). See section 8 of Act 58 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating
to findings and declarations.
2025 Unconstitutionality. Section 3806 was declared unconstitutional on May 30, 2025, by the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 335 A.3d 1158 (2025).
2020 Unconstitutionality. Section 3806(a) intro. par. was declared unconstitutional in part on May 20, 2020,
by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (2020).
2014 Amendment. Section 2 of Act 189 provided that the amendment of subsec. (b) shall apply to persons
sentenced on or after the effective date of section 2.
Cross References. Section 3806 is referred to in sections 1556, 3805 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
130
cases (
68 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case:
Com. v. Richards, J., 284 A.3d 214 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
Com. v. Richards, J., 284 A.3d 214 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 6× “Appellant now raises five issues for this Court’s review: Whether treating an “ARD acceptance disposition” as the equivalent of a prior conviction under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 for recidivist mandatory minimum sentencing purposes under 75 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Haag, 981 A.2d 902 (Pa. 2009).
· cites it 9× “We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether Appellant’s first DUI offense, the 11:40 p.”
Commonwealth v. McGarry, 172 A.3d 60 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 3× “The legislation provided that the courts should apply the amendments to any sentences imposed after December 26, 2014.”
Commonwealth v. Kizak, 148 A.3d 854 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 5× “Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court erred in sentencing her as a repeat offender because application of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 (“prior offenses”) resulted in an ex post facto punishment.”
Commonwealth v. Mock, 186 A.3d 434 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 7× “: Because the Majority erred in its interpretation of the plain language of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, I respectfully dissent.”
Commonwealth v. Love, 957 A.2d 765 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 5× “al court also determined that Appellant’s “first offense” (2/24-25/06), committed prior to the commission of the offense for which he was being sentenced (his “second offense” on 9/16/06), but on which he was not convicted and sentenced until 11/1/07, more than a year after the…”
Commonwealth v. Foster, 960 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2007), the defendant was sentenced under the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, which imposes increased sentences based upon prior convictions for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.”
Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “For example, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, defining prior offenses for driving under the influence charges, the legislature delineated that a prior offense means “a conviction, adjudication of delinquency, juvenile consent decree, acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition…”
Commonwealth v. Northrip, 985 A.2d 734 (Pa. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The law provides for harsher sentences, likewise subject to enhancement for second and third offenses, in the cases of drivers who have high rates of blood alcohol, those involved in accidents, those who refuse blood testing, and those who drive commercial vehicles or school…”
Com. v. Chichkin, I., 2020 Pa. Super. 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 6× “In fact, the petitions for writ of certiorari in both cases were filed by the same assistant public defenders, and considered and denied by the same trial court J-A08032-20 & J-A08033-20 (DUI),2 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, which treats a prior acceptance of accelerated rehabilitative…”
F.S. Becker v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 186 A.3d 1036 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “Third, the licensee must not have a "prior offense" as defined in Section 3806 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3806. Because the Department does not dispute that Becker satisfies the first two conditions, the only question is whether Becker had "no prior offense" when he was…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(a) — 66 cases
Commonwealth v. Haag, 981 A.2d 902 (Pa. 2009).
“We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether Appellant’s first DUI offense, the 11:40 p.”
Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“For example, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, defining prior offenses for driving under the influence charges, the legislature delineated that a prior offense means “a conviction, adjudication of delinquency, juvenile consent decree, acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition…”
Commonwealth v. Mock, 186 A.3d 434 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“: Because the Majority erred in its interpretation of the plain language of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, I respectfully dissent.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(a)(1) — 25 cases
Com. v. Chichkin, I., 2020 Pa. Super. 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“In fact, the petitions for writ of certiorari in both cases were filed by the same assistant public defenders, and considered and denied by the same trial court J-A08032-20 & J-A08033-20 (DUI),2 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, which treats a prior acceptance of accelerated rehabilitative…”
Commonwealth v. Love, 957 A.2d 765 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).
“al court also determined that Appellant’s “first offense” (2/24-25/06), committed prior to the commission of the offense for which he was being sentenced (his “second offense” on 9/16/06), but on which he was not convicted and sentenced until 11/1/07, more than a year after the…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(a)(2) — 3 cases
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(a)(3) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Northrip, 985 A.2d 734 (Pa. 2009).
“The law provides for harsher sentences, likewise subject to enhancement for second and third offenses, in the cases of drivers who have high rates of blood alcohol, those involved in accidents, those who refuse blood testing, and those who drive commercial vehicles or school…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(b) — 34 cases
Commonwealth v. Haag, 981 A.2d 902 (Pa. 2009).
“We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether Appellant’s first DUI offense, the 11:40 p.”
Commonwealth v. McGarry, 172 A.3d 60 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“The legislation provided that the courts should apply the amendments to any sentences imposed after December 26, 2014.”
Commonwealth v. Kizak, 148 A.3d 854 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court erred in sentencing her as a repeat offender because application of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 (“prior offenses”) resulted in an ex post facto punishment.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(b)(1) — 4 cases
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(b)(1)(i) — 6 cases
Commonwealth v. Mock, 186 A.3d 434 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“: Because the Majority erred in its interpretation of the plain language of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, I respectfully dissent.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(b)(1)(ii) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(b)(2) — 12 cases
Com. v. Chichkin, I., 2020 Pa. Super. 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“In fact, the petitions for writ of certiorari in both cases were filed by the same assistant public defenders, and considered and denied by the same trial court J-A08032-20 & J-A08033-20 (DUI),2 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806, which treats a prior acceptance of accelerated rehabilitative…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(b)(3) — 3 cases
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(b)(i) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3806(e)(2)(iii) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.