Commonwealth v. Roeder
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph Martin ROEDER, Appellant
Opinion
WATKINS, Judge:
This case comes to us on appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county and involves defendant-appellant’s appeal from a non-jury conviction on a charge of driving under the influence.
The defendant had applied to the District Attorney for acceptance into the Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition program. This application was denied by the District Attorney. The defendant had a prior felony record involving drug delivery charges in 1971. Defendant argues that the District Attorney abused his discretion in refusing to admit him to the A.R.D. program. We disagree. The district attorney is provided discretion in administering the A.R.D. program. See Pa.Rule of Crim.Pro. 175, 176.
We cannot conclude that his policy of refusing to permit offenders with a prior felony record into the program is an abuse of *139 discretion. This is so even though the felony conviction occurred thirteen years prior to the indicent giving rise to the driving while under the influence charge.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(alleged abuse of discretion by D.A. in setting policy denying ARD to anyone with a prior record challenged on direct appeal from conviction, albeit unsuccessfully)
-
(No abuse of discretion for District Attorney to look to 13-year-old felony conviction to keep the defendant out of ARD program)
-
(prosecutor's discretion not abused by excluding applicant with thirteen-year old felony conviction)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.