It makes all the sense in the world to me that a person should not be sentenced for a second offense of a crime unless he or she was found guilty of a first offense before the second offense was committed.

But it also makes sense to me that a person who commits the same crime two or three times within a short period of time should have those crimes bundled as one incident.

And it doesn't matter to me if we're talking bank robbery or DUI.

This is a reference, of course, to Patrick A. Haag Sr., a resident of Dover Township, and his two arrests in one night for driving under the influence of alcohol. This occurred at 11:40 p.m. Jan. 12, 2006, and then again at 1 a.m. Jan. 13, 2006, both times by West York Police.

Haag, 54, is old enough to know better than to get behind the wheel of a car after he's been drinking. Nevertheless, he did exactly that. But once he was arrested for a blood-alcohol level of 0.16 percent (twice the legal limit), you'd think the last thing he would have done is crawl back into the same car 90 minutes later and drive again. Arrested a second time, his blood-alcohol level was 0.146 percent, still well over the legal limit.

Haag, by the way, eventually pleaded guilty in both DUI cases.

In most of our minds, it would be easy to connect the two DUI arrests, making it one incident instead of two, since they only happened 90 minutes apart.

And very often, that's apparently what judges have done. If there was a first offense (arrest) then

Advertisement
every subsequent arrest (and conviction) was considered the second, third, fourth, etc. offenses, even if they came before a guilty plea or conviction for a first offense.

York County Common Pleas Judge Michael Brillhart sentenced Haag to 72 hours in York County Prison for the first offense. That's the standard.

And for the second offense, Haag was given 30 days in jail.

Except that Haag hadn't pleaded to or been found guilty of the first offense before he was arrested for the second offense. How could he have been? The two arrests were only 90 minutes apart.

Complicated, I know.

But by definition -- according to the state Supreme Court -- there is no second offense if that arrest was made before there was a conviction in the first offense. Does the same thing apply for the third offense before a conviction of a second offense, and down the line? I guess it does.

Timing is everything.

And "conviction" is the only word that truly matters.

But it occurs to me that the same principle must then apply in cases where an arrest (a first offense) could be made in, say, January, and a second arrest made in February and a third in March, and none of them would be considered second or third offenses of the same crime unless there was a conviction in a first offense before the subsequent crimes were committed and arrests were made.

There are plenty of times when someone is arrested for DUI (or any crime) in January, but doesn't come to trial or have an opportunity to plead guilty or innocent until months later. That, of course, provides numerous opportunities to be caught driving drunk again and again before the first case is adjudicated.

And what if, for some reason, the second or third case is adjudicated before the first one? Does that mean it becomes the first offense even though they actually are chronologically the second or third arrests for the same crime? I guess so.

All I know is there could be a lot of DUI arrests, every 90 minutes as was the case with Haag, or maybe once a week, twice a week or every other day for months and none of them would be considered second offenses unless there was a first offense already on the books.

So it can get sorta murky. Which case is the first offense, which is second, which is third, and when do they become the first, second, third or ninth offense for purposes of sentencing?

I wonder, for purposes of eligibility to the county's ARD program, which is available only to first-time offenders, does someone still qualify after a guilty plea for a first offense if he or she's got four or five other DUI cases sitting on the docket?

I don't know. But clearly if a judge can't consider a second offense an actual offense for sentencing purposes if it was committed before a defendant had pleaded or been found guilty in a first offense of the same crime, it would seem logical that the same would apply in ARD considerations.

You should qualify for ARD, I guess, even if you've been arrested 10 times in six months, as long as you never pleaded guilty to a first offense before the other arrests were made. None of the other arrests should count until there's a conviction or a guilty plea.

Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

And timing is everything.

Columns by Larry A. Hicks, Dispatch columnist, run Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. E-mail: lhicks@yorkdispatch.com.