Credit for Time Served in Inpatient Facilities – DUI Cases

Credit for Time Served In Inpatient Facilities – DUI Cases

When someone has been arrested and is pending trial there are decisions that need to be made based upon the needs of the person and the strategy of the case.  Some of these decisions will be made by the individual and others may be made or dictated to them by the Judge.  One of the decisions is whether or not someone needs to be placed into an inpatient rehabilitation facility in order to address a substance abuse issue.  Most often, this arises out of DUI or driving under the influence / driving while impaired cases.

Voluntary treatment is treated differently than Court ordered treatment

West Chester Pennsylvania Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney

West Chester Pennsylvania Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney

What is important to know is that when someone is placed into inpatient as a condition of bail in lieu of pre-trial incarceration they are entitled to have that time spent in inpatient count against any jail sentence they may be later sentenced to. Commonwealth v. Cozzone, 593 A. 2d 860 (Pa. Super. 1991).  Alternatively, if someone voluntarily gone to inpatient on their own accord it may be credited towards their sentence but only if the sentencing Judge, in his/her discretion decides to grant the credit.

The lesson to take from this is that when someone is in the criminal system, facing incarceration and ends up in an inpatient rehabilitation for any reason – his attorney must evaluate any arguments about credit for time spent in rehab that may be available to the client in order to potentially limit the about of time in prison that ultimately must be served.

If you or a loved one needs representation on any criminal matter – contact Mike DiCindio, Esq. directly.


The above listed information does not include the entire crimes code, annotations, amendments or any recent changes that may be relevant.  The information provided is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments.  These materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances.  It is intended solely for informational purposes.

Michael D. DiCindio, Esq. is a West Chester criminal defense lawyer and personal injury attorney who represents individuals accused of crimes or injured by the negligence of others throughout all of Chester County, including West Chester, Phoenixville, Malvern, Coatesville, Paoli, Downingtown, Tredyffrin, West Goshen, Honey Brook, Oxford, Devon, Pottstown, Chesterbrook, Parkesburg, Kennett Square, and Avondale

“Per se DUI in Pennsylvania”

Chester County DUI Lawyer

Contact West Chester DUI lawyer and Criminal Defense Lawyer Mike DiCindio

Under the current Pennsylvania DUI Laws, the prosecution does not always need to prove that a driver was “impaired” or “intoxicated” while operating a motor vehicle in order to prove they were guilty of DUI. The Pennsylvania DUI statute as it currently stands provides for what are called, “per se” levels – levels of drugs or alcohol, that if found in the blood within two hours of operating a motor vehicle, one is guilty of the offense of DUI.

In Pennsylvania the legal limit for alcohol is .08%. Therefore, if someone is found to have a blood alcohol content of .08% or above, within two hours of operating a motor vehicle, he/she is guilty of “per se” DUI whether or not impaired or manifesting the signs of intoxication.

While this may be true by the letter of the law, in a practical application there are very few situations where someone should be charged with DUI without manifesting signs of intoxication or consumption. This is because before an officer is permitted to transport someone for chemical testing, there must be some facts or indications that provide a legal justification to take him/her for such a test – the blood test must be supported by a sufficient level of legal suspicion. (This is in conjunction with the implied consent law discussed in a previous post)

When someone is charged with a DUI, it is crucial to have an experienced lawyer thoroughly analyze the facts and circumstances surrounding your DUI arrest before taking any action or waiving your rights to contest the charges. There is often an argument to be made that the police officer was not legally justified in taking a breath or blood test in the first place.

Contact Mike DiCindio directly to schedule your free consultation today. 

***This blog is made available by the law firm publisher for educational purposes and to provide general information, not to provide specific legal advice.  By reading, youunderstand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the publisher. The blog should not be used, nor is it meant to be, as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney. This blog also does not discuss all aspects of the topics involved or the bill that has been placed into effect***

DUI – Implied Consent and Refusals

Chester County DUI Lawyer

Contact West Chester DUI lawyer and Criminal Defense Lawyer Mike DiCindio

           In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as a condition of maintaining a driver’s license, all drivers are subject to the implied consent requirements of the Motor Vehicle Code – thus, a driver must submit to blood and breath tests under appropriate circumstances. Practically speaking, what this means is that by operation of law, a person has already “consented” to a chemical test of his blood or breath by having a license/operating a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth. This becomes important in driving under the influence ( DUI ) cases where one is arrested under suspicion of DUI/DWI. While under the law, there is no right to knowingly consent to blood or breath testing because one has impliedly done so by operating a vehicle or having a license; there is a right to a knowing and conscious refusal. In order to properly inform an accused of these rights, there are warnings that must be given before a refusal can be deemed knowing and conscious. The warnings are meant to provide the accused with the rights that he/she does or does not have before refusing to submit to the chemical test of his/her blood or breath.  Further, they are meant to inform one of what the consequences of the refusal may be. Many times, the circumstances or facts show that the arresting officer did not correctly inform the accused of these warnings.

        When an accused refuses to submit to blood or breath testing, the penalties can be severe. They include added license suspensions and the ability of the Court to sentence as if the individual in a more severe or harsh manner. The issue of whether or not a refusal was knowing and conscious must be analyzed by an experienced criminal defense attorney. Correctly and thoroughly litigating this issue can have a drastic impact on the outcome of a driving under the influence refusal case. Contact DiCindio Law LLC for a free consultation today.

***This blog is made available by the law firm publisher for educational purposes and to provide general information, not to provide specific legal advice.  By reading, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the publisher. The blog should not be used, nor is it meant to be, as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney.***