Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, Criminal Division, No. 83-82 C.A.
Robert B. Stewart, III, Huntingdon, for appellant.
Stewart L. Kurtz, District Attorney, Huntingdon, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Tamilia, Montgomery and Roberts, JJ.
[ 345 Pa. Super. Page 188]
This is an appeal from judgment of sentence entered pursuant to appellant's bench conviction for driving under
[ 345 Pa. Super. Page 189]
the influence of alcohol, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3731(a)(4). Sentence imposed was five days to twenty-three months imprisonment and a $300 fine.
Appellant was arrested after the car he was driving crossed the center line and collided with another vehicle, fortunately without causing physical injury. Police noted visible signs of intoxication, impaired gait, slurred speech and an odor of alcohol, and when tested, appellant produced intoxilyzer results of .13.
Appellant has raised three issues for our consideration of which the second and third represent the same thesis propounded somewhat differently. In view of our disposition of this case, we need address only this central claim.*fn1
It is contended that the court-established admission criteria*fn2 for Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) are so restrictive as to render the program unavailable in driving under the influence cases, thereby undermining the policy which ARD was intended to implement. Alternatively, it is argued that the Huntingdon County criteria results in a formulaic, inflexible, and therefore illegal sentencing procedure. Appellant contends that only those offenders specifically
[ 345 Pa. Super. Page 190]
excluded by the provisions of the Act,*fn3 under which rubric he does not fall, should be ...