 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Touring v. Commonwealth5/15/1998
Submitted April 17, 1998
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court) sustaining DavidTouring's (Touring) statutory appeal of a one-year license suspension imposed under 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3) and §1581, Article IV (Driver License Compact or Compact). On April 21, 1997, Touring was convicted in Maryland for driving under the influence on November 3,1996. Maryland is a party state to the Driver License Compact, and as such it reported Touring's conviction to DOT, which suspended Touring's license. Touring appealed the suspension on several grounds, of which the trial court addressed only one. Citing our decision in Moreland v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 701 A.2d 294 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), petition for allowance of appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.2d ___ (No.700 W.D. Alloc. Dkt. 1997, filed April 1, 1998), the trial court sustained Touring's appeal because the DUI offense took place before the Compact's effective date. The trial court therefore concluded that DOT lacked the authority to impose the suspension. Because the facts of the instant case are entirely distinguishable from those in Moreland, we reverse. In Moreland, the date of the offense, the out-of-state conviction, and the date of DOT's notice of suspension all pre-dated the effective date of the Compact. In the instant case, the conviction on which DOT based Touring's suspension occurred after the effective date of the Compact, and DOT had the authority to impose the suspension. DOT's imposition of the suspension based on the April 1997 conviction does not constitute a retroactive application of the Compact. As of the Compact's effective date, DOT had authority to act on subsequent reports of applicable out-of-state convictions. The condition triggering application ofthe Compact was the conviction, which occurred after the effective date of the Compact; therefore,its application was prospective and not retrospective. A statute does not operate retrospectively merely because some predicate facts existed prior to its effective date. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order and remand this matter for consideration of the remaining issues raised by Touring in his statutory appeal.
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, President Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 1998, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the above-captioned matter is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of the remaining issues raised in the statutory appeal. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Page 1 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|