 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Frantz v. Commonwealth6/9/1998
e laws of this Commonwealth.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the Department's suspension based, however, on its decision in Sullivan v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.2d ___, (No. 0023 W.D. Appeal Docket 1997 filed February 26, 1998) and expressly without regard to the issue of whether the New York DWAI statute is substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUI statute.
The Department in its brief states that no Sullivan issue exists here, since Frantz's conviction occurred after the effective date of the Compact. It asks this Court to ignore the Olmstead case and rule that New York's DWAI law is substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUI statute. In support of its argument, the Department offers decisions of other party states to the Compact that have found DWAI offenses similar to their DUI offenses. Of course, we are not bound by the rulings of other states when interpreting the Commonwealth's statutes, and are not persuaded by these cases to disavow the reasoning in Olmstead. Instead, we adhere to the authority of that case, and reaffirm the logical Conclusion established in it, which states that New York's DWAI statute is not substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUI statute.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the common pleas court.
CHARLES A. LORD, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 1998, the order of the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas, dated December 4, 1997, No. 1997-00909 is hereby affirmed.
CHARLES A. LORD, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|