 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sebula v. Commonwealth2/25/2003
John Michael Sebula (Sebula) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (trial court) dismissing his appeal of a one-year suspension of his operating privilege imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT). This suspension was imposed pursuant to Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3), and Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver's License Compact of 1961 (Compact), 75 Pa. C.S. §1581, Article IV(a)(2) (suspension of Pennsylvania operating privilege following a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or "substantially similar" offense in a state that is a party to the Compact).
The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. On June 16, 2001, Sebula was arrested in the State of Ohio, which is a party to the Compact, and charged with violating that state's driving under the influence (DUI) statute, Ohio Rev. Code §4511.19(A). On November 16, 2001, Sebula entered a plea agreement under which, in exchange for his nolo contendere plea, he was sentenced to 15 days incarceration with nine days suspended, attendance at an in-patient alcohol education program, payment of a $550.00 fine, a one-year suspension of his operating privilege in Ohio, and a one-year probationary period. Additionally, the Ohio court provided that when Sebula's fines and costs were fully paid, his license suspension would be reduced to six months. Sebula's Ohio DUI conviction was reported by the Ohio Department of Public Safety to DOT.
By official notice dated and mailed February 11, 2002, DOT notified Sebula that as a result of his Ohio DUI conviction, his Pennsylvania operating privilege was being suspended for one year, pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3). Sebula filed a statutory appeal from the one-year suspension with the trial court, and after a de novo hearing on May 10, 2002, the trial court dismissed Sebula's statutory appeal. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Sebula contends that the Department erred in imposing the one-year suspension, because it contravened the plea bargain he negotiated with the State of Ohio, giving him a six-month suspension period. We disagree. In Strain v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 784 A.2d 845, 847-48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), analogous issues were presented and reviewed by this Court as follows:
The trial court first noted the argument that a plea of guilty with civil reservation restricts DOT from using the fact of conviction as evidence in license suspension cases, and that such argument was squarely rejected by this Court in Bourdeev v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 755 A.2d 59 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 771 A.2d 1288 (2001). The trial court felt, however, that the present case was distinguishable from Bourdeev in that the New Jersey court order in the present case stated that neither the plea nor the notice of conviction could be used as evidence in any civil proceeding.
DOT argues on appeal that distinguishing Bourdeev and its progeny in this fashion amounts to reversible error and that Licensee's conviction by way of a plea of guilty with civil reservation may be relied upon by DOT in suspending Licensee's operating privilege under the Compact, and that such reliance does not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
We agree.... As noted in Bourdeev, our Supreme Court has upheld the use of a conviction entered on a plea of nolo contendere as evidence in a subsequent civil matter where it was the fact of conviction, not the plea, that was the operative fact relied upon.... Suspension of a licensee's operating
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|