 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Randal12/1/2003
1 This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed upon William Jesse Randal (Appellant) after he pled guilty to two counts of Driving Under the Influence (DUI), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(1) and (4), one count of Receiving Stolen Property (RSP), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925, and the summary offense of Windshield Obstructions and Wipers, 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of what is known as Act 63 of 2000 (Act 63), Ignition Interlock Devices, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7001-7003.
For the reasons that follow, we vacate that part of Appellant's sentence requiring the installation of an approved ignition interlock system on each of his motor vehicles as a condition precedent to the restoration of his operating privileges by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Department).
2 On October 4, 2000, Appellant was sentenced on the first DUI count to serve a period of incarceration of not less than thirty days nor more than two years, less one day. No further penalty was imposed for the second DUI count. On the RSP count, Appellant was sentenced to a two-year period of probation, consecutive to the sentence on the first DUI count. For the summary offense, the court imposed a fine. Additionally, pursuant to Act 63, the sentencing court ordered Appellant "to have installed an approved ignition interlock device on each and every vehicle owned or registered in [Appellant's] name. This portion of the sentencing order is to take effect upon the restoration of [Appellant's] operating privileges by the Department of Transportation." Trial Court Order, 10/4/00.
3 On October 16, 2000, Appellant filed a Petition to Modify Sentence, alleging, inter alia, that Act 63 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Consequently, Appellant requested that the sentencing court vacate the requirement that he use the ignition interlock system. Appellant's Petition to Modify Sentence was denied on February 12, 2001, and he filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. Appellant's appeal was consolidated with two other appeals, Commonwealth v. Harris, 521 WDA 2001, and Commonwealth v. McManus, 479 WDA 2001, both of which also raised constitutional issues with regard to Act 63. Initially, a panel decision was entered affirming the judgments of sentence in the three cases. However, that decision was withdrawn and on October 29, 2002, this Court granted reargument en banc.
4 Contemporaneously with our en banc review in the instant case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was also entertaining cases that involved the constitutionality of Act 63. In Mockaitis, the Supreme Court reasoned that: Act 63's delegation to the judiciary of the executive function necessary to effectuate issuance of an ignition interlock restricted license - i.e., ordering installation of the interlock system(s) as a condition to applying to the Department for a restricted license, verifying compliance, and apprising the Department of the court's determinations - impermissibly violates the separation of powers doctrine.
Id. at *29. The Court went on to hold that this improper delegation of executive responsibility to the judiciary was unconstitutional.
In summary, we hold that the provisions of Act 63 which delegate to the courts the executive responsibility, more properly vested in the Department of Transportation, of regulating whether and when repeat DUI offenders are entitled to conditional restoration of their operating privileges, are unconstitutional, but severable. Accordingly, those provisions are invalidated. The remaining provisions of Act 63 still authorize the Department to impose an ignition interlock restriction upon serial DUI offenders who seek
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|