 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinsey v. Commonwealth11/18/2003
Jeffrey Kinsey (Licensee) appeals from the February 25, 2003 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) that denied his statutory appeal of a one-year suspension of his operating privilege imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) pursuant to Sections 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code (Code) and 1581, Article IV (a)(2) of the Driver's License Compact (Compact). We affirm.
On November 17, 2001, Licensee was arrested in the State of Nebraska and charged with violating Section 60-6,196 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, Neb.Rev.St. § 60-6,196 (1943). That section provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or be in the actual physical control of any motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor or of any drug. Id.
On July 22, 2002, Licensee appeared before the Douglas County Court in Omaha, Nebraska, and plead guilty to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Omaha City Ordinance § 36-115(A), which is a codification of Nebraska's state DUI statute. Licensee was required to surrender his license and pay a fine.
Pursuant to Article III of the Compact, Nebraska reported Licensee's conviction to the Department. Because the Compact requires the Department to treat Licensee's out-of-state DUI conviction as though it had occurred in Pennsylvania, the Department notified Licensee by official notice dated August 29, 2002 that his operating privilege was being suspended for a period of one year, effective October 3, 2002.
On September 27, 2002, Licensee appealed the Department's suspension to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (initial appeal). Because Licensee is a resident of Montgomery County and not Bucks County, Licensee filed an "Amended Petition for Appeal from a Suspension of Operating Privilege" with the trial court on October 17, 2002, seeking a de novo review of the Department's action.
At the January 13, 2003 de novo hearing, the Department introduced into evidence, without objection, a packet of certified documents containing (a) a certification by the Director of the Department, (b) a copy of the Department's August 29, 2002 notice, (c) a copy of the State of Nebraska's "Abstract of Judgment" (d) a copy of an envelope from the State of Nebraska's Department of Motor Vehicles which contained the "Abstract of Judgment" and (e), a copy of Licensee's driving history.
Although Licensee did not present any testimony, he submitted into evidence a copy of Neb.Rev.St. § 60-6,196 (1943) and a copy of the December 14, 2001 Nebraska administrative hearing transcript, which contained proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a recommended order.
By order dated February 25, 2003, the trial court denied Licensee's statutory appeal by concluding that Nebraska's DUI statute was substantially similar to the offense defined in Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact and that the Department produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Abstract of Judgment was received from Nebraska's drivers' licensing authority. It is this second determination which Licensee now appeals.
In response to Licensee's appeal, the Department maintains that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Licensee's statutory appeal on the ground that said appeal was untimely filed. Because subject matter jurisdiction goes to the court's authority to render a valid adjudication, we must resolve that issue first.
By notice dated August 29, 2002, the Department notified Licensee that his operating privilege was being suspended pursuant to Section 1532(b) of the Code and Section
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|