 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cerqueira v. Commonwealth12/17/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT), appeals from the February 14, 2003 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (trial court) that sustained the statutory appeal of Keith Cerqueira (Licensee) from the requirement that he comply with the provisions of the Ignition Interlock Law (IIL), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7001-7003, as a condition to the restoration of his operating privilege following his service of a one-year suspension of said privilege. Licensee's operating privilege was suspended as a consequence of his conviction on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), a violation of Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731(a). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
On May 2, 2001, Licensee pleaded guilty to his second DUI offense. When he was sentenced, the sentencing court did not order Licensee to install ignition interlock systems on vehicles owned by him prior to the restoration of his operating privilege, as provided in Section 7002(b) of the IIL, 42 Pa. C.S. § 7002(b).
By notice dated October 2, 2001, DOT informed Licensee that his operating privilege was being suspended for a period of one year. That notice also informed Licensee that if each vehicle that he owned was not equipped with an approved ignition interlock system at the time that his operating privilege was eligible for restoration, his license would be suspended for an additional year.
Licensee filed an appeal of DOT's imposition of the IIL on September 19, 2002 at trial court docket number 6108 of 2002. A hearing on the matter was held October 18, 2002, at which time DOT moved to quash the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The trial court continued the matter in order to allow the parties to submit briefs on the issues of whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction and whether Licensee could amend his appeal.
In the interim, on November 12, 2002, DOT informed Licensee that his operating privilege would be eligible for restoration as of November 5, 2003, if he: (1) installed an approved ignition interlock device on all vehicles and (2), applied for an ignition interlock license. License then filed an appeal of DOT's November 12, 2002 notice with the trial court on November 27, 2002 at docket number 7552 of 2002.
Licensee's appeals were consolidated and the trial court held a hearing on the matter on February 14, 2003. In sustaining Licensee's appeals, the trial court followed our decisions in Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) and Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
On March 7, 2003, DOT filed two appeals with this Court: the first at No. 581 C.D. 2003 and the second at No. 582 C.D. 2003. For reasons unknown, DOT's appeals were not consolidated before this Court as permitted by Pa. R.C.P. 513 (where there is more than one appeal from the same order, or where the same question is involved in two or more appeals in different cases, the court may order them to be argued together as if but a single appeal).
On September 4, 2003, this Court filed an opinion and order disposing of DOT's appeal at No. 581 C.D. 2003. See Cerqueira v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 581 C.D. 2003, filed September 4, 2003). Inasmuch as DOT raises the same issues in this appeal as those addressed by this Court's opinion and order at No. 581 C.D. 2003, said order is res judicata as to the issues raised herein. Accordingly, we dismiss DOT's appeal as moot.
ORDER
AND
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|