 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Herron v. Commonwealth1/26/2004
Charles Keith Herron appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial court) denying his statutory appeal from a one-year suspension of his operating privileges imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT). The suspension was imposed pursuant to Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b), and Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver's License Compact of 1961 (Compact), 75 Pa. C.S. §1581. Section 1581 provides for the suspension of Pennsylvania operating privileges following the operator's conviction, in a state that is a party to the Compact, for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a degree rendering the operator incapable of safe operation of the motor vehicle, or a substantially similar offense. We affirm.
On August 18, 2002, Herron was arrested in New Jersey and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of N.J.S. §39:004-050(a). He was convicted of the offense on October 25, 2002. New Jersey is a party state to the Compact, and on October 29, 2002, it electronically reported the record of conviction to DOT. Based on this information, DOT forwarded to Herron on December 13, 2002 an official notice of a one-year suspension based on his New Jersey conviction. Herron filed a timely suspension appeal, and the matter was heard de novo before the trial court on March 19, 2003.
At the hearing, DOT offered into evidence a series of documents consisting of (a) a certification page, (b) a copy of the December 13, 2002 notice of Herron's suspension, (c) a copy of the report of Herron's New Jersey conviction sent to DOT by the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, and (d) Herron's certified driving history. These documents were admitted into evidence without Herron's objection, and DOT rested its case without presenting any other evidence. Herron did not testify nor present evidence. Rather, his attorney made oral argument challenging the sufficiency of DOT's evidence on several grounds. Herron argued that the documents submitted by DOT did not indicate that he was convicted of an alcohol-related driving offense in New Jersey with a blood alcohol level of.1% or higher. He further argued that the documents from New Jersey failed to satisfy the requirements of the Compact pursuant to Snyder v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 808 A.2d 318 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). The trial court ordered that the parties submit their arguments by brief.
Herron submitted two briefs to the trial court. In one, he argued that the applicable New Jersey statutes were not sufficiently comparable. In the second, he argued that DOT's evidence did not satisfy its burden because it failed to establish his blood-alcohol level, it did not state that he was rendered incapable of safe driving, and it did not contain proper certification from the New Jersey authorities in violation of the Compact. Herron again cited Snyder, which holds that DOT's certification of out-of-state records is insufficient to establish a report of a licensee's out-of-state conviction, as the face of the report itself must establish that it was sent by the convicting state's licensing authority. Herron argued that the report from New Jersey failed to establish that it was issued by the New Jersey licensing authority.
The trial court rejected Herron's argument that his conviction of N.J.S. §39:004-050(a) is not comparable to 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, pertaining to driving under the influence. The trial court correctly held that the issue is not whether the New Jersey statute is comparable with the Pennsylvania driving under the influence statute, but whether these statu
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|