 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Lipinski1/7/2004
isions of Act 63 were germane to the same subject and the title of the Act in its final version clearly indicated its subject matter, we conclude that Article III, Section 3 was not offended. See North-Central Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Assoc. v. Weaver, 827 A.2d 550, 557 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)(finding no Article III, Section 3 violation where "[the challenged bill] as finally amended had a clear and not misleading title and that its provisions related to a single subject, namely amendment of the Judicial Code."); Commonwealth v. Eichman, 605 A.2d 337 (Pa. Super. 1992)(finding Act which provided for several amendments to the Crimes Code did not impermissibly contain more than one subject where the language gave sufficient notice of the contents of the bill), appeal denied, 533 Pa. 598, 617 A.2d 1272 (1992); Ritter v. Commonwealth, 548 A.2d 1317, 1321 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)(concluding Act which contained amendments to several sections of the Crimes Code embraced a single subject, " espite the disparity in the types of acts described for which sanctions are imposed,"), affirmed, 521 Pa. 536; 557 A.2d 1064 (1989). Cf. City of Philadelphia, supra (finding objective of Article III, Section 3 was not satisfied in voluminous bill containing varying and diverse provisions impacting municipalities, most having been included at the last minute and many not referenced in the title).
14 In summary, because we are satisfied that Act 63 does not violate Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we reject Appellant's contention that the entire Act must be set aside. Nonetheless, pursuant to our Supreme Court's decision in Mockaitis, the trial court was without statutory authority to impose the requirements of installing an ignition interlock device in its sentence. Randal, supra. We must therefore vacate Appellant's sentence to the extent that it includes a requirement that she install an ignition interlock system on her vehicles. Id. at (explaining that this Court may amend a sentence directly without a need for remand for resentencing).
15 Judgment of sentence imposing the installation of the ignition interlock system vacated; in all other respects, the judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|