 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Caparro v. Commonwealth2/11/2004
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) that denied in part and granted in part the appeal of Michael David Caparro (Caparro) of the suspension of his operating privilege with an ignition interlock restoration requirement. The trial court denied the appeal of the operating privilege suspension and granted the appeal of the ignition interlock restoration requirement and rescinded the requirement that Caparro comply with requirements of the Act as a condition to the restoration of his operating privilege.
On May 12, 1990, Caparro was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance (DUI) in violation of Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §3731(a). On February 6, 1991, Caparro was convicted of the offense. On October 4, 1997, Caparro was again arrested and charged with DUI. On May 18, 1998, he was convicted.
On March 27, 2000, Caparro was again arrested and charged with DUI. On August 6, 2001, Caparro was convicted in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia (sentencing court). Caparro was sentenced on March 14, 2002, to one year of probation, consecutive to thirty days house arrest. The sentencing court ordered him to pay a fine of $300 plus costs of $146.50, ordered him to attend an alcohol treatment program, and suspended his license for one year. The order did not mention the ignition interlock requirement. The Report of the Clerk of Courts Showing the Conviction or Acquittal of any Violation of the Vehicle Code (DL-21 form) indicated that the Municipal Court of Philadelphia required the ignition interlock.
By notice dated May 9, 2002, DOT advised Caparro that his driving privilege was suspended for one year, effective June 13, 2002, and notified Caparro that prior to the restoration of his driving privilege, he must install an ignition interlock system in his vehicle(s).
On appeal to the trial court, Caparro challenged the imposition of the ignition interlock requirement and the suspension.
At the March 28, 2003, hearing, DOT introduced a packet of documents that included the notice of suspension, the DL-21 form, and Caparro's certified driving history. Caparro, appearing pro se, admitted that he entered a plea of guilty to DUI on March 14, 2002. Caparro submitted a copy of the sentencing order which did not state that Caparro was required to install an ignition interlock. Notes of Testimony, March 28, 2003, (N.T.) at 5; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 16a. Caparro also submitted a March 24, 2003, order from the sentencing court (Order to Vacate) which stated "it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that the portion of the sentence which states "Act 63 Ignition Interlock Required" is hereby vacated." Order of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, March 24, 2003, at 1; R.R. at 37a.
By order dated March 28, 2003, the trial court sustained Caparro's appeal as to the ignition interlock requirement. The trial court relied on this Court's decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), among other cases and determined that DOT lacked the authority to impose ignition interlock requirements where the sentencing court failed to do so.
DOT contends that the sentencing court did not have the authority in the Order to Vacate to vacate a sentencing order of March 14, 2002, which contained the ignition interlock requirement. DOT also contends that it has the authority to refuse to restore the operating privilege of a repeat DUI offender unless and until that offender complies with the requir
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|