 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cummings v. Commonwealth3/12/2004
perating privileges, he was required to install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles that he owned. We determined that since the Department's unilateral imposition of the ignition interlock requirement was without authority of law, it was void ab initio. Therefore, there was no error in a trial court's consideration of the merits of a licensee's untimely appeal from the Department's unilateral imposition of the ignition interlock requirement. We explained that under such circumstances, equitable relief is appropriate.
Presently before us is the Department's appeal of the trial court's order. The Department argues that the trial court erred by (1) assuming subject matter jurisdiction over Cummings' appeal when it was filed more than one year after the notice of suspension and when Cummings set forth no basis for a nunc pro tunc appeal, and (2) not determining that the Department has an independent duty under the Law to require that a repeat DUI offender certify that he or she has complied with the ignition interlock requirements of the Law prior to the restoration of license.
The disposition of this case is controlled by the recently-decided Freedman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1141 C.D. 2003, filed February 10, 2004). In Freedman, we determined that the rationale in Watterson for permitting an untimely appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in Mockaitis. Accordingly, we held that absent the establishment of other circumstances warranting a nunc pro tunc appeal, a trial court could not review an untimely appeal of the Department's imposition of the ignition interlock requirement. Here, Cummings failed to raise any circumstances warranting a nunc pro tunc appeal except for his reliance on the holding in Watterson.
Therefore, pursuant to Freedman, we vacate the trial court's order and remand with instructions to quash Cummings' statutory appeal.
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) in the above-captioned matter is hereby vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to quash the statutory appeal of Gary F. Cummings.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|