 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yakubik v. Commonwealth2/11/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial court) sustaining the appeal of Richard G. Yakubik from the requirement that he install ignition interlock devices on all his vehicles before restoration of his operating privilege. PennDOT required installation of the interlock devices pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001-03. Because we determine Yakubik's appeal was untimely, we vacate and remand with direction to quash.
In 1983, Yakubik was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). In January 2002, Yakubik pled guilty to two new counts of DUI. The 2002 sentencing court ordered confinement for 48 hours to 12 months, together with other financial and supervision requirements, but it did not order Yakubik to install an ignition interlock device. Neither Yakubik nor the Commonwealth appealed the 2002 sentence.
In March 2002, PennDOT informed Yakubik his operating privilege was suspended for one year and, as a condition of restoration of his operating privilege, he should install interlock devices on all his vehicles. Yakubik did not appeal from this notice within the required 30-day period.
In April 2002, PennDOT sent Yakubik a Restoration Requirements Letter, again noting he needed to install interlock devices on all his vehicles before his operating privilege would be restored.
More than a year later, Yakubik appealed the suspension, arguing PennDOT could not order installation of an ignition interlock device where it was not ordered by the sentencing court and, in the alternative, PennDOT could not order installation of an ignition interlock device where only one conviction arose after the effective date of the Act.
The trial court sustained Yakubik's appeal. The trial court relied on Watterson v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth 2003), to conclude it could hear the appeal despite its untimely filing. Relying on this Court's decision in Schneider v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), the trial court concluded PennDOT lacked independent authority to require installation of ignition interlock devices absent a court order. The trial court further relied on Alexander v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 822 A.2d 92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), to conclude Yakubik's 1983 DUI, which occurred prior to the effective date of the Act, could not be considered his first conviction for purposes of the Act.
PennDOT filed a timely appeal to this Court, arguing: 1) the trial court had no jurisdiction because Yakubik did not establish a basis for having his untimely appeal heard; 2) PennDOT possesses independent authority to order installation of ignition interlock devices; and 3) the Act may be applied despite Yakubik's first conviction which arose before enactment.
With respect to PennDOT's first contention regarding the propriety of Yakubik's untimely appeal, we note that in Watterson, we held an untimely appeal was appropriate because PennDOT lacked independent statutory authority to impose the interlock requirement and because absent a court order interlock imposition was void. 816 A.2d at 1227. However, the rationale in Watterson for permitting an untimely appeal is no longer valid. More specifically, in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, ___ Pa. ___, 834 A.2d 488 (2003), our Supreme Court held that PennDOT enjoys statutory authority to restrict license restoration of repeat DUI offenders which does not depend on a sentencing order from a trial court.
Here, the author
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|