 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gelet v. Commonwealth1/23/2004
Before the Court is the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing's (Bureau) appeal of the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sustaining the statutory appeal of James R. Gelet. Gelet had appealed his one-year license suspension pursuant to Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §§1532(b)(3), and Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver's License Compact (Compact), 75 Pa. C.S. §1581.
The facts in this case are not disputed. On May 13, 2002, Gelet, a Pennsylvania resident, was convicted in West Virginia of driving under the influence of alcohol. W. Va. Code §17C-5-2 (2002). Subsequent to this conviction, the Bureau received a conviction report from West Virginia. The conviction report was in two parts, with the first part having the title "Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint" and the second part having the title "Abstract of Judgment." The citation portion identified the licensee by name, contained his home address and Pennsylvania driver's license number, as well as listing the title and citation for the statutory provision Gelet was charged with violating. It was signed by the arresting officer.
The abstract of judgment portion of the conviction report indicated that Gelet had pled nolo contendere to the charge and listed the fine for the charge, as well as the length of the jail sentence he was to serve for the conviction. The abstract had a line reading, "This abstract is CERTIFIED CORRECT," followed by a signature line that was signed and dated. Following the signature line was the direction that "THIS ABSTRACT IS TO BE SENT ON ANY DISPOSITION TO: Department of Motor Vehicles, Driver Improvement Division Charlestown, West Virginia."
The report was sent to the Bureau in an envelope bearing the return address for the Department of Motor Vehicles in Charlestown, West Virginia. Upon receipt of the conviction report from the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, the Bureau issued a notice to Gelet indicating that, pursuant to Article III of the Driver's License Compact, it would be suspending his license because the West Virginia offense was similar to Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance). Gelet appealed this suspension notice to the trial court.
At a de novo hearing, the Bureau attempted to offer into evidence the documents certified under seal by the Pennsylvania's Secretary of Transportation and its Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing. Included in this packet was a copy of the court report and the envelope in which it had been sent.
Gelet objected to the admission of the report on the basis that it violated the reporting requirement of Article III of the Compact. In so doing, he relied on our decision in Tripson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 773 A.2d 195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 568 Pa. 690, 796 A.2d 320 (2002). The trial court agreed with Gelet, determining that, under Tripson, the report was inadmissible in that it had not been certified as having originated from the licensing authority for West Virginia. Accordingly, the trial court granted Gelet's appeal. The Bureau now appeals the trial court's order sustaining the appeal, arguing that Tripson was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
This Court has repeatedly declined to overrule Tripson and we, at this time, again adhere to that position. See e.g., Gallant v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 805 A.2d 1 (Pa Cmwlth. 2002) (en banc) . Because the Bureau's entire argument was focused solely on Tripson being incorrectly decided, the ap
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|