 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Litterini v. Commonwealth1/15/2004
e time of her conviction, PennDOT was no longer the "home state" as defined in the Compact.
Here, by contrast, Licensee had not surrendered his Pennsylvania license as of the date of his New Jersey DWI conviction, July 24, 2002. Further, there is no evidence that Licensee held a New Jersey license either on the date of his New Jersey DWI conviction or on the date of his hearing before the trial court on January 9, 2003. The trial court found that "for all intents and purposes, Pennsylvania was no longer a 'home state' as defined in the Compact," Trial Court Opinion, 2, because Licensee established legal residency in New Jersey prior to his arrest and conviction. This was error. The domicile of a licensee is not determinative of whether or not Pennsylvania is the "home state" under the Compact. Rather, "home state" is determined by the operator's license, and the only license held by Licensee was a valid and current Pennsylvania license.
More to the point is our recent holding in Evans v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 800 A.2d 1001 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). In Evans, the licensee established a permanent residence in Maryland while continuing to maintain his Pennsylvania license. After his conviction for DWI he surrendered his Pennsylvania license to Maryland and obtained a Maryland license. When Pennsylvania subsequently notified the licensee of his suspension, the licensee asserted that Pennsylvania was not the "home state" under the Compact. The licensee contended that because his Pennsylvania license had been surrendered to Maryland before PennDOT notified him of the suspension, PennDOT was divested of authority. We held, however, that it is the driver's license held at the moment of conviction that is determinative. Because Pennsylvania was the "home state," i.e., the licensing state, at the time of conviction, PennDOT retained the authority to suspend the licensee's operating privilege.
Unlike the licensee in Berner, but very much like the licensee in Evans, Licensee held a Pennsylvania driver's license at the time of his conviction on July 24, 2002. Indeed, Licensee continued to hold a Pennsylvania license at the time he received notice of his suspension and even at the time of the hearing on his suspension appeal. Thus, PennDOT had authority under the Compact to suspend Licensee's operating privilege notwithstanding the fact that he was a New Jersey resident at the time of the suspension. We hold, therefore, that for purposes of the Compact Pennsylvania was the "home state" with respect to Licensee's operating privileges.
For these reasons, the trial court is reversed, and the one-year suspension of Licensee's operating privilege is reinstated.
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated February 11, 2003 in the above-captioned matter is hereby reversed and the one-year suspension of Appellee's operating privilege is reinstated.
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|