 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Singiser v. Commonwealth2/11/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) sustaining Steven C. Singiser's appeal from PennDOT's requirement that he install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles he owned before his operating privilege could be restored. 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 Singiser's appeal was untimely, we vacate and remand with direction to quash.
Singiser was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (DUI) in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. §3731(a) in March 1988 and again in January 2002. In February 2002, Singiser was sentenced to a period of incarceration, fines, costs, and restitution as a result of the second conviction. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 33-34a. The trial court did not order Singiser to install ignition interlock devices under Section 7002(b) of the Act. No appeal was taken from the judgment of sentence.
In March 2002, PennDOT sent Singiser a notice of suspension stating his operating privilege was suspended for one year and, as a condition of restoration of his operating privilege, he would be required to install interlock devices on all his vehicles. R.R. at 25a-26a, 32a. Singiser did not appeal from this notice within the required 30-day period.
In January 2003, PennDOT sent Singiser a Restoration Requirements Letter, again noting he needed to install interlock devices on all his vehicles before his operating privilege would be restored. R.R. at 7a-9a. Singiser then appealed to the trial court, arguing PennDOT could not order installation of ignition interlock devices when the trial court had not done so.
The trial court sustained Singiser's appeal. Although PennDOT argued Singiser's appeal should be quashed as untimely, the trial court relied on our decision in Watterson v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), to hold it was permitted to hear the merits of Singiser's case despite its untimely filing. The trial court also relied on this Court's decision in Schneider v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), to find PennDOT was without independent authority to order installation of ignition interlock devices when the trial court did not order them.
PennDOT filed a timely appeal to this Court, arguing the trial court erred in hearing the merits of Singiser's appeal despite its untimely filing and erred in finding PennDOT had no independent authority to require installation of ignition interlock devices. We need not reach PennDOT's second argument because the timeliness issue is dispositive.
With respect to Singiser'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, the 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 that does not depend on a sentencing order from a trial court.
Here, the authority upon which the trial court relied in permitting an untimely appeal no longer controls. Moreover, there is no contention by Singiser that his appeal is timely or that other circumstanc
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|