 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mensch v. Commonwealth2/11/2004
Argued: December 10, 2003
OPINION NOT REPORTED
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County (common pleas) that sustained the appeal of Timothy M. Mensch from the requirement that he install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles that he owns before his operating privilege could be restored. The Department imposed the ignition interlock device requirement pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7001-7003. Common pleas sustained Mensch's appeal based upon this court's decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), ruling on petition for allowance of appeal reserved (No. 80 MAL 2002, May 9, 2003), wherein this court held, among other things, that the Department lacked the authority to require installation of an ignition interlock device absent a court order by common pleas. Id. at 366-67. Because we conclude that Mensch's statutory appeal to common pleas was untimely, depriving common pleas of jurisdiction over the appeal, we vacate and remand with instructions that common pleas quash the appeal.
Mensch sustained his second conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731 of the Vehicle Code on October 4, 2001. When the common pleas judge sentenced Mensch, he did not require Mensch to install an ignition interlock device as provided for in 42 Pa. C.S. § 7002(b). Neither the Commonwealth nor Mensch appealed the judgment of sentence.
Thereafter, by official notice dated December 4, 2001, the Department notified Mensch that his driving privilege was suspended for one year, and that he was required to have all vehicles owned by him equipped with an ignition interlock device before his driving privilege could be restored, otherwise his driving privilege would be suspended for an additional year. The notice also advised Mensch that he had 30 days from the date of the notice to appeal the Department's action to the court of common pleas. Mensch did not file an appeal from this suspension notice.
By letter dated January 8, 2002, the Department sent Mensch a "Restoration Requirements Letter" outlining the steps that he would need to take in order to restore his operating privilege. Included therein was a reminder that the failure to equip his vehicles with an ignition interlock device would result in an additional year of suspension. This letter did not advise Mensch that it triggered any right of appeal. According to the averments of Mensch's appeal to common pleas, Mensch's attorney, Daniel Lynn, then wrote to the Department informing it that since Mensch's second DUI offense occurred before the Act went into effect, Lynn, the district attorney and the sentencing judge all agreed at sentencing that the Act did not apply to Mensch and, as a result, common pleas did not impose the Act's requirements on Mensch as part of his sentence. Counsel then requested that the Department issue a new Restoration Requirements Letter to Mensch. The Department responded to Lynn's request on January 25, 2002, explaining that the Act did apply because Mensch's second conviction occurred after the effective date of the Act and it was required by law to impose the ignition interlock requirement on Mensch.
Lynn wrote a second letter to the Department on April 4, 2002, inquiring whether the Department had changed its position regarding its practice of imposing an ignition interlock requirement absent a common pleas order in light of this court's decision in Schneider, which was filed January 11, 2002. The
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|