 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robeson v. Commonwealth2/17/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County that sustained the appeal of Eric Marcel Robeson (Licensee) from the requirement that he install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles that he owns before his operating privilege could be restored.
On two separate occasions in June 2000, Licensee was charged with violating 75 Pa. C.S. §3731(a) for driving under the influence . Licensee was convicted of both DUI charges on March 29, 2001. The common pleas court did not, in either of the sentencing orders, direct Licensee to install an ignition interlock device on his vehicles as provided for in Section 7002(b) of the Ignition Interlock Law (Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7002(b).
On April 17, 2001, the Department sent Licensee an official notice for each of the convictions informing him that his license was to be suspended for a oneyear period for each conviction, with the suspensions running consecutively beginning on March 29, 2001. One of the notices indicated that he was required to have all vehicles owned by him equipped with an ignition interlock device before his driving privilege could be restored. This same notice further indicated that failure to abide with this interlock requirement would result in the Department suspending his driving privilege for an additional year. The notice also indicated that Licensee would "receive more information regarding this requirement approximately 30 days before eligibility date." (Notice of License Suspension for March 29th conviction).
On February 22, 2002, the Department sent Licensee a Restoration Requirements Letter, which indicated that he would be eligible for restoration of licensing privileges on March 30, 2003 provided that he complied with the requirement of having an ignition interlock system installed in each of his vehicles. The restoration requirements letter also indicated that his driving privilege would be suspended for an additional year should he fail to comply with the interlock installation requirement. This letter did not advise Licensee that it triggered any right of appeal. Approximately one year later, on February 27, 2003, Licensee received a nearly identical Restoration Requirements Letter, which reiterated the same interlock requirements as the prior letter. On March 13, 2003, Licensee filed an appeal challenging the Department's imposition of the interlock requirement.
At the de novo hearing that followed, the Department offered into evidence certified documents, which included the reports of conviction and the April 17, 2001 notices of suspension. Before the court, the Department made an oral motion to dismiss Licensee's appeal as untimely, arguing that it had not been filed within 30 days of the April 17, 2001 notices of suspension. In response, Licensee's counsel argued that under Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Department of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), ruling on petition for allowance of appeal reserved (No. 80 MAL 2002, May 9, 2002), the Department lacked the authority to require an ignition interlock system and, as such, that the appeal was timely.
The common pleas court applied our decision in Schneider, ruling the Department's imposition of an interlock requirement was void ab initio and, therefore, not subject to the 30 day appeal period. The Department appeals this order.
On appeal, the Department contends that Licensee's appeal is untimely because he failed to appeal within 30 days of the notice of suspension and failed to demonstrate circumstances warranting a nunc pro tunc appeal. In light of recent case law from the Pennsy
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|