 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robeson v. Commonwealth2/17/2004
lvania Supreme Court, and for the reasons set forth in this Court's recent en banc decision in Freedman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (No. 1141 C.D. 2003, filed February 10, 2004), we agree.
In Freedman, we explained that (1) the proper procedure to challenge the Department's imposition of the ignition interlock device requirement is to file a timely appeal from the notice of suspension and, (2) the rationale of Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), which had allowed nunc pro tunc appeals on the ground that the Department's unilateral imposition of an interlock requirement was void ab initio, was inconsistent with the analysis of our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, ___ Pa. ___, 834 A.2d 488 (2003). Consequently, since Licensee did not assert any other grounds justifying a nunc pro tunc appeal, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
Accordingly, we vacate the order of the common pleas court and remand with instructions to quash Licensee's statutory appeal.
RENEE L. COHN, Judge
ORDER
NOW, February 17, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County in the above-captioned matter is hereby vacated and this case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to quash the appeal as untimely.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
RENEE L. COHN, Judge
DISSENTING OPINION
JUDGE FRIEDMAN
FILED: February 17, 2004
For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Freedman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1141 C.D. 2003, filed 2/10/2004), I respectfully dissent.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|