 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stecker v. Commonwealth2/25/2004
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Bureau of Driver Licensing (Bureau) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court) sustaining the statutory appeal of James Scott Stecker (Licensee) from the requirement that he install an ignition interlock system after serving a one-year suspension of his driver's license.
The facts are undisputed and all too familiar. On September 23, 2001, Licensee was cited for driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731(a). He was convicted of that offense on April 18, 2002. At the time of this conviction, Licensee's record showed three prior violations of Section 3731(a), but the trial court did not order that he install an ignition interlock system on his motor vehicle pursuant to Section 7002(b) the Ignition Interlock Device Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b) (Interlock Act or Act).
By "Official Notice of Suspension" dated May 29, 2002, the Bureau informed Licensee of the mandatory one-year suspension resulting from the April 18, 2002 conviction and the requirement that he install ignition interlock systems in his motor vehicles as a prerequisite to restoring his operating privileges. He was also notified that failure to comply with the latter requirement would result in suspension of his operating privileges for an additional year. This letter informed Licensee that he had the right to appeal the action to the county court within thirty days of the letter's mailing date (May 29, 2002). Licensee did not file an appeal within that time frame.
The Bureau later sent Licensee a "Restoration Requirements Letter" on March 19, 2003, reiterating Licensee's obligations to restore his operating privileges. On April 10, 2003, Licensee filed an appeal with the trial court challenging the ignition interlock installation requirement. This appeal was denied on June 23, 2003, for Licensee's failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing, but that order was vacated on July 3, 2003, and the matter was relisted for hearing on August 18, 2003. At that hearing, the Bureau presented documentary evidence and moved to quash Licensee's appeal as untimely. Licensee did not present any testimony or evidence.
The trial court entered an order on August 18, 2003, denying Licensee's appeal in part and sustaining his appeal in part, striking the requirement that Licensee install ignition interlock systems on his motor vehicles based on our decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (holding that the Bureau does not have independent authority to order the installation of interlock devices). The Bureau appeals from this order.
The Bureau argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Licensee's appeal because he never appealed from the official notice of suspension. Under Section 1550(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1550(a), any person may appeal a suspension of his or her license to the court of common pleas. That section carries with it a thirty-day time limit--that is, a licensee who wishes to appeal a suspension of his or her license must appeal within thirty days from the date of the official notice of suspension. See 42 Pa. C.S. §5571. Henning v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 687 A.2d 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Where a licensee fails to appeal from the date of the official notice of suspension, a trial court cannot entertain a late appeal because it lacks jurisdiction. See e.g., Hudson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
In
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|