 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Lal3/16/2004
1989), and Commonwealth v. Shull, 811 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 756, 818 A.2d 504 (2003), as support. In Snyder the defendant was charged with multiple violations related to driving under the influence and driving without a license resulting from a single traffic stop. The charges were presented in two criminal complaints filed nine months apart. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the second complaint, explaining that under Rule 131(b) and (c), Pa.R.Crim.P. 131(b), (c) (now Rule 505(b) and (c)), the defendant was entitled to have the charges presented in a single complaint and that the proper remedy was to disallow costs on the second one. Similarly, Shull involved multiple summary and misdemeanor offenses arising from a single altercation between two motorists. Two complaints were filed and prosecuted before different district justices. The court again noted that defendant was only entitled to relief from the second set of costs under Rule 505(b) and (c).
Neither Snyder nor Shull applies to these proceedings. Pa.R.Crim.P. 453(b) provides that " hen more than one summary offense is alleged to have been committed by one person arising from the same incident, the matter shall proceed as a single case and the issuing authority shall receive only one set of costs." In this case, however, the trial court was presented with ongoing violations of a municipality's property maintenance code, resulting in multiple citations issued on separate dates and multiple summary convictions at the district justice and the trial court levels. The incident resulting in each violation was not simply the physical conditions of the property discovered to be in violation of the ordinance, but rather it was the continuing, daily failure to correct the violations. The trial court therefore properly imposed costs on each of the fourteen citations.
Finally, Appellant essentially argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum fine of $1000 for each violation and ignoring Appellant's good-faith efforts to comply with the Borough's directives. Sentencing is within the discretion of the trial judge and absent an abuse of discretion, this Court will not disturb the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Borough of Kennett Square v. Lal, 643 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). In formulating a sentence, the trial court should weigh all mitigating and aggravating factors, including the degree of actual or potential harm to the public, the gravity of the offense and the history and character of the defendant. Id. The trial judge explained the reasons for the maximum fines, citing the danger to the community, the Borough's efforts to secure compliance and Dr. Amrit Lal's failure to act within a reasonable time due in part to his decision to allow a "memorial" to the deceased children. Although significant, the Court cannot say that the fines are so excessive that they constitute an abuse of the trial judge's discretion. Finding no reversible error, the Court accordingly affirms the orders of the trial court.
DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2004, the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County are affirmed.
DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|