 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dragonette v. Commonwealth2/8/2002
Submitted: December 7, 2001
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Joseph Dragonette (Appellant) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, affirming the one-year suspension of his driving privileges resulting from a conviction in New Jersey for driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of N.J.S. §39:4-50(a). Appellant raises the following issues: is a violation of N.J.S. §39:4-50 for DUI an equivalent conviction under Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731; do dual suspensions and penalties violate Appellant's Equal Protection and Double Jeopardy rights; does the one-year suspension violate Appellant's due process rights guaranteed under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions; were Appellant's due process rights violated by lack of notice of Pennsylvania's impending license suspension at the time of his New Jersey arrest; and did the General Assembly intend to create a two-tiered system of punishment for Pennsylvania drivers who are first-time DUI offenders by making the suspension for out-of-state offenders twelve times longer than for in-state offenses.
Appellant entered a guilty plea in the New Jersey municipal court to violating N.J.S. §39:4-50(a). As required by provisions of the Interstate Driver License Compact (Compact), New Jersey notified the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) of the conviction. See Sections 1581 - 1586 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §§1581 - 1586, and N.J.S. §§39:5D-1 - 39:5D-14. DOT thereafter notified Appellant that his operating privileges would be suspended for one year as mandated by Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b), because of the New Jersey conviction and because the New Jersey offense was equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code.
Appellant appealed to the trial court, which consolidated Appellant's case with 33 other cases involving Pennsylvania licensees facing one-year license suspensions based on out-of-state DUI convictions. The trial court sustained the appeals, and DOT appealed to this Court. In an unpublished memorandum decision, this Court vacated the order and remanded the case. In its reasoning, the Court determined that the trial court had failed to render a decision consistent with its role as a finder of fact and also failed to explain the legal issues raised in the consolidated appeals. Aldridge v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2891 C.D. 1998, filed November 30, 1999). On remand the trial court relied upon well-settled precedent and as a result upheld the suspension. The Court's review of the trial court's order is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were made or whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. Hession v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 767 A.2d 1135 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the New Jersey DUI statute was of a substantially similar nature to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. He also asserts that the New Jersey statute permits a conviction when a motorist is merely under the influence of an intoxicant, whereas in Pennsylvania the driver must be under the influence of an intoxicant "to a degree which renders incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle." Because there are differences in the amount of fines assessed, differences in the potential length of the driver's license suspension and in the length of possible incarceration, Appellant further contends that the two statutes are not substantially similar. As DO
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|