 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Seddon v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania1/15/2002
Robert Seddon (Licensee) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), dismissing his statutory appeal from the one-year suspension of his operating privileges imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) pursuant to Section 1532(b)(3) and Article IV(a)(2) of Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. §§1532(b)(3), 1581. We affirm.
On September 27, 2000, Licensee was convicted for violating New Jersey's driving under the influence (DUI) statute. As both New Jersey and Pennsylvania are members of the Compact, authorities in New Jersey reported the conviction to authorities in Pennsylvania, as required by Article III of the Compact. By letter dated November 14, 2000, DOT notified Licensee that:
Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to treat certain out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. Therefore, as a result of the Department receiving notification from NEW JERSEY of your conviction on 09/27/2000 of an offense which occurred on 07/16/2000, which is the equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pa. Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE, your driving privilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEAR(S), as mandated by Section 1532B of the Vehicle Code. (R.R. at 5a).
Licensee filed a statutory appeal of his suspension with the trial court. On May 11, 2001, the trial court held a de novo hearing, at which DOT introduced into evidence a certified packet of documents establishing Licensee's New Jersey conviction and notice of the suspension from DOT. Licensee objected to the introduction of the documents arguing that he pled guilty pursuant to a "civil reservation," which precluded the introduction of the documents establishing his New Jersey conviction. The trial court overruled Licensee's objection and DOT rested.
In opposition, Licensee offered into evidence the document showing that he pled guilty pursuant to a civil reservation. Again, Licensee argued that DOT was precluded from suspending his operating privileges based on a New Jersey report of conviction that resulted from his plea of guilty pursuant to a civil reservation. Additionally, Licensee argued that New Jersey's DUI statute was not substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. Thereafter, the trial court affirmed the suspension of Licensee's operating privileges imposed by DOT.
On appeal to this Court, Licensee argues that New Jersey's DUI statute is not substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. Additionally, Licensee argues that DOT is precluded from relying on his plea of guilty pursuant to a civil reservation in order to suspend his operating privileges. We disagree.
First, we emphasize that this Court has previously held that New Jersey's DUI statute is substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. Jacobs v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 783 A.2d 370 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 778 A.2d 773 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); Breen v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 771 A.2d 879 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Thus, we immediately reject that portion of Licensee's argument regarding substantial similarity.
Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently affirmed this Court's decision in Bourdeev v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 755 A.2d 59 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), affirmed, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.2d ___ (No. 13 EAP 2001, filed October 25, 2001), that a guilty plea entered pursuant to a civil reservation has no impact on DOT's suspension of a licensee's d
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|