 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ieradi v. Commonwealth6/10/2002
Patricia Ieradi (Licensee) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial court) sustaining the one-year suspension of her driving privilege imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDot) for her refusal to submit to chemical testing pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code (Code).
On September 24, 2000, at approximately 12:15 a.m., Pennsylvania State Trooper Brian J. Stashak (Trooper Stashak) arrested Licensee and transported her to the Pocono State Police Barracks where she was requested to submit to chemical testing but allegedly refused to do so. By notice dated October 25, 2000, PennDot informed Licensee that her driving privilege was suspended for one year for failing to submit to chemical testing as required by Section 1547(b)(1) of the Code and that she had 30 days from which to appeal the suspension. On December 13, 2000, Licensee filed a petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc of the suspension to the trial court.
Before the trial court, PennDot filed a motion to quash the appeal as untimely pursuant to Section 5571(b) of the Judicial Code. Licensee did not offer any evidence to support her request for an appeal nunc pro tunc and, instead, her counsel explained that because Licensee was undergoing counseling for depression, she failed to timely forward the notice to her for appeal. The trial court denied PennDot's motion to quash.
After admitting into evidence, among other documentation, a certified copy of the October 25, 2000 notice of suspension, PennDot called Trooper Stashak who testified that while he was on patrol, he observed Licensee driving erratically and pulled her over. Upon approaching her vehicle, Trooper Stashak stated that he detected the strong odor of alcohol on Licensee's breath and asked her to submit to two field sobriety tests, both of which she failed. Trooper Stashak stated that he then placed Licensee in custody and proceeded to the Pocono Barracks to conduct a breath test. He testified that at the barracks, after Licensee was given her implied consent warnings, she refused to submit to the breath test which was documented on a DL-26 form that she had signed.
Licensee testified that on the night of the incident, it was very foggy, she was driving slowly because she was lost and she proceeded to pull off an exit to turn around when she first noticed Trooper Stashak and was directed to pull over. Licensee stated that at the police barracks, she became confused over the information she was given concerning the loss of her license and whether it would be for 15 to 30 days or one year. Licensee, on cross examination, acknowledged that she signed the DL-26 form and that she subsequently refused to submit to the testing.
The trial court upheld the suspension determining that Trooper Stashak had reasonable grounds to arrest Licensee; the testimony of Trooper Stashak and Licensee's own signature on the DL-26 form established that she was informed that her driving privilege would be suspended if she failed to submit to chemical testing; and she knowingly and consciously refused to submit to the testing. Licensee's appeal followed.
On appeal, Licensee contends that she was not capable of a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical testing because the implied consent warnings were improperly administered. Before we even reach the merits, however, we must address PennDot's assertion that because Licensee failed to offer any evidence to support her petition for an appeal nunc pro tunc, the trial court erred in denying its motion to quash the appeal as untimely.
In order to b
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|