Jones v. Commonwealth11/21/2005
Benjamin Rowlands Jones (Jones) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial court), which denied and dismissed Jones' appeal from an order of the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) suspending his operating privilege for one year. We affirm.
Jones is domiciled in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and is a licensed driver in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On December 21, 2003, Jones was cited in the State of New Jersey for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). On March 2, 2004, Jones was convicted of DUI by a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of New Jersey. Pursuant to the Driver's License Compact (Compact), the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New Jersey transmitted an electronic communication to PennDOT notifying PennDOT of Jones' DUI conviction. Jones has no prior convictions for DUI in Pennsylvania or any other state.
By official notice mailed May 18, 2004, PennDOT notified Jones that his operating privilege was being suspended for one year, effective June 22, 2004, as a consequence of the New Jersey conviction. The notice explained that the basis for suspension was the New Jersey conviction on March 2, 2004 for an offense similar to Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731 (DUI), and that the conviction in New Jersey is listed in Article IV of the Compact, Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1581, which mandates that PennDOT process specific out-of-state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania.
From this notice, Jones filed a statutory appeal, pursuant to Section 1550(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1550(a), with the trial court. A de novo hearing before the trial court was held on October 6, 2004. At the hearing, PennDOT offered into evidence a packet of documents including a copy of the report from the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles showing Jones' conviction on March 2, 2004 for a DUI offense occurring on December 21, 2003, which was admitted over the objection of Jones. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, by order dated December 28, 2004, the trial court denied Jones' appeal. This appeal now follows.
Jones raises the following issues for our review:
1. Is a Pennsylvania driver, convicted in the State of New Jersey on March 2, 2004, as a first time offender, for a DUI violation that occurred on December 21, 2003, subject to a suspension of operating privileges, where the out-of-state violation is similar to the offense as defined in Section 3804(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3804(a)(1), or does an application of Section 21(5)(ii) of Act 24 make the administrative penalties that became effective September 30, 2003, applicable to all offenses that occurred prior to February 1, 2004, which under Section 3804(a)(1) would only be fines and probation and not suspension?
2. Is the "triggering event" for the suspension of operating privileges the licensee's conviction or the date of the occurrence of the DUI offense?
3. Did PennDOT establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the New Jersey DUI statute under which Jones was convicted substantially similar to the Pennsylvania statute?
Jones contends that the suspension of his operating privilege was improper because Act 24, which became effective on February 1, 2004, prior to his conviction on March 2, 2004, states that there shall be no suspension for a first-time violation of Pennsylvania's DUI law and that the triggering event for the suspension should be the date of conviction, not the date of occurrence. We disagree.
The Act of September
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|