Tirado v. Commonwealth6/15/2005
Submitted: March 18, 2005
BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, President Judge, HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge, HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (trial court), which sustained the appeal of Alexis Tirado, Jr. (Licensee) and reversed PennDOT's order suspending his operating privilege. We reverse.
The facts are not in dispute. Licensee is domiciled in Monroe County, Pennsylvania and is a licensed driver in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On January 23, 2004, Licensee was cited in the State of New Jersey for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). On March 18, 2004, Licensee was convicted of DUI by a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of New Jersey. On March 24, 2004, 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 Licensee's conviction. Licensee has no prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in Pennsylvania or any other state.
By official notice mailed May 19, 2004, PennDOT notified Licensee that his operating privilege was being suspended for one year, effective June 23, 2004, as a consequence of the New Jersey conviction.
This is an Official Notice of the Suspension of your Driving Privilege as authorized by Section 1532B the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. As a result of your 3/18/2004 conviction in NEW JERSEY:
Your driving privilege is SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEAR(S) effective 06/23/2004 at 12:01 a.m.
Your driving record reflects a violation on 01/23/2004 that is similar to violating Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE.
Your conviction in NEW JERSEY is listed in Article IV of Section 1581 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code which mandates that PennDOT process specific out-of-state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania.
Certified Record (C.R.) at 7a.
From this notice, Licensee filed a statutory appeal, pursuant to Section 1550(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1550(a), with the trial court. A hearing before the trial court was held. At the hearing, Licensee argued that the suspension was improper because Section 3804(e)(2)(iii) of the Vehicle Code, which became effective on February 1, 2004, prior to his conviction on March 18, 2004, states that there shall be no suspension for a first-time violation of Pennsylvania's DUI law. PennDOT argued that Section 3804(e)(2)(iii) of the Vehicle Code does not apply because it became effective after Licensee committed the DUI offense on January 23, 2004. Therefore, the question, as framed by the trial court, was whether the offense date or the conviction date controls PennDOT's imposition of a suspension under the provisions of the Compact, 75 Pa. C.S. §1581.
Relying on Schrankel v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 562 Pa. 337, 755 A.2d 690 (2000), the trial court concluded that the conviction date was controlling. The trial court determined that since Licensee's conviction, on March 18, 2004, occurred after Act 24's February 1, 2004 effective date, no suspension is authorized. By order dated October 21, 2004, the trial court reversed the PennDOT's suspension order. This appeal now follows.
In this appeal, PennDOT raises the sole issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to apply the savings provisions found in Act 24, and inst
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|