 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Minnich v. Commonwealth5/13/2005
are substantially identical to those in the case at bar. There, as here, the licensee was arrested in New Jersey for his first DUI offense prior to the effective date of Act 24. PennDOT suspended the licensee's license after Act 24 went into effect, and the licensee appealed on the grounds that Act 24 applied because his suspension occurred after Act 24 went into effect. The trial judge concluded the suspension was proper because the date of the offending conduct controlled which version of the law applied. The trial court stated:
sing the date of conviction as the relevant date to determine which law applies might result in disparate results for two individuals arrested on the same day for the same offense. Parties and counsel can easily manipulate conviction dates and thereby choose whether to be subject to the "new" or "old" law. Thus, an individual would not know, at the time of arrest, whether license suspension is a possible consequence for him or her because the date of conviction could be manipulated to change the possible punishments. Because using the date of the DUI offense as the applicable date is the only means of ensuring consistent application of license suspensions to out-of-state DUI convictions, and because the statutory language in Pennsylvania supports using the date of conduct as the applicable date, Lepko is subject to Pennsylvania DUI law as it stood on September 17, 2003[, the date of his conduct and arrest]. The law in effect at that time mandated a one-year license suspension based on his conviction in New Jersey.
Dep't of Transp. v. Joseph D. Lepko, No. 04-1387-30-6 (Bucks County p. 6 filed August 19, 2004). We affirmed on the basis of the trial court opinion in Lepko. We recognize that, in Lepko, both the licensee's offense and his conviction occurred prior to the effective date of Act 24, whereas in the case at bar the conviction occurred after the effective date of Act 24. However, that factual distinction does not require a different result because it is the date of the offense that is operative, not the date of conviction. Therefore, the law as it existed at the time Licensee committed his offense, which was prior to Act 24, applies. That law permitted a one-year suspension in Licensee's circumstances. 75 Pa. C.S. § 1532(b). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.
Judge Pellegrini concurs in the result only.
NOW, May 13, 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, JUDGE
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|