 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scarpa v. Commonwealth6/14/2005
used is informed with reasonable certainty of the substance of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare a defense." Id. Scarpa maintains that because of the frequency of his arrest, he was not afforded due process. Scarpa only had one Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act violation, and thus it should have been abundantly clear to him that the October 5, 2003 violation was what the Department was referring to in the suspension letter. The one day typographical error is immaterial. Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed.
The Department's request for attorney's fees is denied. There were legitimate legal arguments raised by Scarpa's attorney. Scarpa's attorney is being an advocate for his client, and there is no reason to punish him for vigorously representing a client.
AND NOW, this 14th day of June 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, President Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|