 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hildenbrand v. Commonwealth5/4/2005
t court's opinion on question involved that is not essential to decision is dicta). Hence, Hildenbrand's argument lacks merit.
In its appeal, DOT argues that the trial court committed a reversible error in reducing the eighteen-month suspension to one year. In suspension proceedings, the licensee must be informed with reasonable certainty of the substance of the charges. Department of Transportation v. Sutton, 541 Pa. 35, 660 A.2d 46 (1995). In DOT's June 21, 2004 notice of suspension, DOT informed Hildenbrand that his operating privilege was suspended for eighteen months for his refusal to submit to chemical testing on May 22, 2004 "as authorized by Section 1547B1II of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code." Moreover, any technical defect in the notice of suspension was cured when Hildenbrand was provided with a de novo hearing. See Sutton. Hildenbrand admitted at the hearing that his operating privilege was suspended for his 1983 DUI convictions. Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that DOT failed to establish any basis for suspending Hildenbrand's operating privilege in excess of one year either in the officer's implied consent warning or in the notice of suspension.
It is well established that the trial court may not modify the penalty imposed by DOT once the trial court determines de novo that the violation actually occurred for which the licensee's operating privilege was suspended. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cormas, 377 A.2d 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). Because the trial court found that Hildenbrand knowingly and consciously refused to submit to chemical testing, the trial court committed an error of law when it reduced the mandatory eighteen-month suspension period imposed by DOT pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1)(ii) of the Vehicle Code. Based on its review, the Court affirms the trial court's order to the extent that it denied Hildenbrand's appeal. Because of the trial court's error in reducing the suspension, its order is modified so as to reinstate DOT's eighteen-month suspension.
AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County is affirmed as modified in accordance with the foregoing opinion, and the operating privilege suspension imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing is reinstated.
DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|