 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Volwieder v. Commonwealth5/16/2005
Jon K. Volwieder (Licensee) appeals from the October 22, 2004, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court), which denied Licensee's challenge to the driving suspension imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) pursuant to the Driver's License Compact (Compact), 75 Pa. C.S. §1581. We affirm.
Licensee was arrested in New Jersey on December 22, 2003, for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Licensee was convicted of the offense on May 10, 2004. New Jersey reported the conviction to DOT, which suspended Licensee's operating privileges for one year. Licensee appealed to the trial court, which, after a hearing, denied the appeal. (Trial ct.'s op. at 1-2.)
Licensee argued before the trial court 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 May 10, 2004, states that there shall be no suspension for a first-time violation of Pennsylvania's DUI law. DOT 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 December 22, 2003. Therefore, the question was whether the offense date or the conviction date controls DOT's imposition of a suspension under the provisions of the Compact. In denying Licensee's appeal, the trial court concluded that the offense date controls. Licensee now appeals to this court.
Licensee argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the offense date controls DOT's imposition of a suspension under the Compact. We disagree.
In Barnas v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1806 C.D. 2004, filed May 13, 2005), this court held that, under Article IV of the Compact, DOT must give effect to conduct that occurred in a party state on a particular date as if the conduct occurred in the home state on the same date. Thus, following Barnas, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that the offense date controls DOT's imposition of a suspension under the Compact.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, dated October 22, 2004, is hereby affirmed.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
Page 1 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|