 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cox v. Commonwealth4/27/2005
red a decision on the factual issues." Id. at 644 (citing Hyman v. Borock, 235 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 1967)).
Here, Licensee did not consent to have his case decided by Judge O'Dell Seneca based on the record developed before Judge Gilmore. Indeed, in paragraph eight of his motion for reconsideration, License specifically requested that the trial court "schedule a hearing to hear the facts alleged and the defenses in the driver's license appeal." (R.R. at 38a.) Absent consent, under Wasiolek, the trial court needed to conduct a new hearing.
Accordingly, we vacate and remand.
AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County (trial court), dated October 25, 2004, is hereby vacated, and this case is remanded to the trial court for rehearing.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|