 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transportation11/8/2004
Dennis L. Rodriguez appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County (common pleas) that dismissed his statutory appeal from the five-year revocation of his operating privilege and also dismissed his request for time credit due to lack of jurisdiction.
The facts of this case are simply stated. Rodriguez was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI)*fn1 on February 8, 1997, July 4, 1997, and July 6, 2001. He pled guilty to the 1997 offenses on November 18, 1997. He apparently also pled guilty to the last offense on April 8, 2002, but common pleas granted his motion to withdraw his plea, and he again pled guilty to this offense on January 13, 2003. Due to his convictions, the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) mailed Rodriguez, on May 3, 2002, an official notice of revocation pursuant to Section 1542(d) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1542(d).*fn2 This notice informed Rodriguez of his designation as a habitual offender and that his driving privilege was being revoked for a five-year period beginning December 5, 2001. It also provided that he was required by law to have all vehicles owned by him equipped with an ignition interlock system prior to restoration of his driving privilege.*fn3
Thereafter, Rodriguez appealed to common pleas, which held a hearing de novo. Common pleas then dismissed Rodriguez's appeal on January 16, 2004, and Rodriguez filed a timely Notice of Appeal with this court. In his brief here, he argues that: (1) the Department did not prove that he was a habitual offender in accordance with 75 Pa. C.S. § 1542; (2) the Department did not give him proper credit toward his license suspension; and (3) the Department improperly required him to obtain an ignition interlock device.*fn4
With respect to the initial question of whether the Department proved Rodriguez to be a habitual offender, Section 1542(a) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1542(a) provides:
The department shall revoke the operating privilege of any person found to be a habitual offender pursuant to the provisions of this section. A "habitual offender" shall be any person whose driving record, as maintained in the department, shows that such person has accumulated the requisite number of convictions for the separate and distinct offenses described and enumerated in subsection (b) committed after the effective date of this title and within any period of five years thereafter.
Section 1542(b) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1542(b), provides that for habitual offender status the requisite number of DUI convictions is three.
Although Rodriguez argues that the Department did not prove that he was a habitual offender because it wrongly submitted evidence that he was last convicted of DUI in April 2002 rather than January 2003, we find this contention meritless.*fn5 The salient question is not whether Rodriguez's three DUI convictions occurred within five years of each other, but instead, "[f]or purposes of determining the five-year period under Section 1542 of the Vehicle Code, we look to the date that the licensee actually committed the violations, not the date of the convictions." Ford v. Dep't of Transp. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 776 A.2d 367, 368 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). See also Fetty v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 784 A.2d 236, 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (stating that "the Department bears the burden of demonstrating that Licensee's certified driving record contains the requisite number of convictions for offenses committed within a five-year period to satisfy the habitual offender provisions of the Code.") (Emphasis added). Here, the Department met its burden by introducing certified copies of Rodriguez's convictions for DUI o
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|