Bello v. Commonwealth12/6/2004
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County that sustained the statutory appeal of Mark Bello (Bello) from the ignition interlock installation requirement imposed by the Department under 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001 - 7003, then in effect, commonly known as the Ignition Interlock Law (Law),*fn1 as a condition to restoration of his operating privileges. We vacate the trial court's order and remand with an instruction to quash the appeal.*fn2
The relevant facts are undisputed. On March 29, 1993, Bello's operating privilege was suspended for three months for his conviction of violating Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731 (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance (DUI)), then in effect.*fn3 On June 6, 2003, Bello was again convicted of committing a DUI offense on September 23, 2002. In sentencing Bello, the sentencing judge did not require him to install an ignition interlock device under Section 7002 of the Law.*fn4
By official notice mailed on July 24, 2003, the Department then notified Bello that as a result of his June 6, 2003 conviction, his operating privilege was suspended for one year effective June 6, 2003 pursuant to Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b). In the notice, Bello was also advised that he must, inter alia, install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles he owned to restore his operating privilege after serving the suspension, and that upon his failure to do so, his operating privilege would remain suspended for an additional year. Bello did not timely appeal the notice of suspension. Thereafter on October 7, 2003, the Department sent Bello a restoration requirements letter again advising him that he must, inter alia, install an approved ignition interlock device on his vehicles to restore his operating privilege.
On November 3, 2004, Bello filed a statutory appeal, challenging the Department's authority to impose the ignition interlock installation requirement, relying on Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), appeal granted, 577 Pa. 674, 842 A.2d 408 (2004), in which this Court held that the courts have the exclusive authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement under the Law.*fn5 Bello also argued that his appeal filed more than three months after the July 24, 2003 notice of suspension was still timely under Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), which held that the trial court did not err in considering the appeal from the Department's imposition of the ignition interlock requirement filed after the thirty-day appeal period because only the court had the authority to impose the requirement and, therefore, the Department's imposition of the requirement is void ab initio.
At a de novo hearing held before the trial court, the Department presented a packet of certified documents, including the report of Bello's conviction, his driving record and the notice of suspension mailed on July 24, 2003. Acknowledging this Court's holdings in Schneider and Watterson, the Department submitted a proposed order denying Bello's appeal from the one-year suspension and sustaining his appeal from the imposition of the ignition interlock requirement, which was signed by the trial court. The Department then appealed, challenging the trial court's order sustaining the appeal from the imposition of the ignition interlock requirement.
The Department contends that the trial court should have quashed Bello's appeal because it was untime
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|