From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Edwards

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 8, 1987
519 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1987)

Opinion

January 8, 1987.

Motor vehicles — Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license — Operating while under suspension — Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543 — Scope of review — Conviction — Collateral attack — Payment of fine.

1. When a person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under suspension in violation of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543, a suspension of his motor vehicle operator's license is mandated, and the de novo review by a trial court of the action of suspension is limited to a determination of whether such conviction occurred and whether the Bureau of Traffic Safety faithfully observed statutory requirements in effecting the suspension. [45]

2. A criminal conviction for violation of provisions of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543, cannot be collaterally attacked in a license suspension proceeding. [45]

3. A conviction occurs when a finding of guilt is made and a sentence imposed, and the fact that the fine imposed was ultimately paid by someone other than the defendant is immaterial in determining whether a conviction occurred. [45]

Submitted on briefs September 19, 1986, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR., Judge DOYLE, and Senior Judge KALISH, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 147 C.D. 1983, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, in case of Commonwealth v. David J. Edwards, No. MsD. No. 82-071, Book 43, Page 80.

Motor vehicle operator's license suspended by Department of Transportation. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County. Appeal sustained. KIESTER, SR. J. Commonwealth appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed. Suspension reinstated.

Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him, Spencer A. Manthorpe, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.


The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County which set aside the suspension of David J. Edwards' operating privileges. We reverse the trial court and reinstate the suspension.

On July 27, 1982, DOT notified Edwards that his operating privilege was being revoked for a period of six months for his conviction on May 26, 1982, for a violation of section 1543(a) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543(a) (driving while operating privileges were suspended). Edwards appealed this departmental action to the common pleas court, and the appeal was sustained.

The documents in evidence at the trial showed that Edwards was convicted for a violation of section 1543(a) of the Code and that his wife paid the fine and costs of this violation.

The trial court held that as part of the corpus delicti, DOT had to conclusively show that Edwards was in fact guilty of committing the section 1543(a) offense, and that DOT failed to meet this burden. The trial court took evidence on this point.

An operator's driving privilege may be suspended by DOT, after a hearing, when the record shows that such person has been convicted of certain violations. Thus, when the Secretary of DOT receives a report of convictions, he must, in certain instances, suspend the license of the operator. He has no discretion.

There is only one issue involved in this case, and that is whether Edwards was convicted of operating his motor vehicle while his license was suspended. Upon appeal to the trial court where the proceeding is de novo, the trial court's scope of review is limited to determining whether the motorist has, in fact, been convicted of a traffic violation and whether the Bureau of Traffic Safety has faithfully observed provisions of the Vehicle Code in suspending the motorist's driving privileges. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Schmidt, 57 Pa. Commw. 318, 426 A.2d 1222 (1981). The record constitutes prima facie evidence of convictions. The motorist may not go into the facts of his violation, because the issue is whether he was convicted, not whether he should have been convicted. The merit of the suspension is not a matter for determination by the court. A criminal conviction may not later be attacked collaterally in a suspension appeal. Virnelson Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 212 Pa. Super. 359, 243 A.2d 464 (1968); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Brown, 31 Pa. Commw. 620, 377 A.2d 1027 (1977); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Siedlecki, 7 Pa. Commw. 130, 300 A.2d 287 (1973).

A conviction occurs when there is a finding of guilt and sentence is imposed. It is not the payment of a fine or a question of who paid the fine which is at issue in determining what constitutes a conviction. The record shows that Edwards admitted at the court hearing that he was aware of the charge, but that he failed to take an appeal when he discovered that his wife paid the fine. "[T]he Commonwealth is not required to prove who actually paid the fine and costs. The lower court therefore was in error . . . in shifting that burden to the Commonwealth to go forward with proof beyond the records of convictions." Siedlecki, 7 Pa. Commw. at 133, 300 A.2d at 289.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and reinstate the suspension.

ORDER

NOW, January 8, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, MsD. No. 82-071, Book 43, Page 80, dated December 20, 1982, is reversed, and the suspension of David J. Edwards' operating privileges is reinstated.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Edwards

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 8, 1987
519 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1987)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Edwards

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 8, 1987

Citations

519 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1987)
519 A.2d 1083

Citing Cases

Mshimba v. Commonwealth

Since he was convicted in that DUS prosecution and failed to timely appeal, the matter of the current civil…

State v. Ewell

Second, the word "conviction" has a more technical meaning referring to the entire criminal procedural…