Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WHITING MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR LICENSE CASE (11/16/67)

decided: November 16, 1967.

WHITING MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR LICENSE CASE


Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1966, No. 6096, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Maurice Hunter Whiting.

COUNSEL

Elmer T. Bolla, Deputy Attorney General, and William C. Sennett, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.

Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Spaulding, J.

Author: Spaulding

[ 211 Pa. Super. Page 246]

This is an appeal from an order of Court of Common Pleas No. 9 of Philadelphia County in granting a hearing de novo and sustaining the appeal of Maurice Whiting, appellee, from the revocation of his operator's license by the Secretary of Revenue of the Commonwealth.

Appellee's license was revoked originally in 1959 as a result of his conviction for involuntary manslaughter. It was not reinstated because he failed to file the required proof of financial responsibility. On December 12, 1966 appellee was convicted of the charge of operating a motor vehicle during the time that his license was revoked.*fn1

On January 3, 1967 the Secretary of Revenue received a certification of the conviction and under § 616(b) of The Vehicle Code,*fn2 revoked appellee's operator's license for a period of one year, effective February 3, 1967. Appellee then appealed to the court below which, after a hearing, entered an order sustaining the appeal. The Commonwealth asserts that this was error.

Section 616 of The Vehicle Code of 1959 (75 P.S. § 616), provides in part:

"(a) Upon receiving a certified record, from the clerk of the court, of proceedings in which a person pleaded guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere, or was found guilty by a judge or jury, of any of the crimes enumerated in this section, the secretary shall forthwith revoke, for a period of one (1) year from the date of revocation, the operating privilege of any such person. . . . Bases requiring such certification follow: [Subparagraphs 1 through 4 omitted.]

[ 211 Pa. Super. Page 247]

"(b) The secretary, upon receiving a certified record from the clerk of the court of the conviction of any person upon a charge of operating a motor vehicle . . . while the operator's license . . . of such person is revoked, shall immediately extend the period of such first revocation for an additional like period."

It is clear that this case falls within the rule enunciated in Ullman Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 145, 203 A.2d 386 (1964), holding that there is no right of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from a revocation of a motor vehicle operator's license by the Secretary of Revenue under § 616 of the Act. In that case the Secretary revoked the license upon certification of a guilty plea by Ullman to driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas reversed the Secretary. The Commonwealth then appealed and this Court reversed the Court of Common Pleas stating, "The court below allowed the appeal without statutory authority and in direct violation of a decision of the Supreme Court. . . . There is no possible reason for the court below to have sustained the appeal even if it has jurisdiction, which it does not. Ullman never questioned his conviction. Admitting the conviction, he had no standing to question the mere ministerial act of the Secretary in revoking his operator's license as the code requires. . . . There is no appeal to the court of common pleas from a revocation of an operator's license. In Brennan's Case, 344 Pa. 209, 211, 212, 25 A.2d 155 (1942), the Supreme Court dealt with this question and stated: 'The code ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.