Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, No. SA-297 of 1970, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. David R. Wilson.
Anthony J. Maiorana, Assistant Attorney General, with him Elmer T. Bolla, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellant.
No oral argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Opinion by Jacobs, J. Cercone, J., concurs in the result.
[ 218 Pa. Super. Page 309]
In this case, the Commonwealth appeals from an order of the court below reversing the action of the Secretary
[ 218 Pa. Super. Page 310]
of Revenue in assigning six points to appellee's driving record and ordering him to attend driver-improvement school under the provisions of § 619.1 of The Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. § 619.1. The Commonwealth argues that the licensee has no right to appeal to the common pleas court from the imposition of points under § 619.1.
Appellee was arrested, on August 1, 1969, in Bedford County, for exceeding the speed limit by 12 m.p.h. On August 22, 1969, he appeared before a justice of the peace in Bedford County and paid the fine and costs for this violation.*fn1 A report of the conviction was sent to the Secretary of Revenue who assigned six points to appellee's driving record as mandated by § 619.1(b) of The Vehicle Code. The secretary also ordered him to attend driver-improvement school as mandated by § 619.1(f) of The Vehicle Code.
Rather than attend driver-improvement school, appellee appealed the order of the secretary to the court below. The Commonwealth moved to quash the appeal, but the lower court denied the motion and sustained the appeal.
In reversing the action of the secretary, the lower court held that: (1) an appeal lies from an improper assessment of points even if the total points assessed will not result in a suspension, and (2) because of the circumstances and misrepresentations underlying the conviction, relief should be granted.*fn2 The second holding
[ 218 Pa. Super. Page 311]
need not be considered since we find that the court below erred in allowing an appeal from an imposition of ...