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.

DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION v. PENDAL (12/22/71)

decided: December 22, 1971.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
v.
PENDAL



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. Jerome N. Pendal, No. 102 January Term, 1971.

COUNSEL

David A. Johnston, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, with him Anthony J. Maiorana, Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellant.

Anthony J. Ciotola, with him Louis G. Feldmann, Feldmann and Ciotola, for appellee.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 72]

Police officers of the City of Hazleton observed and pursued a motor vehicle being operated within the City in a manner which they believed to be reckless. In the course of the pursuit, the lights of the fugitive vehicle were turned off. The vehicle was, nevertheless, overtaken by the police officers and the operator, the appellee here, was arrested and charged with reckless driving in violation of Section 1001 of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. § 1001, a summary offense, and also with the misdemeanor of turning off the lights on a motor vehicle for the purpose of avoiding identification or arrest, a violation of Section 1038 of The Vehicle Code, 75 P.S. § 1038. The appellee pleaded guilty to both offenses.

Upon receiving a record of the proceedings in which the appellee pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor above mentioned, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation suspended appellee's operating privilege for a period of one year. This action was taken pursuant to Section 618(a)(2), which is as follows:

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 73]

"(a) The Secretary may suspend the operating privilege of any person, with or without a hearing before the secretary or his representative, upon receiving a record of proceedings, if any, in which such person pleaded guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere, or was found guilty by a judge or jury, or whenever the secretary finds upon sufficient evidence:

"(2) That such person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, or has forfeited bail upon such a charge, in the commission of which a motor vehicle or tractor was used."

The court below concluded from its reading of the statute that the phrase "misdemeanor . . . in the commission of which a motor vehicle . . . was used" was not intended to include conduct proscribed and denominated a misdemeanor by The Vehicle Code. We cannot agree. In Hamsher Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 336, 175 A.2d 303 (1961) and Greer Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 215 Pa. Superior Ct. 66, 257 A.2d 317 (1969), the Superior Court held that the Secretary may properly suspend the privileges of an operator pursuant to Section 618(a)(2) upon receiving a record of proceedings in which the operator pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor of operating a vehicle after suspension of his operating privilege in violation of Section 624(6) of The Vehicle Code. In Commonwealth v. Thompson, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 777, 237 A.2d 844 (1967), the Superior Court affirmed per curiam an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing the appeal of an operator whose license had been suspended as the result of his plea of guilty to the same misdemeanor to which the appellee here pleaded guilty. We have been provided with the opinion and order of Judge Gold for the Court of Common Pleas in that case, and while the legal defense here raised was apparently not argued in the

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 74]

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, the result in the Thompson case is authority ...


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.