Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert A. Shisslak, No. 196 January Term, 1973.
John L. Heaton, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anthony J. Maiorana, Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellant.
Robert J. Milie, with him Waltz, Milie and McArdle, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 169]
The Commonwealth appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County which reversed a suspension of Robert A. Shisslak's (Shisslak) motor vehicle operator's license by the Secretary of Transportation because he had accumulated twelve points as mandated by Section 619.1(i) and (k) of The Vehicle Code.*fn1
At the hearing before the court below the Commonwealth offered into evidence ten exhibits. Counsel for Shisslak objected to the introduction of three of these exhibits: Exhibit 6, a traffic violation and certification of disposition*fn2 purporting to establish a conviction for violation of Section 1002(c) of the Code; Exhibit 7, a conviction report to establish a conviction for a violation of Section 1002(b)(4); and Exhibit 10, Shisslak's driving record containing entries of the convictions and two additional convictions which were received into evidence without objection. The court sustained the objections. Regretfully, counsel for the Commonwealth did nothing further to identify the rejected exhibits, nor were they made the subject of a renewed offer. These documents were not made a part
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 170]
of the official record certified by the lower court to this Court, and are thus not now before us to assay the correctness of the court's ruling. Commonwealth v. Bernstein, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 594, 300 A.2d 905 (1973); Commonwealth v. Ross, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 414, 296 A.2d 291 (1972). Cognizant of these omissions, the Commonwealth has attempted to enlarge the record by appending the missing documents to its supplemental brief. Absent a stipulation of counsel admitting the identity and authenticity of these documents as the exhibits at issue or a petition by the Commonwealth to amend the record, our review is restricted to the record as it was certified by the court below.
Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the Commonwealth met its burden of proving Shisslak's convictions and the correctness of the Secretary of Transportation's computation of points. Without proper records of the two convictions excluded by the court below, the record merely establishes six points assessed against Shisslak. Accordingly, the order of the lower court must be sustained. See Epps v. Commonwealth, supra; Commonwealth v. Bernstein, supra.