Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Braxton Walton, No. SA 866 of 1978.
James B. Cole, Stokes, Lurie & Tracy, for appellant.
Harold H. Cramer, with him John J. Kennedy, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellees.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Craig and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 607]
Appellant challenges an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing his appeal from an order of the Secretary of Transportation revoking appellant's motor vehicle operator's license for a period of six months. We affirm.
On January 6, 1978, appellant was convicted of driving at a time when his operating privileges were under prior order of suspension, a violation of Section 1543 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1543. Appellant contends the approximately 8 month delay between his conviction and the notification of revocation was unduly long and renders that revocation invalid.*fn1
Under The Vehicle Code,*fn2 Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. § 101 et seq. it was well settled that, "mere passage of time between . . . conviction and . . . revocation . . . is insufficient by itself to set aside the action of the Bureau." Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Muller, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 416, 413 A.2d 751 (1980 slip op. at 2).
In addition to lapse of time it is incumbent upon an aggrieved motor vehicle operator to demonstrate that the administrative delay resulted in prejudice.
[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 608]
similar argument that "the legislature had evidenced an intent to mandate that a period of six months is the maximum to constitute a reasonable time within which to send out notices of revocation." Id. at 458, 410 A.2d at 1289.
Accordingly, we will enter the ...