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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. SAM R. PARFITT (04/20/81)

filed: April 20, 1981.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
SAM R. PARFITT, APPELLANT



No. 1697 October Term, 1979, Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Carbon County at No. 32 October Term, 1978.

COUNSEL

Stephen P. Ellwood, Pottsville, for appellant.

Richard Webb, District Attorney, Jim Thorpe, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Price, Cavanaugh and Watkins, JJ. Price, J., files a dissenting statement.

Author: Cavanaugh

[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 280]

The question before us is whether one who operates a motor vehicle following a period of revocation of his operating privileges but prior to reinstatement of the privilege by way of issuance of a new driver's license can be convicted under § 1543(a) of the Motor Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a)). This provision states:

(a) Offense defined. -- Any person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway of this Commonwealth at a time when the operating privilege is suspended, revoked or recalled is guilty of a summary offense and shall upon conviction be sentenced to pay a fine of $200.

On October 11, 1976, the Bureau of Traffic Safety revoked appellant's driving privileges for a period of one year. Appellant was unaware of the term of the revocation until October 14, 1978, when he received notice from the Bureau dated October 12, 1978, advising him that his operating privileges were eligible for restoration effective October 12, 1977. On July 16, 1978, the appellant had been arrested by Summit Hill police on a number of alleged violations, including Section 1543(a). Appellant did not have a valid Pennsylvania driver's license on the date of his arrest. Initially appellant pled guilty to all charges, but upon receiving notice that the revocation period had ended prior to his arrest, he petitioned to withdraw his guilty plea. The lower

[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 281]

    court granted his petition, but subsequently found him guilty of the § 1543(a) violation.

Appellant argues that because the period of revocation is for a fixed period, and because the statute makes no mention of the time period between the end of the revocation period and the reissuance of a driver's license, the offense of driving while under revocation includes only the period of actual revocation. We agree.

The corresponding section of the Vehicle Code of 1959, 75 P.S. § 624(6), provided that it was unlawful:

"To operate any motor vehicle or tractor upon the highway of this Commonwealth after the operating privilege is suspended or revoked . . . and before such ...


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.