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.

MARLYN RICHARD LEVAN v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/29/81)

decided: May 29, 1981.

MARLYN RICHARD LEVAN, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Game Commission in case of Marlyn Richard Levan, Revocation Notice No. 3663.

COUNSEL

Joseph M. A. Nelabovige, with him Daryl F. Moyer, Joseph M. A. Nelabovige, Inc., for petitioner.

Stuart M. Bliwas, Assistant Attorney General, with him Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Mencer, Rogers and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Judge Wilkinson, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Mencer

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 349]

The hunting and trapping privileges of Marlyn Richard Levan (Levan) were revoked for the period of September 1, 1980 through August 31, 1982 by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, following two signed acknowledgments of guilt by Levan for violating Sections 501 and 704(a) of The Game Law (Game Law), Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1225, as amended, 34 P.S. §§ 1311.501, .704(a).*fn1

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 350]

Levan raises three issues in his appeal. First, he contends that the Game Commission violated the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution by the action of Game Protector Warren Stump which induced him to sign "field receipts" by which he acknowledged his violations of the Game Law and paid fines of $250. Although Levan contends that Game Protector Stump demanded that he sign the field receipts and pay the fines, the written portion of each field receipt stating "I hereby of my own free will acknowledge violating the Game Law" belies this contention.

Although we can understand Levan's desire to advance this argument, without citation of authority, we must conclude that he may not collaterally attack his admitted violation of the Game Law in an appeal from an administrative action which resulted in a revocation of his hunting privileges. The challenge which he wishes to mount here should have been made directly against the charges of Game Law violations as to which he acknowledged his guilt. See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Grobes, 45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 151, 405 A.2d 588 (1979).

Next, Levan asserts that the Game Commission violated its statutory authority or acted arbitrarily and capriciously and without authority of law when it revoked his hunting and trapping privileges. We rejected a similar argument in Malishaucki v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 58 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 354, 427 A.2d 787 (1981).

Although Levan was never given a hearing relative to his revocation, the last paragraph of each of the field receipts immediately above his signature

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 351]

    reads: "The cash penalty paid may not be full satisfaction for the offense committed. The Game Commission, without a hearing, may revoke your hunter's license and deny you the privilege of hunting or trapping anywhere in the ...


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.