Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. David P. Plant, No. 3107-S 1979.
John B. Mancke, Mancke & Lightman, for appellant.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel of Transportation, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Rogers and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
This is an appeal by appellant, David P. Plant, from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. The lower court dismissed Plant's appeal, thereby sustaining the decision of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation suspending Plant's license pursuant to Section 1538(b) of the Vehicle
Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1538(b), for a second accumulation of six or more points.
Appellant, David P. Plant is employed as a truck driver by Driver's, Inc. On June 18, 1979, appellant received an official notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation indicating that a departmental hearing concerning his operating privileges had resulted in the suspension of his driver's license for fifteen days. Appellant had received four speeding citations over a period of eighteen months.
Appellant filed a timely appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, alleging that the Department of Transportation, by failing to establish a driver improvement school, improperly removed one of the sanctions available to the hearing examiner under the Code, for punishment of the violation in question. The appellant also averred that the imposition of the fifteen day suspension constituted an abuse of discretion because he needed his operating privileges for employment purposes.
The lower court scheduled a hearing in this matter on October 9, 1979. At the hearing, the Commonwealth stipulated that it had not provided for the establishment of a driver improvement school, and, as such, that alternative was not an available sanction for the appellant's violation. After considering the evidence produced at the hearing, the lower court dismissed the appeal. The instant appeal to this Court followed.
Appellant advances virtually the same arguments to this Court as he presented to the court below. We find those arguments to be meritless and ...