decided: July 15, 1982.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, APPELLANT
CHERYL A. GARVIN, APPELLEE
Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Cheryl A. Garvin, Misc. Docket No. 79-166, Book 42, Page 27.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 425]
The Department of Transportation appeals a Butler County Common Pleas Court decision which reduced the period of Cheryl Garvin's license revocation. We reverse.
Garvin pleaded guilty to four counts of burglary. The Bureau of Highway Safety ordered, to run consecutively,*fn1 a one-year revocation of her driver's license
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 426]
for each of the first two convictions;*fn2 a five-year revocation for her third conviction;*fn3 and a two-year revocation for her fourth conviction.*fn4
The trial court reduced the terms by ordering concurrent revocations.
This Court, in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Altimus, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 245, 410 A.2d 1303 (1980), held that revocations must be imposed consecutively. Additionally, in Brewster v. Department of Transportation, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 112, 415 A.2d 922 (1980), we concluded that the habitual offender provision calls for the imposition of a five-year revocation for the enumerated offenses committed either "singularly or in combination." Id. at 115, 415 A.2d at 924.
It is clear that Garvin was subject to the habitual offender section and that the trial court erred in determining
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 427]
that the revocations should run concurrently.
The order of the Butler Common Pleas Court, M.D. No. 79-166 dated December 31, 1979, is reversed and the periods of revocation are hereby ordered to run consecutively.
Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.