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.

WILLIAM C. BROPHY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/23/86)

decided: January 23, 1986.

WILLIAM C. BROPHY, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of William C. Brophy v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, No. 4827 January Term, 1984.

COUNSEL

Martin Knoblaugh, with him, Lloyd Norris, Lloyd Norris and Associates, for appellant.

Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him, Spencer A. Manthorpe, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Rogers, Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Colins and Palladino. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 311]

William C. Brophy (appellant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which affirmed an order of the Department of Transportation (DOT), revoking his driver's license for five years pursuant to the habitual offender provisions of Section 1542 of the Motor Vehicle Code (Code).*fn1

Section 1542 of the Code provides:

(a) General rule -- the department shall revoke the operating privilege of any person found to be a habitual offender pursuant to the provisions of this section. A 'habitual offender' shall be any person whose driving record . . . shows that such person has accumulated the requisite number of convictions for the separate and distinct offenses described and enumerated in subsection (b) . . .

(b) Offenses enumerated -- Three convictions . . . shall result in [a designation] as a habitual offender . . .

(c) Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition as an offense -- Acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for any offense enumerated . . . shall be considered an offense for the purposes of this section.*fn2

In this case, the appellant committed three offenses, one of which was appellant's participation in an ARD program, which is considered an offense for purposes of ยง 1542(c) of the Code, quoted above.

Appellant posits two issues before this Court. He first contends that his participation in an ARD should not be considered an ...


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.