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. STEPHEN M. BOYLES (04/25/86)

filed: April 25, 1986.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
STEPHEN M. BOYLES, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order entered August 1, 1984 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal No. 129 SCA 1984.

COUNSEL

Roy D. Shirk, York, for appellant.

Richard W. Sponseller, Assistant District Attorney, York, for Commonwealth, appellee.

McEwen, Montemuro and Cercone, JJ.

Author: Mcewen

[ 352 Pa. Super. Page 341]

This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence of ninety days imprisonment imposed after appellant was found guilty of driving while his operating privileges were suspended or revoked in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b). We affirm.

Appellant was arrested on December 17, 1982, for a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance) (DUI). Within thirty days thereafter, on January 15, 1982, the following amendments to the Motor Vehicle Code became effective:

(1) The DUI Section, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, was revised so as to provide for mandatory sentences for particular violations and declare that acceptance into an ARD program

[ 352 Pa. Super. Page 342]

    would be considered a conviction in the event of a subsequent conviction for the same offense.

(2) The driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked section, namely 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543, was amended by the addition of subsection (b) which provided for a mandatory ninety day term of imprisonment where the suspension was the result of driving under the influence.*fn1

Thus, any individual who operates a motor vehicle while his or her license is under suspension, as a result of a conviction or of acceptance into the ARD program for driving under the influence, must undergo imprisonment for at least ninety days.

Six months after his arrest and five months after the aforementioned statutory amendments became effective, in June of 1983, appellant was accepted into the ARD program and, in due course, his operator's license was suspended. On May 5, 1984, while his operating privileges were still under suspension for the DUI offense, appellant was arrested and charged ...


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.