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. MARC A. PETRUCELLI (06/16/88)

decided: June 16, 1988.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, APPELLANT
v.
MARC A. PETRUCELLI, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Marc A. Petrucelli, No. 86-01356.

COUNSEL

Christopher J. Clements, Assistant Counsel, with him, Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, John L. Heaton, Chief Counsel, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Judges Craig and Barry, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.

Author: Barry

[ 117 Pa. Commw. Page 164]

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas

[ 117 Pa. Commw. Page 165]

    of Chester County which sustained the appeal of Marc Petrucelli (the licensee) and reversed DOT's decision to suspend the licensee's driving privileges for 60 days.

On November 17, 1984, October 11, 1985 and November 2, 1985, the licensee was convicted of violating Section 3362 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. ยง 3362 (Code) for driving in excess of maximum speed limitations. The licensee's driving record was assessed a total of twelve points for these three convictions. On February 2, 1986, DOT notified the licensee that his driving privilege was suspended for 60 days.*fn1 The licensee appealed this suspension alleging that DOT did not notify him of the points assessed for the November 17, 1984 conviction. At the de novo hearing, instead of producing certified copies of the original notice letter, DOT introduced a certification statement to prove that all of the notice requirements had been met.*fn2 The trial court determined that the certification statement was not sufficient to establish that the licensee

[ 117 Pa. Commw. Page 166]

    received notice. The trial court opined that based upon our decision in Department of Transportation v. Suchko, 92 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 520, 499 A.2d 738 (1985), the only acceptable proof that the notice was sent was a certified copy of the actual notice letter. DOT appeals this order.

Section 1536 of the Code states:

Whenever points are assigned to a driver's record, the department shall send to that person at his last known address a letter of notice pointing out the fact and ...


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.