SEVEN YEAR DELAY BEFORE IMPOSING LICENSE SUSPENSION IS TOO LONG
The PA Commonwealth Court has decided the case of Capizzi v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 315 C.D. 2015 (June 23, 2016), holding that where a licensee demonstrates that his conviction was not reported for an extraordinarily extended period of time; had a clean record for an extended period; and, will suffer prejudice, it may be appropriate for common pleas to grant relief from a six-month statutory suspension for a drug conviction.
FACTS
Capizzi was convicted on January 26, 2007 of violating certain sections of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act that requires, upon conviction, that the defendant’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle be suspended for six months. However, the Beaver County Clerk of Courts did not certify the conviction and transmit it to PennDOT until November 14, 2014. PennDOT thereafter mailed notice of his six-month suspension to Capizzi on November 24, 2014, seven years and ten months after the conviction giving rise to the operating privilege suspension. Capizzi appealed the imposition of the suspension and the trial court agreed with him, sustaining his appeal.
PennDOT appealed, arguing that the suspension should be imposed because the delay was not PennDOT’s fault and the statute requires the suspension.
ISSUE
Whether it was proper for the trial court to sustain Capizzi’s license appeal and remove his six-month suspension, even when the delay in imposing the suspension was not attributable to PennDOT?
HOLDING
Given the specific circumstances here, the Commonwealth Court agreed with common pleas court that suspending Capizzi’s operating privilege under these circumstances did not further the goal of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code to maintain safety on public roads.
REASONING
Where a licensee demonstrates that his conviction was not reported for an extraordinarily extended period of time; had a clean record for an extended period; and, will suffer prejudice, it may be appropriate for common pleas to grant relief in these cases.
The trial court reasoned that to require that Capizzi serve a suspension where the delay was not caused by the Department but by the office of the clerk of courts and where it would result in prejudice to Capizzi would be an unfair and unreasonable result in this case. Moreover, imposing the suspension would not further the goal of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code to maintain safety on public roads, when the suspension will take place almost eight years after Capizzi’s conviction.
Accordingly, the trial and appellate courts concluded that such a decision would tend to undermine the public’s confidence and trust in the judicial system and frustrate the reasonable expectations of the public that the courts treat defendants in a timely, fair and consistent manner.
LINK TO CASE:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/315CD15_6-23-16.pdf?cb=1
DISCLAIMER – The information contained in this article is for general guidance on the subject matter only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information in this article. Case summaries are primarily excerpted directly from the decisions authored by the Courts. The decisions are cited and linked and the reader is encouraged to read the entire decision. Accordingly, the information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and services. As such, it should NOT be used as a substitute for consultation with a McMahon & Winters Law Firm attorney. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should always consult with a McMahon & Winters Law Firm attorney.
