The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-07133 'I " Commonweahh of Pennsylvnnia Counly of Cumberland } NS: I, CURrIS R. 1L''Nr. , Prolhonotary of the Court of Common Pleas In and for said Counly, do hereby certify that the foregoing Is a full, Iruc and correcl copy oflhe whole record of the case therein staled, wherein MARK Al'mIONY BRIDGES I'lalntlff. and _ roMlNWEALTH OF PA In T~~ WHEREOF, I Ihls Defendant _, as the .ame '<flf.~1' ~f record before the said Court al No, - 3 of CIVIL Term, A.D. 19_, have hereunlo set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court day of AUGJAST A, D" 19...2!!...., l'rUlhllnlllur~ I, GEORGE E. .!lOFFER I'residenl .Iudgl: of Ihe NIN'n1 .Iudldal Dislriet, composed of the Counly of CUlllherland, do certify Ihat CURrIS R. LCXIIG . hy whom the annexed record,certiflcale aod tHtcstation were made and given. and who. in his own pruper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name nnd affixed Ihe seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, allhe time of .odolng, and now is Prothonotary in IInd for said Counly of CIIMRF.RIAND In the Commonwealth of I'enosylvania. duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose aels as such full faith and credit are and oughllo be given liS well in Courts of judiclllure liS elsewhere, and Ihatthe said reeord, certificate and attestation urc in duc form or law nnd J . roper officer. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Prc~idcnl .Iudl!!l.' } ss: I, ("!1fl'T'T~ R rrNr. , J'rolhonotary ilf Ihe Courl of Common Pleas in and for the said ('ounty, do certify that Ihe Honorable GroRQU~..~ by whom Ihe foregoing alleslation was made, aod wbo has Ihereunto subscribed his name, was, allhe time of makiog Ihereof, and still is President .Iudge of Ihe Courl of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose aclS as such full faith llnd credit are and oughllO he given, as well In Courts of judicature as elsewhere, IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunlo set my hand and affixed Ihc seal of said Court this 17TH day of MIGlJST A,[), 19~a.., ;r:;')~,~'"" '" - Commollwtalth of /'tnn'ylvullil, Coullty of Cumhtrland I,,, I, CURTIS R. r.ONG , Prnthonolary of the COlin of Cllmmoll Pleu, In ulld for ,uid Couuly, do htrchy etrlify thaI Iht foregoing" a full,lrue aud correct copy of the whole reeord of the eu,e therein "aled, wherein _ MARK ANTHONY RRIDGES Pluintiff, and ,COMMONWF.Ar.TH OF PA ---DF.PT OF TRANS Defendanl __, a, the ,ume remuiu, of rtelHd hefo,e the ,old Courl at No, . __ of 97-7133 CIVIL Term, A,[), 19_, In TESTIMONY WflEI~EOF, I have htreulllo 'tl my hand aud af/ixtd the 'eal of ,aid Coun th" TIlIRD ._.____ duyof AUGUST A. f)" 19..2.!L, CURTIS R. LONG 1"llIlwnlllll'V I. GEORGE E. 1I0F'FER __ Pre,idenl Judge of Ihe --.l!.IHTIL___ Judicial Districl, ell/nl",,,-d or Ihe Counly of CUlllherlalld. do eenify Ihal CURTIS R. !"QNG _____'.. by whom the allnexed record, cenineale and attcscillion were made llnd given, and who, in his 0\\-'11 proper handwriting. th.:rcunln 'iubscrihcd his nallle and ufTixed the seal of Ihe Court of ('0 III III 0 n 1)lcils of said Cnurlly. was, at the time of so doing, ;Iod now is Prothonolary in and for suid COllllly of '-_u__.cJJMJlEJU.AND in Ihe Commonwcalth of I'tnnsylvallia, duly commissio"ed and 4ualificd to all of who,e aels us ,uch full failh and credil are und oughllo he given us well in ('olin, of judi -. turt us elsewhere, and Ihulthe said record, certificate and illh:slation arc in due form of law and III t 0 'r OrnCef, I'u.'"dcnl .Iudi,ll.' Commonwealth of I'tnnsylvunia County of Cumherlund }ss I. l'IIR'rT!::: R r.ONCi_, , Prolhonolury of Ihe Court of Common Pitas in und for the said Counly, do eenify that Iht lIonorahle GEORGE-..E.,_lIOEFER hy whom the foregoing atlc~lation was made. and who has thereunto !lubscrihcd hir, name. was. at the time of making thertof, and still is Presideot Judge of Ihe ('ourlofCommon Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of QUllrlcr Sessioos of Iht Peace in and for said ('OUllly. duly Commissioned and 'Iualifled; 101111 whose uclS as such full fuith and credil are und nught In he give II, '" well in Cnurts of judicalure as elsewhtre, IN TESTIMONY WIIERF'OF. I havt hereunlO sel my halld and affixc<,\ Ihe ,cui of said Cnunlhi, ~ duy of A,I>, 19....2lL, ~ fW( ~d. 1f)~'''''''1\ 16- 37 .18 19-44 ',0-51 ',2-55 I ',6-66 I 1,,7-78 I' I ~ HARK ANTHONY BRIDGES VB COMHHONWEALTIl OF PA Among the Record. and Proceeding. cnrolled In thc court of Common "Iea. In and for the county of CUMBERLAND 97-7133 1196 CD 98 Term, 19 __ i. contained the following: In the Commonwcalth of Penn.ylvnnla 10 No, COpy OF APPEARANCES DOCKET ENTRY 12-29-97 MOTION (CASE FORM FRANKLIN CO) STEPflEN D KULLA ESQ. APPEAL FROM DRIVERS LICENRE SUSPENSION. 01-12-98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1-12-9ij - IN RE MOTION - flEARING 3-25-98 10:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 1-14-98. 02-24-98-0RDER OF COURT 2-20-98 MATTER FJLEn IN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MISe CC 116 7-21-97 IS TRANSFERRED TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. -MOTION PETITIONER --- FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY. -PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSPENDING OPERATING PRIVILEGES AND ORDER OF COURT 2-21-97 IN RE flEARING 11- 13-98 9:30 AM. -PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE,\I'm ORDER OF COURT 10-28-98 IN RE flEARING SCflEDULED FOR 11-13-97 IS CONTINUED 1-29- 98 9:30 AM COURTROOM NO 4. JOflN R WALTER J FRANKLIN COUNTY. 02-24-98 PRAECIPE PLEASE DISCONTINUE ABOVE REFERENCED PROCEEDING. STEPHEN D KULI.A ESQ (FRANKI,IN COUNTY RECORDS) 03-30-98 ORDER OF COURT. APPEAL FROM LICENSE SUSPENSION lS DENIED. BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAILED MARCH 30, 1998. 04-24 98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 4-24-98 - IN RE MOTION FOR STAY OF PENNDOT DIRECTIVE - STAY IS ISSUED. BY '~E COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAILED 4-29-98. 02-24-98 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COMMONWEALTH COURT BY STEPflEN KULLA ESQ. 05-04-98 ORDER - DATED 5-4-96 PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO FILE OF RECORD WITHIN 15 DAYS AND SERVE UPON THE UNDERSIGNED A CONCISE 8'1'ATMENT OF Tm: MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON THE APPEAL. BY TflE COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAILED 5-5-96. 05-07-98 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO H1l96 CD 1996. 05-18-98 DEFENDANT APPELLANT'S STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL. 06-02-98 TRANSCRIPT FILED 07-01-98 IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 - DATED 6-30-98. BY TflE COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAILED 7-2-98 PYS510 1997-07133 BRIDGES Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page Civil Case Inquiry MARK ANTHONY (VS) PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF 1 Reference No..: Filed........ I 12/29/1997 Calle Type.....: APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP Time..l......: 10 14133 Judgment......1 .00 Execut on D~te 0 0/8000 Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Sat/Dis/Gntd.. 0/001 000 Jury Trial.... Hi~her Court 1 Hi her Court 2 ....................................................... ........................ General Index Attorney Info BRIDGES MARK ANTHONY APPELLANT KULLA STEPHEN D 227 RINGGOLD STREET WAYNESBORO PA 17268 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL RIVERFflONT OFFICE CENTER 3RD F HARRISBURG PA 17104 ..........................**.................................................... · Date Entries * ......~...........*..**............*..**.*......*.....**........................ .l.,~12/29/9-f MOTION (CASE FROM FRANKLIN CO~ STEPHEN 0 KULLA ESQ APPEAL FROM DRIVERS LICE SE S SPENSION I 01/12/9~ ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1~12/9 - IN RE MOTION - HEARING 3/25/98 ..)6 ~ 10:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 1/14/98 ,f'Pij2/24/98 ~MOTION PETITIONER ---FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY .02/24/9ll'(!}ORDER OF COURT 2120198 MA'l'TER FILED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MISC CC-116 7/21/97 IS TRANSFERRED TO CUMBERLAND ~ _/,\COUNTY COURT OF' COMMON PLEAS ,,02/24/9~PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSPENDING OPERATING PRIVILEGES AND ORDER OF COURT 2/21/97 IN RE HEARING 11/13/98 9:30 AM ~COURTROOM NO 1 FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 2/2419 'AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 82/24/98 PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE AND ORDER OF COl/RT 10/28/98 IN RE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 11/13/97 IS CONTINUED 1129/98 9:30 AM COURTROOM NO 4 .11 JOHN R WALKER J ~RANKI,IN COl/NTY ~~2/24/98~ PRAECIPE PLEASE DISCONTINUE ABOVE REFERENCED PROCEEDING I STEPHEN D KULLA ESQ (FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDS) 3103/30/98 ORDER AND NOW 'I'HIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 1998 AFTER HEARING THE WITHIN od\'\"oO~~ APPEAL FROM LICENSE Sl/SPENSION IS DENIE6. SEE GNAZZO VS COMMON-W I"~ ~I EALTH OF PA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION NO 97-5408 CIVIL TERM, CUMBo CO. . ," BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS~ J. ~'" COPIES MAlI,ED MARCH 30 19~8 ~ 4/24/98~NOTICE OF' APPEAL TO COMM9NWEALTH COURT BY STEPHEN D KULLA ESe 4/24/98-~RDER OF COURT - DATED 4 24/98 - IN RE MOTION FOR STAY OF PENNDOT 3~' ~ DIRE9TIVE - STAY IS ISSUED - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 4/29 98 ~q05/04/98/ ORDER - DATED 5/4/98 - PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO FILE OF RECORD WITHIN 15 DAYS AND SERVE UPON THE UNDERSIGNED A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON THE APPEAL - BY KEVIN A HES J - , ~\ COPIES MAILED 5/5/98 .~ 51 '/98' SUPERIOR OURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1196 HBG 1990 ~ 5/~~/98~ DEFENDANT7APPELLANT'S STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL .~ 6/82/98< TRANSCRIPT FILED , 71 1/98~ IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 - DATED 6/30/98 - BY KEVIN A ~' HESS J - COPIES MAILED 7/2/9B ..*.*..*..*.*.~......*....***........**.............*........................... · Ih j:Sc. Escrow Information . · Fees & Debits Beo Bal Pvmts/Ad1 End Bal * ..*............~.....*.***.*..***....*......*..*,...*..............**........... APPEAL VEH REG TAX ON APPEAL SETTLEMENT JCP FEE APPEAL COPIES 35.00 .50 ~:88 30.00 2.50 35.08 .5 5'8~ 5. 30.0 2.5 .00 .00 :88 .00 .00 78.00 78.00 .00 .........................**.............*...........**..........,..*..w......... · End of Case Information * .......................................**..............*~.............*.*.**.... \ " ~ ) , ( , , fi: III i'i: " ," r~~ .. , 1I~t,.1 !l~ ( .' ft' .,,': . " 'f ~'" , (' .'r J.I.l ('\-~ IT! v ' ,~" 11") I\. LI.l 1"\4 l..... t1 ":C :.;j ',11 U , ..... .".. ," i .... '.0 ~: h~ ,~, -~ f.. (.'~ !.!' lLlf'"l .. ~. " 0'" .'1 , :1, ["~I t: ',' " to"~. ll)' , U1: t'>! b~lt!, L: .,iil (, .... ".!lL II,. 11:) ") 0 [)' i.) '. Irom Ncw Jcrscy of II convi\:tion on May 29, 1997 of driving under the Influence, A copy of the Notice is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A", 4, At the time ol'this conviction In New Jersey, Petitioner was incorrectly advised by his attorney thlH the New Jersey conviction would not alTect his Pennsylvania drivers license, 5, Petitioner's reliance on this incorrect inlormation led him to enter a plea of guilty to the driving under the inllucnce charge in New Jerscy, 6, If Petitioner had been a New Jersey resident, hc would have been eligible for the Irnoxicalcd Driving Program. which is presumably equivalent to Pennsylvania's ARD program. and would have becn eligible for II provisional license in that State, 7, Petitioner's New Jersey conviction for driving under the inlluence is his first such conviction in any jurisdiction, 8. If this conviction had occurred in Pennsylvania, Petitioner would have been eligible for, and likely would have participated in, the ARD program, 9, As a result of his partiCipation in this program, Petitioner would have received a license suspension for a period of less than the one year for which his license is currently being suspended by the Department, 10, Petitioner is cntitled pursuant to 75 Pa,C.S, Section 1550 to a de novo hearing, and would request that such hearing be scheduled after October 15. to accommodate the maternity leave of his attorney, ,I i '..... I, .,...- I 1 ", " WHEREFORE, Petitioner respecltully rec\uests'this Honorable Court to enter an Order setting this matter for a de novo hearing pursuant to 75 Pa.C,S. Section 1550 and , " settln!! aside the Order of tile Department of Transportation suspending the Petitioner's operating privile!!e, Respectfully submitted, GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES .lli.Lc.t,.Jl f. CalwJ- Michelle R, Calvert, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA \7013 (717) 243.5551 (800) 347.5552 oj COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Harrisburg, PA 11123 JUNE 20, 1991 MARK ANTHONY BRIDGrS PO BOX 24& SOUTH MOUNTAIN PA 172b1 97164b10223b397 002 Ob/13/1997 25453491 12/02/1967 Dear Motorist I Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to treat certain out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. Therefore, as a result of the De- partment receiving notification from NEW JERSEY of your con- viction on 05/29/1991 of an offense which occurred on 03/15/1991, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3131 of the Pa, Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE, your driving PI'ivilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEARCS), as mandated by Section 15328 of the Vehicle Code. The effective date of suspension is 01125/1991, 12:01 a.m. In order to comply with this sanction you are required to return any current driver's license, learner's permit and/or temporary driver's license Ccamera card) in your possession no later than the effective date listed. If YOU cannot com- ply with the rcquir~m~nts $tnted above, YOU ~re required to submit a DL16LC Form or a sworn affidavit stating that you are aware of the sanction against your driving privilege. Failure to comply with this notice shall result in this Bu- reau referring this matter to the Pennsylvania State Police for prosecution under SECTION 1511Ca)C4) of the Vehicle Code. Although the law mandates that your driving priVilege is un- der suspension even if yOU do not surrender your license, Credit wi 11 no t begin un t i 1 a 11 cur rent dr iver 's license product C s), theOL 1.6LC Form, or a letter acknowledging your sanction is recAived in this Bureau. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES YOUR LICENSE OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, WE WILL SEND YOU A RECEIPT. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS RECEIPT WITHIN 15 DAYS CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY. OTHERWISE. YOU WILL NOT BE GIVEN CREDIT TOWARD SERVING THIS SANCTION. Exhibit "'A" ---- . .' , ...--- , " '17.7/33 \ , ' IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARK ANl'1I01"lY BRIJ)GES, Appellant v, NO, 1196 C.D. 1998 SUBMITTED: December 4, 1998 COMMONWI<:Al:1'II 011 PENNSYl.V ANIA, m:I'ARTMENT OF l'RANSPORTATION,llUREAU OF DRIVER UCENSING BEFOIU:: HONORAnu: JIM FLAHERTY, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETfER, Judge HONORABLE EMil. E. NARlCK, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUnGE UADBETI'ER FILED: July 6, 1999 Mark Anthony Bridges appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial cOllrt), which denied his statutory appeal of a one year suspension of his operating privilege imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), Pursuant to the Driver's License Compact (Compact), 75 Pa, C,S, ~ 1581, I the Department suspended Bridges' operating privilege for one year after I Article III of the Compact provides in part that "[t]he licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee," 75 Pa, C,S, ~ 1581, Article IV of the Compact requires the home 6tate, for purposes of license suspensions or revocations, to give the same effect to the conduct reported, under Article III that would be given if the conduct had occurred in the home state, Id, I f , it received an electronically-transmitted notice from the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles that Bridges had been convicted in New Jersey on May 29, 1997 of operating a motor vehicle whiie under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OWl) under N, J, Stat. ~ 39:4-50(a),2 Bridges appealed, At a de novo hearing before the trial court, the Department introduced and the court admitted a certified copy of the New Jersey report of Bridges' conviction, The trial court denied Bridges' appeal and this appeal followed. Bridges argues that: (I) the suspension violates the double jeopardy and equal protection clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; and (2) a New Jersey OWl conviction is not equivalent to a driving under the influence (OUl) conviction in Pennsylvania and the Department failed to prove the equivalence at the hearing, This court ell ballc recently concluded in Correll v, Department of Transportatloll, Bureau of Drivel' Licensing, 726 A.2d 427, 429 (Pa, Cmwlth, 1999), that the suspension of a driver's license is a collateral civil consequence of a DUI conviction which does not constitute punishment within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause, We further held that sllspensions imposed pursuant to the 2 N.J, Slat. 9 39:4-50(a) provides: (a) A person who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit- producing drug, or operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood or pennits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit- producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by him or in his custody or control or penn its another to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0,10% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, shall be subject [to penalties as set forth herein]. 2 I, Compact do not violate the equal protection clause. ld, at 431. Thus, for the reasons set forth in Correll, we reject Bridges' double jeopardy and equal protection arguments, Bridges also argues that a New Jersey DWI conviction is not substantially similar to a DUI conviction in Pennsylvania and that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof in this regard, We disagree, In Kiebort v, Department of Trallsportatioll, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 719 A.2d 1139, 1142- 43 (Pa, Cmwlth, 1998) and Seibert v, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 715 A,2d 517 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1998), this court concluded that the two statutes are substantially similar, As to the Department's burden, in Scott v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, _ A.2d _ (Pa, Cmwlth., No. 1475 C.D, 1998, filed May 11, 1999), we held that the Department satisfies its initial burden under the Compact by introducing a co:wiction report that contains the infonnation required by Article III of the Compact3 The report, under Section 1550(d) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa, C,S. ~ 1550(d),4 must be certified 3 Article 1lI of the Compact provides: The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its Jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee, Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated. identify the court in which action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith, 75 Pa, C,S, ~ 1581. 4 Section 1550(d) of the Code provides: (Footnote continued on next page...) 3 I , under seal by the Department. The Department's certification that it received the conviction report by means of electronic transmission constitutes prima facie proof of the adjudication and the facts contained in the report. See Mackall v, Department o/Transp" Bureau afDriver Licensing, 680 A.2d 31, 34 (Pa, Cmwlth. 1996). Since the Department introduced a certified and sealed copy of the . conviction report at the hearing and Bridges did not rebut that evidence, the , , Department met its burden of proof.' Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed. ~.l~ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETIER, Judge (Continued from previous page...) Out.of.State documentation. - In any proceeding under this section. documents received by the department from the courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case, 111 addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage pentlilled under the provi,sions of 42 Pa, C,S, ~ 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records). and ,may reproduce such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa, C,S. ~ 6103 (relating to proof of official records), In addition, if the department receives infonnation from courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government by means of electronic transmission. it may certify thllt it has received the infonnation by means of electronic transmission and that certification shall be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such l\lI electronic transmisBion, 75 Pa, C,S, ~ IS50(d). as amended, , To the extent that Bridges is arguing that the Department had the burden of proving at the hearing before thv trial court that New Jersey's OWl statute is substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUI statute, we note that this detennination is a question of law for the court to decide. 4 , , I 1// I '! i;:, ~i; (:) ~. ii'~... ~.~~ \ ~~t~ , 15 u), ..:J co ~ ' ~ ;,f\1t1i ~51~ r:J~1 ;.h~)' ~ " ~ R ;10: ~J: '1 0'\ I ~ en C1\ , " I 'j I i 'II t " " 0" [J.146.2001J IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT MARK ANTHONY BRIDGES, No, 7 MAP 2001 Appellant Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered July 6, 1999, at No, 1196 C,D, 1998, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Civil Division, entered March 2"1,1998, at No. 97-7133 v, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Submitted: September 4, 2001 Appellee ORDE;~ PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 20, 2002 AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2002, the Order of the Commonwealth Court Is hereby AFFIRMED, See Scott, at 81. v, Commonwealth of Pennsvlvanla, DeD't ofTr5!MQ,. Bureau of Driver Licensing, Nos, 8-10 MAP 2001, m A.2d ---,2002 WL 242690 (Pa. Feb, 20, 2002), JUDGMENT ENTERED: March 21. 2002 JL~~4#<~~ Shirley C~y. Chief Clerk " ?t; 0' t .:J .~ ,;~ (OJ t,!j" ::') ~I: ',1.1 ",' t") \~~ ~ ,,- () " t,\_..,. .'- ..., :~~ 'l)l' ..'': ... .~ 0 \ ~ ,.... ': iJ'~ fir. 1 ...~. -" ...1, ,,,: '.Hb L~': '. , ",.. iJ,l... " ....:.: . ,.. OJ. 1" a (,.) Cl 12:11 P,M. '-\ r Commonwealth Court of Ponnsylvanla Commonwealth Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1196 CD 1998 Page 3 of 5 January 8, 2001 Flied Date (j) April 24, 1998 April 24, 1998 May 6, 1998 June 16, 1998 August 5, 1998 '*' DOCKET ENTRIES Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Flied By Notice of Appeal Flied Unknown Unknown ~' Certificate of Service Flied Unknown Unknown Notice Exited UNKNOWN Letter to Trial Judge Regarding Delinquent Record UNKNOWN Flied. Other Unknown Unknown Please obtain Cmwllh, Exhibit No.1 and forward Itto this court as a Supplemental Record by 8/18/98,A briefing schedule will be Issuedupon receipt olthe Supplemental Record, Hostutler, C,R, (Exit), August 6, 1998 Trial Court Record Received UNKNOWN No briefing schedule Issued at this time, G August 19.1998 Supplemental Record Cmwllh, Exhibit No, 1, @) October 9,1998 Unknown Unknown Order Flied UNKNOWN Appellant's brief & rep, record are due 10/27/98 or this mailer shall be dismissed as of course, Narlck, S,J, (Order exit 10/13/98), October 9. 1998 Octobor 21, 1998 October 27, 1998 1/8101 Rule to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute UNKNOWN Petitioner's Brief Filed Unknown Unknown Reproduced Record Flied Unknown Unknown 5001 12:11 P,M.-, 1 r'"' Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Commonwealth Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1196 CD 1998 Page 4 of 5 January 8, 2001 - November 18, 1998 Respondent's Brief Flied Unknown Unknown @ November 25, 1998 Order Flied UNKNOWN PER CURIAM, November 25, 1998 Submitted on Brief UNKNOWN Q July 8, 1999 Affirmed UNKNOWN July 6, 1999 Memorandum Opinion Flied UNKNOWN AFFIRMED. Leadbetter, J, (5 pgs) August 3, 1999 Petition for Allowanca of Appeal to PA Supreme Court Flied Flied 774 MAL 1999 Appellant BRIDGES, MARK ANTHONY f.i& January 5, 2001 Pelltlon for Allowanca of Appeal to PA Supreme Court. Limited Grant Limited Grant 7 MAP 2001 Supreme Court Record forwarded to Mlddla District 1/8/01 SESSION INFORMATION Journal Number: Consideration Type: Date Listed/Submitted: 118/01 5001 ~ t"'" . .. ~" . IN THB COURT OP COMMON .s PLBAS OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA civj~f~4~//f/ Mark Anthony Bridges, petitioner, v, 97-7133 Civil Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Respondent License Suspension Appeal NOTICE is hereby given that Mark Anthony Bridges, the Petitioner/Defendant above named, hereby Appeals to the Commonwealth Court from the Order of Court entered in the above captioned matter on March 27, 1998, Said Order has been entered on the docket. Q ~:;J ~~~= gJ. Lf 1 t}/1:~ r;(1 Respectfully submitted};;:.:), :pF: KULLA & WEISBROD, p. C. ~ ., ..0 q. 0) l:'" ~~ ,"" ::0 N fg~ &" -0 ~;n -. "~:v, .... W ~'I .. W ~ III Date: April~, 1998 BY: Jo 0 U~ Stephen D, Kulla, EsquirE! Pa, Supreme Court I,D, #59003 9 East Main Street Waynesboro, PA 17268-1633 Phone: (717) 762-3374 Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant TRU! fX)PY FROM Rt!OOAD hi T"MY wher8Ol, , '*' untll_"" ~ I!le ol CarI\IIe. ~ y ~ .....(19~ ~a o BRIDGES I Reference No..r Filed........: 12/29}1997 Caqe Type.....r APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP Time.........: 4:33 Judglnel'lt. . . . . . r ,00 Execution Date 0/00 0000 Judge Assignedl HESS KEVIN A Sat/Dia/Gntd. . 0/00/0000 Jur~ Trial... . Hi~ er Court 1 Hi er Court 2 ***.....***.........................**................. ..................*..... General Index Attorney Info BRIDGES MARK ANTHONY APPELLANT KULLA STEPHEN D 227 RINGGOLD STREET WAYNESBORO PA 17268 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL RIVERFR8NT OFFICE CENTF.R 3RD F HARRISB RG PA 17104 PYS5 ~ 1997-0713.l Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page Civil Case Inquiry . MARK ANTHONY (VS) PENNSYLVANIA COMMON'wEA~.TH OF 1(" APPELLEE ...*...*........**...~..........*....*...*...**..*...*.....*............**....** * Date Entries * .............................**.......**........................................ 12/29/97 01/12/98 02/24/98 02/24/98 MOTION (CASE FROM FRANKLIN COl STEPHEN 0 KULLA ESQ APPEAL FROM DRIVERS LICENSE SOSPENSION ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/12/98 - IN RE MOTION - HEARING 3/25/q8 10:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 1/14/98 MOTION PETI1'IONER ---FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY ORDER OF COURT 2/20/98 MATTER FILED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MISC CC-116 7/21/97 IS TRANSFERRED TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 02/24/98 PETITION FOR REVIEW Of ORDER SUSPENDING OPERATING PRIVILEGES AND ORDER OF COURT 2/21/97 IN RE HEARING 11/13/98 9:30 AM COURTROOM NO 1 FRANKLtN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 02/24/98 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 02/24/98 PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE AND ORDER OF COURT 10/28/98 IN RE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 11/13/97 IS CONTINUED 1/29/98 9:30 AM COURTROOM NO 4 JOHN R WALKER J FRANKLIN COUNTY PRAECIPE PLEASE DISCONTINUE ABOVE REFERENCED PROCEEDING STEPHEN D KULLA ESQ (FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDS) ORDER AND NOW THIS ~7TH DAY OF MARCH 1998 AFTER HEARING THE WITHIN APPEAL FROM LICENSE SUSPENSION IS'DENIE6. SEE GNAZZO VS COMMON-W EALTH OF PA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION NO 97-5408 CIVIL TERM, CUMB. CO, BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS~ J. COPIES MAILED MARCH 30 19~8 ...*...........*..*...*.....**..~*..*..............*.*.....**................*.. * Escrow Information . * Fees Fe Debits Bea Ba1 Pvmts/Ad 1 End Bal . *............*...*.......*......~*......*~.....*,.........**..................** 02/24/98 03/30/98 APPEAL VEH REG TAX ON APPEAL SETTLEMEN'': JCP FEE 35.00 35,00 .00 .58 ,50 ,00 5.0 5.00 .00 5.00 5.00 .00 - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -., - - --- - -- -.. --- 45.50 45.50 .00 ......*..........*............*.**.........*......................**............ * End of Case Information * .**..................**.................+.................*.....**...'k.......... TRUE t;Opy FROM REOOAD In TMtIlnortf whereof, I here unto let 1f'fI'*- . ... of It Cartlsle~ I); '" T~ q ~l( ~~ """\ t""" . .' . . .. . Honorable Kevin A, Hess Judge's Chambers Cumberland County Court House One Courthouse Square carlisle, PA 17013 (phone: 717-240-6296) IN THB COURT 01' COMMON PLEAS or CtJMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA Mark Anthony Bridges, Petitioner, Civil Action . Law v, 97-7133 Civil Commonwealth of pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Respondent License Suspension Appeal ~c;E I, Stephen 0, Kulla, Esquire, Attorney for the petitioner/Defendant, Mark Anthony ~ridges, hereby certify that I served this date the foregoing document upon the following persons via personal service, which service satisfies the requirements of pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 121: Office of the Court Reporters (phone: 717-240-6207) Cumberland County Court House One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Richard J, Pierce (phone: 717-240-6200) Office of the Court Administrator Cumberland County Court House One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 George H, Kabusk, Assistant Counsel (phone: 717-787-2830) Department of Transportation Riverfront Office Center 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104 Respectfully submitted, Date: April~, 1998 TRUE tHV FROM REOOAD In T..1ft lOI'P1 whereOf, , here unto lit mv ... ar.d ltIO 01 at !:arllste, "'0 r -< (, 19~.a- BYI KULLA' WEISBROD, P.C. .~)l)>~ Stephen D. Kulla, Esquire Pa, Supreme Court I,D. #59003 9 East Main Street Waynesboro, PA 17268-1633 Phone: (717) 762-3374 Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant v , . -~ , . it received an electronically-trunsmitted notice from the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles that Bridges had been convicted in New Jersey on May 29, 1997 of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) under N, J. Stat. * 39:4-50(a),2 Bridges appealed. At a de novo hearing before the trial court, the Department introduced and the court admitted a certified copy of the New Jersey report of Bridges' conviction. The trial court denied Bridges' appeal and this appeal followed, Bridges argues that: (I) the suspension violates the double jeopardy and equal protection clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; and (2) a New Jersey DWI conviction is not equivalent to a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction in Pennsylvania and the Department failed to prove the equivalence at the hearing. This court ell ballc recently concluded in Correll v, Departme1lt of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licellsing. 726 A,2d 427, 429 (Pa, Cmwlth, 1999), that the suspension of a driver's license is a collateral civil consequence of a DUI conviction which does not constitute punishment within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause, We further held that suspensions imposed pursuant to the 2 N.J, Stat. ~ 39:4-50(a) provides: (a) A person who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit- producing drug, or operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood or pennits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit. producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by him or in his custody or control or pennits another to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or morlJ by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, shall be subject [to penalties as set forth herein], 2 . r- II I Compact do not violate the equal protection clause. [d. at 431. Thus, for the reasons set forth in Correll, we reject Bridges' double jeopardy and equal protection arguments, Bridges also argues that a New Jersey DWI conviction is not substantially similar to a DUI conviction in Pennsylvania and that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof in this regard, We disagree, In Kiebort v, Department o/Transportation, Bureau 0/ Driver Licensing, 719 A.2d 1139, 1142- 43 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1998) and Seibert v, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Drivel' Licensing, 715 A,2d 517 (Pa, Cmwlth, 1998), this court concluded that the two statutes are substantially similar. As to the Department's burden, in Scott v, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Drivel' Licensing, _ A.2d _ (Pa, Cmwlth., No, 1475 C,D, 1998, filed May II, 1999), we held that the Department satisfies its initial burden under the Compact by introducing a conviction report that contains the infonnation required by Article III of the Compact.) The report, under Section 1550(d) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa, C.S, ~ 1550(d),4 must be certified ) Article III of the Compact provides: The licensing authority of a "arty state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee, Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. 75 Pa, C.S. 9 1581. 4 Section 1550(d) of the Code provides: (Footnote continued on next page...) 3 r I under seal by the Department. The Department's certification that it received the conviction report by means of electronic transmission constitutes prima facie proof of the adjudication and the facts contained in the report. See Mackall v. Department of Transp" Bureau afDriver Licensing, 680 A.2d 31,34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Since the Department introduced a certified and sealed copy of the conviction report at the hearing and Bridges did not rebut that evidence, the Department met its burden ofproof,' Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed, ~.L~ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETfER, Judge (Continued from previous page...) Out-of.State documentation. - In any proceeding under this section. documents received by the department from the courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case, III addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa, C,S, ~ 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records). and may reproduce such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa. C,S, ~ 6103 (relating to proof of official records), In addition, if the department receives information from courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government bymeWls of electronic transmission, it may certifY that it has received the information by means of electronic trWlsmission and that certification shall be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such an electronic transmission, 75 Pa, C,S, ~ 1550(d), as amended, l To the extent that Bridges is arguing that the Department had the burden of proving at the hearing before the trial court that New Jersey's DWI statute is substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUl statute, we note that this detennination is a question of law for the court to decide. 4 11t11 A,M, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 7 MAP 2001 Page 30f6 April 15, 2002 Appell.. Brl.1 Appellant Briel BRIDGES, MARK ANTHONY Due: April 20, 2001 Flied: Reply Briel BRIDGES, MARK ANTHONY Due: August 30, 2001 Reproduced Record BRIDGES, MARK ANTHONY Due: April 20, 2001 Flied: April 20, 2001 Commonwealth 01 Pennsylvania, Department 01 Transportation, Buraau of Driver Licensing : Due: April 20, 2001 Flied: August 16. 2001 April 20, 2001 REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION REMITTAL ReergumenVReconslderatlon Flied Date: Reargument Disposition: Reargument Order: Record Remitted: April 15, 2002 Date: SESSION INFORMATION Joumal Number: J.146-2001 Conslderetlon Type: Submit on Briefs Supreme Dste Listed/Submitted: September 4, 2001 DISPOSITION INFORMATION Related Journal Number: J-146-2001 JUdgment Date: March 21, 2002 Disposition Category: Decided Disposition Author: Per Curiam Disposition: Affirmed Disposition Date: March 20, 2002 Dispositional FIling: Order Author: Per Curiam Flied Date: 3/20/2002 DOCKET ENTRIES Flied Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Flied By Jsnuary 5, 2001 Limited Grant Order 4/15/2002 1055 . ~ "*' CERTI F'ICAn; AND TRANSHI'l'TAl. OF' RECOllO UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RUI.E OF' APPELI.ATE, PROCEDURE 1931 (c1 To the Prothonotary of the Appellate Court to which tho within matter has been appealed: a:JMHml\L'llI CX1JRT OF PEl'HlYLVllNIA THE UNDERSIGNED. Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of ctJoIBERLl\ND County. the 6ilid court being a court of record. do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any. and the docket entriee in the following matter: M1\RK BRIOOfS VS lEPl'. OF TRJINS. 97-7133 1196 CD 1998 The documenls comprising lhe record have been numbered from No. 1 to No. 20 ,and attached hereto as Exhibit ^ is (j list of the document~ correspondin~ly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each dccument, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has beeh transmitted to lh~ appellate court is AOOUST 17, 1998 (Seal of Court), CURrlS R. UN; Prothonotary An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Pleasp. si9n and date copy. thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. RECORD RECEIVED: Date: r-rl'" ,,~ ,", 1"'1\1 ~l I (signature & title) fij " " I I i .! I, J J ;., oJ J " .!: ;:. " 8 J -, Q J ~ , III Q l ::! III ~ Q Iol ~ t .... .., il - ll. [f :E Iol il ~ .. ~ e oJ e :a cl i. e ~ 0 is lfi :z Ll. .::. u '''''; \-- ...... , . ," i ,... '... .. t...:~ . ti... ~ tw:~ ~ .. '.. Ii . ~ uw,....... .. ...~.. -.. ....... ~... I. &" ft3: ~ ~a . fta:~ . r Jr. , ~ ~ ~ 0'''' fJ :8 :8 :8 .. ..., "'21'" is . ....01" ..':;:11"'1 M ~S:l\ ~ I U 8. !D:~ , D . , D'''' , , , , .. , . , . , , , :t:J , , :1 . 1 , , . , , .' .. , . .. , , . ... , , ~..:, .. , , '" , ,~ ~..:ft , ~~i~ , I/l",.... ,... , '"~' , ~!i:~ '0 1Il~: , III : , I , , , 1>' I .~ ... , , ..' , ..' , '" ....'8 . ....'1 '001 ;:;;:8 , ''''8 ,.. ."': , rill" : . , ~1Il: ~!iS , !I: , .. !I:~ I ~: I :f: - , :. - , :~ - , :i!l -'.. '" '" ..' ..,.. ., .. ~, ~... !I - , ! '~ -, !I M' !I _,a ... Q! gia '... ~i '.. ~:... - . - , - .. _ '.. .... -- .. .. I . ..."',.... ...w..... ,.. .... Ii l!:: ...., ~!I ~..:!: ~: ....'8 ""i: s3 aa:~ a,... 6~:.... O' -- , . , ,.. - s , - , > : a , _ :8 'OIl ~ . .. , , ;0 :8 , I :11 , . : l/ , , , ii , '0 Ii I ' - Iill . II I 'M I~:~ '" :e :e , I !i~ '-' :~ . ,... , _ .. :~ '.. J ,.. & 'H , ,~ 'u .. 'OIl .i~ 51 I ..8:1 ..I! ~ ..8:1 . .~' ~s .. -' , .. . oj "'8: . Iii .. N . .. ..'" ::I'. :%'" ...,. '" . OIl I .. ~~ ... ~~!I ~~ ~ " I. .. D~:!::. ,,! --, ';:- ... . :!,", ..a wOtI.... ..M ~ :. -, , ..- . :. ......11'4 I a- a-: a. 2 .IDI..... =11 3 ' , ft~ ' , Q : 3 I'" , !I" I . ~~ Mllti. I "'~ ~ .M= , -al . _a t;=.. ti!ii . , Ii! .. , , .. , ~!:3 . ~8 ~ ... , . M" . , h I ~.. D hit . fi~i~ , H , , . . , ug ~ .'1 . ... ~ '" ..' OIl .., "'. "', "" -' 1 a j: .., .., ..' (il -I, -II I ; r . I :! I , '.. , a :; , :1 I...:. . , a ~""I. .. .. ~.l >___1" -. -. -. 8 . B , 8 8 , , , I ..' .. , .. .., 1::, t:l " ~:~ M' =:11 - -'.. .., .. .. ~ , i , . , , , , a"i, UiS! !I"'''' ll" , . , I . ." ! ..,. , -Ill, _a, -'"'~ , .. , tl:~ Ii~: , .. ., . uJ .. u'" , i : ~ i '" i ,.. -~I> . , . , , 111 ~la .. ,. ", I. " hi~ d ~:ii lIii .. , . .. ~:'" ~! 0' M , - . i~: ~~! 5~: .. t!"' .. .. : .. . ..~ i . "' .:1 -:1 I . U . -,,, . .. . .. , ' "' . ~'.. . ~ I .. . :J . , .. f :1. , :r, , " . , , .. , , ,,., .. . . tJ~ l~ ,'11 ~ 'I .,()~I.') :tt:.~ ~ ~ ,....., equivalent to Penneylvania's ARD Program. He also would have been eligible for what is referred to as a provisional license in New Jersey. In that this was Bridges' first DUI offense, and in fact his first criminal offense in any manner whatsoever, if this matter had occurred in the State of Pennsylvania and in Bridges' home county of Franklin, he would likely have been placed on what is referred to as an ARD Program and his license would have been suspended for a three month period of time. Thus, ironically, if Bridges had been a resident of New Jersey, he would not have lost his license for one year. If he had been a resident of pennsyl vania, as he is, and if the of fense had occurred in Pennsylvania, he also would not have lost his license for a year. Hence, he is punished for being a resident of Pennsylvania and incurring an infraction out of state. He is also being punished disproportionately to other Pennsylvania drivers for similar offenses that have occurred within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth's borders. II. REOUESTED RELIEF, Bridges requests that this Honorable Court direct that the Department of Transportation suspend his license for a three month period, the equivalent of time he would have received in Franklin County if the offense had occurred in said jurisdiction. This request would prevent the Department of Transportation from being able' to sentence Bridges in a manner disproportionate to ot.her 2 F ,..... ~ citizens of Pennsylvania which Bridges argues is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States constitution. III. SUGGESTED AUTHORITY, Bridges argIles that he should not be subjected to additional motor vehicle suspension sanction, beyond same already imposed upon him by the State of New Jersey due to the Full Faith and credit Act, 28 U. S. C. S. 9 1738. The purpose of the United States Constitution's full faith and credit clause is to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties by making conflict of law principles enforceable as a matter of constitutional command rather than leaving enforcement t.o the vagaries of the forum states. Sun oil Comoanv v. Wor.tman, 108 S Ct 2117 (1988). Under full faith and credit principles, a judgment o[ a Court in one state is conclu.sive upon the merits in the Court of another. state if the Court in the first state had power to pass on the merits, that is that it had jurisdiction to render the judgment; Under.writers National Assurance Co. v. North Care Life Accident & Health Insurance Guarantee Assof<.."., 102 S Ct 1388 (1982). It has been held that if a Court of one state refuses to enforce the statute of another state in a case in which it ought to do so in which the statute gives a right and thereby denies the full faith and credit demanded by the Federal Constitution because the statute is a public act of another state. Broderick. Inc. v. ~osner, 55 S Ct 589. Additionally, a judgment of one state is 3 transferred to Cumberland County. A hearing was held before lhe Honornble Judge Bess un Murch 25, 1998. At the conclusion of the heuring. the [)epurtment was given the opportunity to file [\ brief in support of the suspension. II. Issues: I. Do state and federnl constitutionul principles apply to operuting privilege suspenslons'/ 2. Is a New Jersey driving under the intluencestatute ofa substantially similar nature to Pennsylvania's driving under the inl1uence law for purposes of the Driver License Compact, 75 Pa. C.S. * 1581 e( self.'/ 3. Does the imposition of a one year suspension for a conviction for a driving under the intluence offense violate the equal protection provisions of the Pennsylvania and the United States constitutions when the motorist was not afforded the opportunity to enter an ARD program in the criminal proceeding'! 4. Has the petitioner's double jeopardy rights under the Pennsylvjlnia and Federal Constitutions been violated'/ 5. Has the petitioner's due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy rights under the New Jersey Stute Constitution been violated'! III. Discussion 1. State and federal constitutional principles govern the laws of every state and Commonwealth in the Nation, The suspension in question is imposed pursuant 10 statutes passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor. See 75 Pa. C,S, ~~15RI, 1532. 2 13 Duly enacted stalllles ure presumed to be eonstilutional. One who chullenges the eonstitutionulily ofu statu.le has the onerous burden ofpfllving that the stutute is uncllllstitutionul. Plowmall v. Depal'/II/L'III 1!/'Tmll.lpol'lal;OIl, HI/I'ml/ ,!/DI';I'L'I' Li(,<'IIS;II~, 535 Pa. 314,635 ^.2d 124 (1993). 2. Bridges' seclllld challenge to the imposition of the opernting privilege suspension is that New Jerseys's driving while intoxicuted law is nol substantiully similar to Pennsylvania's driving under the int1uencllofalcoholor conlrolled substance law, 75 I'u. e.s. *3731 (u)( I ).1 New Jersey's driving while intoxicuted statule is ofa substantially similar nature to Pennsylvuniu's driving under the influence luw lor purposes of the Driver License Compacl, 75 Pa. C.S. * 1581 e/ seq. This precise issued was bllfore the court in (illa::o I'. ('01/11//11'. I!/I'a., DOT, BOL, Cumberland County, 97-5408, and the court found thut PennDOT had appropriately equated the conviction in New Jersey to a violution of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code. GI/a::o V. CO/ll/llw. o/Pa., DOT. BDL, Cumberland County, 97-5408. Bridges claims that driving under the influence in Pennsylvunia and driving while intoxicated in New Jersey lire not equivalent or substuntiully similur offenses. However, the issue is whether the conduct prohibited by New Jersey is of the sume type of conduct which Pennsylvania's driving under the influenclllaw is designed to prohibit. This is the same analysis which was used by the Superior Court in ('oIl/II/Ollwea/11t v. W;';slIalll, 390 Pa. Super. 192,568 A.2d 259 (1990). In W;';sIIalll, the Superior Court held that a driving under the influence conviction in New Jersey could be used us a prior offense for senlcncing purposes. In reaching this conclusion, the Superior Court compared the clements of the two state driving under the influence laws und dctermined tlllltthe statutes were designed to prohibit the same type of conduct. Additionally, it noted thatthc underlying public policies for bolh driving under the int1uence statutes were the slime. The Court also noted that to treat the out of state conviction differently than a Pennsylvania state conviction would violate the policy the sentencing law had been designed to 'It should be noted this issue is a question of law nota question of fuct. Neither party hns the burden of proving the comparability of the statutes. 3 I Y rcmedy. Inucconlunce with the uJlulysis of thc Supcrior Court in Wlli.\'l/alll, the Depurtment submits thut the New Jcrsey aJld I'ennsylvunlu driving under tile influence stututcs pmhibil the sume type of conduct. Accordingly, Bridges' c1uim is withoutmcrit. 3. Thc ncxlurgument is thut Bridges' cquul protcction rights wcre vlolUled bccuuse aner Bridges wus cuught driving under thc influcnce in New Jcrscy he did not huw lhc opportunity to purlicipllle in un Accelerutcd Rehubilillllive Disposition (ARD) progrum, Aguin, this precise issucd wus beforc thc court in (/l/eI::O 1'. COIII/I/\V, '!I'l'a., Den: BDL, Cumberland County, 97-5408, und the court found thut there wus no violation of the motorist's equul protection right und that Penn DOT hud trculed lhc Jl1otorist us iltrcuts evcry other person who is convicted of violuting Scction 3731 of the Vehicle Code, GI/a::o v. COIIIIIIII'. ofl'eI., D07: BDL, Cumberland County, 97-5408, Both the Pennsylvunill Supreme Courtund the COJl1Jl1onwculth Court hllve held that un operating privilcge suspension imposed f(Jr u conviction of a driving under the influcnce offense docs not violnte Equal Protection mcrely because the motorist did not have an opportunity to partieipalc in the ARD progrum. SlIllIel'/al/d v. COllllllolllvea/llI. 45 Pa. Cmwlth. 490, 407 A.2d 1364 (1979); FI'eed v. ('01l1ll101ll1'eelllll, 48 h Cmwlth. 178,409 A.2d 1185 (1979), (11T'd P"I' cUI'ialll, 493 Pa. 230,425 A.2d 747 (1981). In SlIIlIer/ell/d, n motorist from Delaware County took an appeal ofu one yeur suspl:nsion imposed us a rl'sult as a driving undcr the influence conviction in Cumberland County. At the time, Cumberland County did not have an ARD program. However, Delaware County had e~tablishcd an ARD progrum. Suthcrland appeuled his onc ycar operation privilcgc suspension eluiming thut his equal protection rights werc ,violated because he wus notumJrded an opportunity to enter into un ARD Program. Sutherland claimed that if therc had been an ARD progrum, he could huve entercd into the program and had his suspension time greatly reduced. The Commonwealth Court, en bunc, hold that the one yeur suspension did not violnte cqunl protcction, "The avuilability of ARD to nn offender is entirely unrelatcd to the mandatory provisions of the Code govcrning the rcvocation of operating privileges." SUlllel'/alld,45 PU. Comlllw. at_. 407 A.2d nt 1366. See a/so FI'eed V. 4 I'; ('0/1//1/<1/111'<'111111, 4H PU. Cmwllh. l7H, 4()l) A,2d 11 H5 (1979), o/rel pel' ('lIl'io/l/, 493 Pn, DO, 425 A.2d 747 (19Hl). AdditionuJly, il should be nolcd thnt Pennsylvunin is not trcnting Bridgcs inu diffcrcnt tilshion then other similnrly silUnted moloril;!s, Thc pctitioner wus convicted of u driving under the intluence offcnse, Thc petitioner is being treuted exactly thc sumc as if his conviction oceurrcd inl'ennsylvania despitc the tact that the conviction occurrcd in New Jcrscy, By suspending the petitioner's opcnlling privilege Illr one yenr. the Dcpnrtmcnt is treuting the petitioner exactly as it would trcut one who wus convictcd of dri ving undcr the inl1ucnce in Pennsylvllnia, Like thc motorist in SIIII1el'lcll/d, petitioner argucs that the disparate trcatmentlhat he received violates his equal protection rights, This argument is premised upon thc thct lhat he is not being treated thc same us u motorist who was udllliucd into an ARD progrum, Howcvcr, petitioner was convicted und is being treatcd the same as others who .Irc convictcd of driving under the inl1uence offcnses. Accordingly, he is bcing treated the same us others similarly situ at cd and his cquul protection argument must fail. 4, Petitioner next argues that the imposition of the suspension is II second punishment in violation of the state and fcderal double jcopardy provisions, Once uguin, this precise issued was before the court in GIIOZZO v, CO/l/I1IIV, ofPa" DOT, BDL, Cumberlund County, 97-5408, and the court found that there was no violation of the motorist's rightllgainst double jeopardy. GIIOZZO I', COII//l/IV, <!lPa.. DOT, BDL, Cumberland County, 97-5408, Additionally, in Krall v, Depa/'lll/elll f!lTraIlSpOl'lolioll, BII/'eall f!lDl'ive/' Liall.l'illg. 6H2 A. 2d 63 (Pa. Cmwllh. 1996)(('11 h<lI/c), the Commonweallh Court rejectcd a double jeopurdy argument raised by the motorist. The Court held that operating privilege suspensions imposed pursuant to the Vehielc Code were remcdial sanctions which were civil in nature and, therefore, could not be the subjcct of a double jcopardy challenge. /d, The Commonwcallh Court has consistently held that the imposition of operating privilcge suspensions docs not viohlte the double jeopllrdy prohibitions. See POlice I'. D('pC/l'llI/elll of T/'CIIl.l'pO/'lalioll, 811/'eall o(Dl'iv('/' Licellsillg. 6H5 A,2d 607 (Pn, Cmwlth, 1996), appeal delliI'd, _ Pa._, 694 A,2d 625 5 n , , (1997); Mal'lil/ v. Oepal'llIIe/ll ofT/,(/l/spol'laliol/, BI/I'eall (!fOl'ivel' Li('ell.lil/g, 672 A.2d 397 (PlI. Cmwlth. 1996); F/I!elll'ood v. Depal'llIIl!/11 oj'Tl'al/.\'{Iol'laliol/. l//IImll (!/'Dl'ivel' Lic'L'lI.Iil/g. 682 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); Bickl!I'1 v, Ol!fI('I'llIIe/ll (~lTI'(/II.\'{Iol'taliol/. BlIl'ellll qlDrivel' Licel/sil/g, 688 A.2d 792 (Pa, Cmwlth, 1997); DI'ogoll'ski I'. ('mlllllOl/ll'(!(lIlh, 94 PU. Cmwlth. 205, 503 A.2d 104 (1986), aflpea/ dl!l/ied. 516 PlI. 619, 531 A.2d 1120 ( 1987); and llll/OIlO I', Oepal'11II1!1/I of Tral/SpOl'taliall, 83 Pa. Cmwllh. 69, 475 A.2d 1375 ( 1984), Sel! also, Krall I'. COllllllol/lI'ea/lh, 903 F. Supp. 858 (E.D, I'll. 1995)(rcjecting alllotorists clllimthat an operating privilege suspension violates doublc jcopurdy). Additionally, the suspension in qucstion Ilows directly from the conviction. As such, the suspension is not a second proeccding for double jeopardy purposes. See Mal'lill v. Oeplll'llIIe/ll of Tral/.!flol'laliol/, BI/I'elll/ ofDl'ivel' Lice/lsil/g, 672 A,2d 397 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Moreover, it has been traditionally held that the rcvocation of a Iiccnse or privilege voluntarily grantcd by u government which resulted from II criminal conviction does not constitute "punishment" within lh~ scope of the Double Jeopardy CIlIuse of the Fifth Amendment. See He/wl'il/g v. Milchell. 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) (one type of sanction that "is characteristically free of a punitivc criminal e1emcnt is the revocution of a privilege voluntarily granted"). Bridges' double jeopardy claim may bc premised upon UI/iled SWles v. Hll/pel', 490 U.S. 435 (1989) and the Honorable Judge Jenkins'2 opinion in Ol!pal'llI/e/ll of7h/llspol'talio/lI'. Calli/so, No. 9512-2629. Howcver, the U. S. Supreme Court expressly rejected the double jeopardy analysis set forth in the fill/pel' case in HI/d.wl/ v. UI/iled Stales. __ U.S. _, available in LEXIS at 1997 U.S. Lcxis 7497, a.flil'lIIillg 92 F.3d 1026. In Hllt/.Hm, the Court concurred with its previous holding eonccrning the double jcopardy clause, set forth in cascs such as KIII'III Rlll/cll. It reemphasizcd its position thut all civil penalties carry some deterrent effect, however, this docs not make thcm "punitive" and thus subject to the restruints of thc double jeopardy clause. If a sanction must be solely remedial to surpass double jeopardy sCnltiny, no civil pcnalties would be bcyond the reach of the double jeopurdy clausc. To emphasis its distaste for the Ha/pl!/' decision, the Hlldsoll court explicitly criticized Ha/pel"s test lJudge Jenkins is a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judgc. 6 which deviuled from the Court's /ongslunding double jeopurdy IlIllgUllge set torth in Kurth Nelllch and UI/ited Slates v. U.vel:JI, SIll U.S, _, n,2 (1996)(slip OP,. lit 16-17, n,2).J Therethre, Bridges' reliance onl/alpel' is mispluced. Even ifu suspension wus determined to be punisllll1ent. Ihe [)epllrlmenl's SllSpcnsion would not constitute double jeopardy beclluse of the doctrine of "duul sovereigIllY." The dOUble jeopurdy prohibition applies only to singlc state sovereigns, Banku,\' I', lIIil/ois, 359 U.S, 121, 79 S,Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed. 2d 684 (1959), It docs not prohlbitlwo SIllies from prosecuting the sume conduct becuuse euch state's prosecutoricl power is derived trclln its own inhercnt sovereignty. Heath v, Alahall/a, 474 U.S, 82, 106 S,CI. 433,811 L.Ed, 2d 387 (1985). "Where thc act gives rise to an offense aguinsttwo sovereigns, each lJ1uy punish." Lel:I' MOlo/' Vehicle OPL'l'alo/' :\' Case, 194 PII, SUpcr. 390,393, 169 A.2d 596,598 (1961) (upholding u Pennsylvania driver license sUspension based upon II violation in New Jersey, undcr fonner 75 p,S. 619(3) ofthc Vchicle Code of 1959). 5. Petitioner claims thai his due process, equlIl protection, und double jeopurdy rights under the New Jersey Slate Constitution huve been violated. New Jersey and Pennsylvllniaarc independent state sovereigns who enacted their separate and distinct state constitutions. One sovereign state cannot bind another sovereign state nor can one sovereign pass a law dictating Ihe actions of the unother state sovereign, The constitution and statutes of the state New Jersey arc not superior to the constitution and SIUlutes of this Commonwealth. New Jersey has no authority to pass Inws prohibiting this Commonwenlth from taking un action expressly mandated by our General Assembly, Petitioner claims that his New Jersey Slate due process and equal protection rights have been violated because he was not informed of the Pennsylvania operating PriVilege sUspension when he was convicted. However, this claim is merely an improper attack on Ihe propriety of lhe underlying convict,ion, Comll/ollwealth v. Dl!f/~I', 536 Pa. 436, 639 A.2d 1174 (1994), cel'/. delliI'd, 513 U,S. 884 (1994). A motorist may not raise improprieties in a criminal proceeding us 'The Hudsol/'Court stated that the deviation froll1the Court's longstanding double jeopardy principles in Halpel' was "il/ considered, II Halpel' at .'6. 7 I~ a defense of an operating privilege suspension. lei, The Issue is whether the motorist wus convicted and not whether the motorist should huvc been convicted. lei, Again, this issucd wus before the court in Gna::o v, COIIIIIIIV. o/Pa" D07; BDL, Cumberland COUl1ly, 97-5408, und the court found tlmt there wus no violation ofthc motorist's righls und that such unllrgullIent WllS un impemllssible eollaterulllttllek, Gna::o v, COlIIlIIll'. (I/Pa.. DOT. BDL, Cumberlund County, 97- 5408. Petitioner claims that his New Jersey State double jeopardy rights has been violated by the imposition of this suspension. We note that New Jersey has been It member of the Driver Licensing Compact for longer than Pennsylvania and thllt New Jcrsey has not held that an operating privilege suspension imposed pursuant to the Compact violates the double jeopurdy provision of the New Jersey constitution. Moreovcr, as previously notcd in argument 4, the imposed suspension does not violate the double jeopardy prohibition. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, the Department of Transp0l1ation respectfully , requests that the appeal be denied and the suspension reinstated. Respectfully submitted, Dated; March 25, 1998 . ~ .,/~~C G~orge R ~USk Assistant Counsel Department of Transportation Riverfront Office Center 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17104-2516 (717) 787-2830 8 /9 J J '" .J J E c f . Q 8 J J " Q ! 1.1 WoI " ~. e to: ;. .., Jl - 110 li: ~ WoI 1 ~ WoI " " 11 e .D e :a .. , . .,; e '" w 0 " ~ 0 8 " z z ~ oJ: w ,. v v ""'" MARK ANTHONY BRIDGES- VS r"", COMMMONWEAt.TII 01'> PA Among Ihe !(eeords Ilnd Proceeding, enrnlled in Ihe courl of Common Plells in Ilnd fnr Ihe county of CUMBERLAND 97-7133 1196 CD 98 I, conllllned the following: In the COl11l11onwelllth of l'ennsylvllnlll 10 No, Term, 19 COI'Y OF APPEARANCt:ft DOCK ET ENTR Y 12-29-97 MOTION (CASE FORM FI1ANKLIN CO) STEPHEN 0 KU[,LA ESQ. APPEAL FI10M 0111 VEilS LICENSE SUSPENSION. 01-12-98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1-12-9R - IN I1E M~rION - IIEAI1ING 3-25-98 10:30 AM CI1 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NO'rICE MAILED 1-14-98. 02-24-98-0RDEI1 OF COURT 2-20-98 MATTER FTLED IN FI1ANKLTN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MISC CC 116 7-21-97 IS TI1ANSFEI1RED TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. -MOTION PETITIONER --- FROM ~R~NKLIN COUNTY. -PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSPENDING OPERATING PRIVILEGES AND ORDER OF COURT 2-21-97 IN RE HEARING 11- 13-98 9:30 AM. -PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE MiD ORDER or. COUWI' 10-28-98 IN RE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 11-13-97 IS CONTINUED 1-29- 98 9: 30 AM COURTROOM NO 4. .JOIIN R WALTER J FRANKLIN COUNTY. 02-24-98 PRAECIPE PLEASE DISCONTINUE ABOVE REFERENCED PROCEEDING. STEPHEN D KUl,LA ESQ (FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDS) 03-30-98 ORDER OF COURT. APPEAL FROM LICENSE SUSPENSION IS DENIED. BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAnED MARCH 30. 1998. 04-24 98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 4-24-98 - IN RE MOTION FOR STAY OF PENNDOT DIRECTIVE - STAY IS ISRUED. BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAILED 4-29-98. 02-24-98 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COMMONWEALTH COURT BY STEPHEN KULLA ESQ. 05-04-98 ORDER - DATED 5-4-98 PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO FILE OF RECORD WITHIN 15 DAYS AND SERVE UPON THE UNDERSIGNED A CONCISE STATMENT OF THE MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON THE APPEAL. BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAILED 5-5-98. 05-07-98 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO H1l96 CD 1998. 05-18-98 DEFENDANT APPELLANT'S STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL. 06-02-98 TI1ANSCRIPr FILED 07-01-98 IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 - DATED 6-30-98. BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS, J. COPIES MAILED 7-2-98 ~ ,-., IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Mark Anthony Bridges, Petitioner, Civil Action - Law v, No. ') '7. 71 J} Cu.';; 'Tl.AA'~ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Defendant MQ11Q1:i , I I " NOW COMES the Petitioner, Mark Anthony Bridges, by his attorney, Stephen D. Kulla, Esquire, and respectfully sets forth the following: 1. On July 21, 1997, the Honorable President Judge John R. Walker of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entered the attached Order of Court scheduling a hearing on whether the Department of Transportation's actions, suspending the operating privileges of Mark Anthony Bridges should be set aside. Said Order was entered upon consideration of Petition for Review of Order filed by Mark Anthony Bridges. 2. Subsequent to the entry of the aforementioned Order an additional Oz'der of Court was entered on October 28, 1997 continuing this matter until January 29, J.998. attached hereto, Said Order is :;, ""'" f"""I 3. Commencing on December 8, 1997, Mark Anthony Bridges has become employed as a Juvenile probation Officer in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 4. Mark Anthony Bridges is expected to have regular dealings with all four Judges of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 5, Mark Anthony Bridges and the Director of the Franklin COUl\ty Juvenile Probation Department, Ed Killian bel ieve that it is J.n the best interest of all concerned including the Petitioner, the Probation Department and the Franklin County Juvenile Justice system if the Judges of the Franklin County Court system and the related offices of the Franklin County Court system divest themselves of this concern. 6. The undersigned has contacted Matthew X, Haeckler, Esquire, counsel for th~ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation and has gained his concurrence to withdraw this matter from consideration of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and to transfer this concern, nunc pro tunc to the original dat.e of the filing of the Petition so that same remains timely, to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 7. It is requested that this Honorable Court enter the attached. 2 3 1'"'\ f""'. Order scheduling a hearing on this concern in the Cumberland County , Court system. Once said Order is entered, a Motion withdrawing this matter for concern in Franklin County will be timely filed, WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requeoted that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order, Respectfully submitted, , ~:::S' -:, tephen D. Kulla, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner, Bridges I verify that the statements set forth in the above document are true and correct, I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C,S.A. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, Date: ...L'),- ;. '1- H 3 i '""' 1"""\ .' , . WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order setting this matter for a de novo hearing pursuant to 75 Pa.C,S, Section 1550 and setting aside thlll Order of the Department of Transportation suspending the Petitioner's operating privilege, Respectfully submitted, GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 11.'11 (I.... tf.1 l (a I N..i:.. Michelle R, Calvert, Esquire Attomev for Petitioner . 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle. PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-S552 </ ". .j ,.-., COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Harrisburg, PA 17123 JUNF. 20. 1997 MARK ANTHONY BRIDG~S PO BOX 248 SOUTH MOUNTAIN PA 172~1 ~71~4b10223b3~7 002 Ob/13/1~~7 254534~1 12102/1~b7 Dear Motorist: Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code reqUirllS the Department to treat certain out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania, Therefore, as a result of the De- partment receiving notification from NEW JERSEY of your con- viction on OS/29/1997 of an offense which occurred on 031\5/1997, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pa. Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE. your driving privilege is being SUSPENOED for a period of 1 YEAR(S). as mandated by Section 1532B of the Vehicle Code. The effective date of suspension is 07/25/1997, 12101 a,m. In order to comply with this sanction you are required to return any current driver's license, learner's permit and/or temporary driver's license (camera card) in your possession no later than the effective date listed. If you cannot com- ply with the rcquir~~ents stated above, you are required to SUbMit a DL16LC Form or a sworn affidavit stating that yOU are aware of the sanction against your driving privilege. Failure to comply with this notice shall result in this Bu- reau referring this matter to the Pennsylvania State Police for prosecution under SECTION 1571(a)(4) of the Vehicle Code. Although the law mandates that your driving privilege is un- der SuspelJsion even if Yllll do not surrender your license. Credit will not begin until all current driver's license product(s), the DL16LC Form. or a letter aCknowledgjng your sanction is received in this Bureau. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES YOUR LICENSE OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. WE WILL SEND YOU A RECEIPT. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS RECEIPT WITHIN 15 DAYS CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY. OTHERWISE. YOU WILL NOT BE GIVEN CREDIT TOWARD SERVING THIS SANCTION. /1) Exhibit "A" ..-...... . " . '.1 II" '-.. , ,...., "'. MARK ANTHONY BRIDGES, Petitioner : rN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : nm 39m JUDlCIAL orSnuCT OF : PENNSYL V AN1A - FRANKLIN COUNrY vs. : No. Mise, CC-ll6 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Rapondent ORDER OF COllBX AND NOW, this ,9~ day ot' C.e:\tbi:l , 1997, upon presentation and coa.sideratlon of the petition ofMa.rlc Anthony Bridges tor 3. continuance, and it appearing that cou~I for the Respondent, Department of TransponatioD, has no objections, the bearing whicb wa.s currently scheduled for November l3. 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1 is bereby continued to the 29th day of January 1998 at 9:30 o'clock a.m. in Courtroom number 4 ,Franklin County Courthouse, Cbambersburg, Franklin Couiu)'. Pennsylvania. Petitioner is directed to notifY the Department of Transportation of the rescheduled hearing date. BY THE COURT. \~\ '~ Q \}j,~'i~; EXHIBIT "B" -' - . ~? - . .-, ~- ) -. -l - , , .. -, :-;;.., ;I, ' .. , - ':~:~~ ::. Cz::1 "'0 ~CTI N .~; .:', ::>> '- ..... ;::l::a .. ::=1. -<.::I .....- N :-: ~ - ? 1;1 .\ .. . . " . .' ,IN TBII COURT or COMMON PLllAS or ctlMBBRLAND COtm'l'Y, JilBNNSYLVANU Mark Anthony Bridges, Petitioner, Civil Action . Law v. No. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Defendant Mfll1!}J:J. r: ., " , . " ., -, .:J , " "I '_: ~ .. , , J , '1 .. NOW COMES the Petitioner, Mark Anthony Bridges, by his'" attorney, Stephen D. Kulla, Esquire, and respectfully sets forth the following: 1. On July 21, 1997, the Honorable President Judge John R. Walker of the 'Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entered the attached Order of Court scheduling a hearing on whether the Department of Transportation's actions, suspending the operating privileges of Mark Anthony Bridges should be set aside, Said Order was entered upon consideration of Petition for Review of Order filed by Mark Anthony Bridges, 2. Subsequent to the entry of the aforementioned Order an additional Order of Court was entered on October 28.,. 1997 continuing this matter until January 29, 1998, attached hereto, Said Order is :<./ <~:'~ ...-\\ , .. tI . 3, Commencing on December 8, 1997, Mark Anthony Bridges has become employed as a Juvenile Probation Officer in the Franklin Couney Court of Common Plea,s. 4, Mark Anehony Bridges is expected to have regular dl!lalings with all four Judges of the Franklin Couney Court of Common Pleas. 5, Mark Anthony Bridges and the Director of ehe Franklin County Juveni~e Probation De9ar~mene, Ed Killian believe ehat it is in the best irtc:erest of all concerned including the Pec:ic:ioner, the Probac:ion Deparc:ment and the Franklin County Juvenile Jusc:ice system if the Judges of the Franklin Counc:y Court system and the relac:ad offices of the Franklin County Court system divest themselves of this concern, 6, The undersigned has cOlttacted Matthew X, Haeckler, Esquire, counsel for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Deparement of Transporl:ation and has gained his concurrence to withdraw this matter from consideraeion of. the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and to transfer this concern, nunc pro tunc to the original date of the filing of the Petition so that same remains timely, to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 7, It is requested that this Honorable Coure enter the attached 2 )2 . ", , " .. . : IN THE COUP.T OF COMMON PLEAS OF : THE 39tH JlJD[CIAL OlSTlUcr OF : PENNSYL V AlUA. FRANKLIN COUNTY NO. ML S C, ~ i! - (I ~ t MARX ANl'HONY BlUOO!S. Petlcloner VI. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, OEPAR.'l'MENT: OP TRANSPORTATION '.- -.., -.. :~ .... , ,,4 ') ~ ~ :.:. -I ~ ~_.. -:r AND :-fOW, this ~ I day or j~1 7 ' 1997, up~ p~~tation:;;"d ~ ~c consideration or the Petition of :vtark Anthony Bridges tor review S't an Order ofi1e ( Depanment of Transportation suspending his operating privileges. a hearing do novo is QRD'ER OF COURT sr:ulled to deterrnine whether the a~ion of the De;:arunenr should be set aside, At the . request ot':ne Petitioner, this hearing shall be scheduled :or a date mer O~ober 1:, 1997, to accommod:ue the materr'.it'! le:l.ve of :'lis counseL The lIe:ui.ng in thubove matter is fixed tor the 1,z:11 day of Iva ~ e,.,h tl.1" ., 1997, at q. .3 0 o'clock. il ,:l\. in Courtroom Number , Franklin County Cou\'thouse, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. , Petitioner is directed fbrthwith to serve a noticll ot' this appe:d and copies of the Petition for the review and Order of Court on the Department of Transportation, by certified mail. rerum receipt requested. BY THE CQtJ1l,.T. 1.$(JDh" ~, 1Va.lkr, f'r~ ;.,J~rri" ~?- J. EXHIBIT "A" ~tt.st: A TRUI COpy u :/1 :r ~ (J C..-:NII ~ 'fN . J "t'gt. IIINDA l.. IlrlARD. PR.OTl-lCNC'T'~Y. ;,v " - .., ~ = ,"--. ._.~ "., '. :..... - , ' ..; ::~ -: .~..~ , . .-'" .. '-. 2~~ :: ~~,":1 . -..- ~ ? .. ... ".. """'I . ,~ ftom New Jersey of il conviction on May 29, 1997 of driving under the intluence. A copy of the Notice is arta.c:hed nereto and incorporated berein by reference as E:thibit ".~', 4, At the time of this conviC"Jon in New Jersey, Petitioner was incorl'ectly advised by his attorney that the New Jerse:' conviction would not aifec: his Pennsylvania drivers license. S. Petitioner', reliance In this incorreC': iruormation led him to enter a plea of guiity to the driving :.Inder the imluence charge in New Jerse:,. 6, If Petitioner had ,een :1 New Jersey resident. ne would rtave been eligible :or the [moxic:ltea Onving Program, which is presumably equivalent to Pennsylvania' 5 ..:..,.'\D ;Jrogr:un. and would have been eligible tor a provisional license in that State, 7, Petitioner's New Jersey convic';ion tor driving wld!!r the tnrluence is his first such conviction in my jurisdiction, . S. If this conviC':ion !lad oCC'Jrred in Pennsylvania. Petitioner would nave been eligible for, and likely would Ilave participated in, the ARD program. 9. A" a result of his participation in this program, Petitioner would Ilave received a lic::nse suspension tOr a period of less than the onc year tor which his license is currently being suspended by the Depaltment. 10, Petitioner is entitled punuant to is Pa.C,S, Section ISSO to a de novo ne:uing, and would request that such be:uing be scheduled mer October IS, 10 accommodate the maternity leave of his attorney, ~~ . " , . . .. . . ,. " .. . .~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver L1~'ns1ng Harrisburg, PA 17123 JUNE 20, 1997 MARK ANTHONY BRIDGES PO BOX 24& SOUTH MOUNTAIN FlA 172~1 ~71~4~1aa23~3~7 aoa 010/13/1. ~~7 2S4S34~1 12/a2l'1~~'l Dur Motorist I Section lsal 01' the ",hicl' Code r,ouire' the Oeoartment to trut c,ra1n out of s~ate convictions as thou'lh thev had oocurreo in Pennsylvania. Therefor', as a r"ult of the Oe- oartmen~ r,c8iving noti.ication from NE~ JERSav of your con- viction on OS/29/1997 of an offense which occurred on 03/1Sll997, which is eouivalent to a 'dolation 01' Section 373l 01' the Il'a, "ehi<:10 Code, ORI'ItNG UNOER INF'.UE:NCE. your drivin9 orivilegCl is being SUS?5NOEO for a oedod 01' 1 VEARCSl, as mandated by Section 15329 of the Vehicle Code, The effective date 01' susoension is 07/25/1997, 12:01 a.m. In ol'der to complY with th1s sancHon you are reau1red to return any current driver'S license, learner's aerm1t and/or tuporary driver's llcense C ~amera card) in YOl.lr possession no later than the ef.,ctive date listed. If you cannot COM- plY with UIt raauir"unts stated ab""e. YO'J are "eCluir,d to subllit a Dl.l61.C FOI"II or a sworn affidavit stating that you are aware 0. the sanction against your driving PI" iv11ege. Failure to complY with th1s noUce shall result in this Bu- ruu referring this /IItu,. to th. pennsylvania State pollee .01" Clrosecution under SECTION 1571Ca)C4) of the Veh1cle Code. Although the law lIandat's that your driving oriv11eg. is un- der suspension lIven 11' you do not surrender your 11cense, Crld:l.1: will not begin unt11 all ~urrent driver's llcense Cll'oductCs). the DL16LC Forll. or a l.tter acknowledging your sanction is reee1ved in th1s Bureau. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES YOUR LICENSE OR ACKNOWl.EDGEMENT, WE WILL SEND YOU A RECEIPT. IF YOU 00 NOT RECeIve THIS REC!IPT WITHIN 15 DAYS CONTACT THE Oep~RTMeNT IMMeDIATELV. OTHERWISE, YOU WILL NOT Be GIVeN CREDIT TOWARD SERVING THIS SANCTION. d.'J [, ( f I I I I ..---' i ....- \' ~. -.--\ '. ..I ." . ",. . '.." . . . . . MA,RK ANlHONY BlUCG2S, Petitioaer : IN THE COUP.T OF COMMON PLEAS OF : THE 39m JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : PENNSYL V Ai.'IIA . FRAl.'IKI..IN COUNT'{ vs. : No, Misc. CC.II6 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL V Ai.'IIA, DEP AR.T- MEN! OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondeat i\ \. A..'ID NOW, this ';\ ,\ ../ " ORDeR OF COURT, (' . "\ ' ." I_UC t;Ll day of , 199i, Ulloa prll:lenr.mon md conside:acioa of:l1e ~etition of~!arlc Amhony Bridges for a comiauanc~ and It appe3ring that coulUe! fur me Rll:l1lcndent, Deparone:n: 'Of Transpcrtaticn. has ac 'Objec::'Oas. :l:e Clearing wftic!l was C'Jr::ntl:' scheduled :br:-iovember 13, 199i at 9:30 a.!I1. in Courtrocm 1 is hereby continued t'O me :9th day of january 1998 at 9:30 0' ClC1cJc a..!I1. in Courtroom aumber '" . P':'3lIkiln C'OUllty Courth'Ouse. CJa.mbriurg, Franklin COUllt'!. P=msylvania. P~tioner is direc:ed to rlatUy the Departll1ent 'Of Transportaticn 'Of the. rescheduled hearing dace. BY !HE COt:"RT. \,\ .\~ Q '} \n~~n , \j . 1. EXHIBIT "B" -' . - .. ~ - . . .-. .. /2: - " . :~:.,. . , , . . .. "'t .,) , . '. ~~~ ;.. .." ...... ":l ,,: .:-i N .:0.., :') =':::,'fi r -~ .. ...:~ -:.::1 31 N ::: ~ - ?' ,'j.. I, ,. -..."..._._.-..-...~.. - "'-"".;~ -;.;......-.. ..~./~~:~ r" ,..', -. ',j """-t~..;.l~l,"_:" . -. '~....- -,: .. .. ~; \ " . . ~ . .. '. . . " . ... . . " . - , 7. Mr. HaeckIC' bas mlll~ed tba tbe Oeputmeu& _ DO objecdoq to . =""",,.n... so laDS as tba barias Is coar:inued to a dale =uin f'olJowinl tba U 1997 SllIXIatC' rar which Petitioner is l;lUremly woUed. r:WIct than C(lmim'ed pneralJy. 8. Tbent ~ bree 1IO prior =mimIance ~ in tbi.s DlIltllZ' to due. 9. Counsci for Paoner bas colUinned wim the oiflclI of ~e =urt .dmim-:uor that Iauuarl 29. 1998 ill: 9:30 a.m. ts an ~vailable dare for a Departme:lt orTran:rpormdolJ " be:uing. WEE:REFORE. Paoner :=p~y requestS that this Hoaor:Lble Court aer an ordllZ' coatinuing ~e be:uing 7o'hich is C'J1Temly ~ tor ~ovetnber 13. 1997 aJ: 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom aumber I to the:9th day ofIanuary, 1998 at 9:30 o'clock a..7l. in CoUl'tl"Oom cumoer :., Franklin Coumy C.:lurtl1ouse. Caamoenourg, Franklin Count'/. PennSylvania. R=pectfully submitted.. GRrFFIE &: A.sSOCt~ TES JJJlt~le~ 'IL (l~~..J Michelle 1t Calvert, btuire :00 North Hanover Screet C.uIisle, PAl 70 13 (iI 7) 243.5.551 (800) 347-55$2 33 m,~,__,."._~_ . ~ ... 3;). ) -91 MARK ANTHONY BRIDGES, Petitioner IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, 97-7133 CIVIL COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL ORDER AND NOW, this :Z1' day of March, 1998, ufter heuring, the within appeul from license suspension is DENIED, ~ Gnuzzo v. Com. of Pa.. Depl. of Trunsportution, No. 97-5408 Civil Term, Cumberlund County, BY THE COURT, Stephen D. Kulla, Esquire For the Petitioncr - C<>fW.<JJ ,>"..;..R..,c, .~ id J... Kevi , Hess, J. / 3/30 /q'6 . ..hi' . George H. Kabusk, Esquire For the Respondent :rlm .. PYS510 ~ 1997-07133 . Cu~r1and county Prothonotarv~ Office page, "'""f Civil Case Inquiry ~ I:. BRIDGES MARK ANTHONY (VS) PENNSYLVANIA ~uMMONWEAL'~H OF 1 Reference No..: Filed........: 12/29/1997 ca~e Type.....: APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP Time..!. .....1 I 1400133 Ju gmefit....,. I .00 Execut on Date 8 001 00 Ju ge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Sat/Dis/Gotd. . 100/0000 J\lr~ Trial. . . . Hi~ or Court 1 Hi er Court 2 ...................*................................... ...............~........ General Indox Attorney Info BRIDGES MARK ANTHONY APPELLANT KULLA STEPHEN D 227 RINGGOLD STREET WAYNESBORO PA 17268 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL RIVERFRONT OFFICE CENTER 3RD F HARRISBURG PA 17104 ....**.......................................................................... . Date Entries · ................................................................................ MOTION (CASE FROM FRANKLIN CO~ STEPHEN D KULLA ESQ ~~g~~Lo~Rg~uR~I~ES~Tg5C~~~~/~8S~E~NI~~ MOTION - HEARING 3/25/98 10:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 1/14/90 MOTION PETITIONER ---FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY ORDER OF COURT 2/20/98 MATTER FILED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MISe CC-116 7/21/91 IS TRANSFERRED TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 02/24/98 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSPENDING OPERATING PRIVILEGES AND ORDER OF COURT 2121/97 IN RE HEARING 11/13/98 9:30 AM COURTROOM NO 1 FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 82/24/98 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 2124198 PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE AND ORDER OF COURT 10/28/90 IN RE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 11/13/97 IS CONTINUED 1129/98 9:30 AM COURTROOM NO 4 JOHN R WALKER J FRANKLIN COUNTY PRAECIPE PLEASE DISCONTINUE ABOVE REFERENCED PROCEEDING STEPHEN D KULLA ESQ (FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDS) ORDER APPE~~DF~g~ i~~~N~~T~U~~~N~io~ARI~'D~~~~6.AF~~~ M~~~~SGV~H~O~6~~~ EALTH OF PA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION NO 97-5408 CIVIL TERM, CUMBo CO. BY THE COURT: KEVIN A HESS~ J. ..........;~~!~~*~!~~~.~~~;~.~2~.1~~~.......................................... . Escrow Information · . Fees & Debits Bea Bal Pvmts/Ad1 End Bal · .................**.........***.f...............,.....*....**......**........... 12/29/97 01/12/98 02/24/98 02/24/98 02/24/98 03/30/98 35,00 35.00 .00 .50 .50 .00 5.00 5.00 .00 5.00 5.00 .00 ------------------------ -------~---- 45.50 45.50 .00 ................................................................................ . End of Case Information · ............................***.............**..........*.*.*.....**.*.**.*.**** APPEAL VEH REG TAX ON APPEAL SETTLEMENT JCP FEE TRUE (i;()pV FROM REOOAO In TtlltilM!y wher8oI. I henJ unto.."" twill Th !/'* of at, Ca~~ tit '""'N THE COMMONWEALTH COURT t""I PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE OF DOCKETING APPEAL Pocket No: 1196 C,D. 1998 Filed Date: 04/24/98 , I 5,?-(71 Re: BRIDGES v. D.O.T. I,ower Court No,: 97-713JCiv A Notice of Appeal, a copy of which is enclosed, from an order of your court has been docketed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The docket number in the Commonwealth Court is endorsed on this notice, The Commonwealth Court docket number must be on all correspondence and documents filed with the Court, Under Chapter 19 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate procedure, the Notice of Appeal has the effect of directing the Court to transmit the certified record in the matter to the prothonotary of the Commonwealth Court. The complete record, including the opinion of the trial judge, should be forwarded to the Commonwealth Court within forty (40) days of the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal. Do not transmit a partial record. Pa, R,A.P, 1921 to 1933 provides the standards for preparation, certification and transmission of the record, The address to which the Court is to transmit the record is set forth on page 2 of this notice. NOTICE TO COUNSEL A copy of this notice is being sent to all parties or counsel indicated on the proof of service accompanying the Notice of Appeal. The appearance of all counsel has been entered on the record in the Commonwealth Court. Counsel has thirty (30) days from the dace of filing of the Notice of Appeal to file a praecipe to withdraw their appearance pursuant to Pa, R.A,P, 907(b) , Appellant or Appellant's attorney should review the record of the trial court, in order to insure that it is complete, prior to certification to this Court. (Note: A copy of the Zoning Ordinance must accompany'records in Zoning Appeal cases). The addresses to which you are to transmit documents to this Court are set forth on Page 2 of this Notice, If you have special needs, please contact this court in writing as soon as possible, Lower Court Judge: Honorable Kevin A, Hess Attorney: Stephen D, Kulla Esq. Attorney: George H, Kabusk Attorney: Harold Cramer Notices Exit I 05/06/98 Prothonotary I .. ,I I . r) t""'l f . " ,,' ~ (0 (:' .- C .._:/ .. ;~.,. ~~S:l ..... - (~j . - (, ~l..i ' ' ..) ::'i~ 1- ~.r ~I.. I,~ ~ ~~l ~I; () r- 'j (,I . ~F I I ;.~: r"'.". .. ~ I, ~ ~~ I ,WI;)] '. 10' d ::l'!tl.. :l: 1:3 " b ro t:l' ......, fl' rJ!; ~-U(') ().' ' rJR/;_'. ,:1',:;:', 7 c' ,c._ (; L';~~,r,;: r,. ", r, ej I 'I ~, ", , , " \"t') " - t" .. i':~ ...~.. ; I , -. " -,..,.' .,.- , , ('- f)";, .' ,) U " )-\ I"i i l , , ~ ~ FOR THE PETITIONER Mark Anthony Bridges INDEX TO WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS 5 9 INDEX TO EXHIBITS FOR THE COMMONWEAI,TH MARKED Ex. No, 1 - certified driving record 3 "DMITTED 4 2 .57 ~ --- 1 (Whereupon, 2 Commonwealth's Exhibit No, 1 3 was marked for identification,) 4 MR, KABUSK I Good morning, Your HonoI'. 5 THE COURT: Good morning. Go ahead, 6 MR. KABUSK: This is a license Buspension 7 appeal, the case of Mark Anthony Bridges versus Commonwealth 8 of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, case No, 9 97-7133, I have had marked Commonwealth's Exhibit No.1, 10 a certified packet of documents under seal and 11 certification. 12 By official notice dated and mailed June 13 20th, 1997, the Department notified the motorist, Mark 1'4 Anthony Bridges, operator's license No, 25453491 that 15 Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to 16 treat certain out of state convictions as they had occurred 17 in Pennsylvania, Therefore, as a result of the Department 18 receiving notification from New Jersey of his conviction on 19 5/29 of 1997 of an offense which occurred on 3/15/1997, 20 which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the 21 Pennsylvania Vehicle Code relating to driving under the 22 influence, his drivJ.ng privilege was being suspended for a 23 period of one year as mandated by Section 1532 of the 24 Vehicle Code. 25 The Department's exhibits, sub-Exhibit No.1, 3 51 , .... ~ 1 is official notice of suspension dated and mailed 6/20/97, 2 effective 7/25/97, Sub-Exhibit 2, record of conviction 3 detail., out-of-state driver violations report, received by 4 the Department electronically from the State of New Jersey, 5 operating under the influence of liquor or drugs, date of 6 violation 3/15/97, Date of conviction 5/29/97, ~nd 3, 7 driving record, which appears in the file of the defendant, 8 Mark Anthony Bridges, operator's No, 25453491, date of birth 9 12/2/67, in the Bureau of Driver Licensing, Harrisburg, 10 Pennsylvania, r move for the admission of Commonwealth's . 11 No. 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 position here? 18 MR, KULLA: Your Honor, the petitioner has 19 raised in his original motion and has asked the court to 20 rule that the sanctions imposed by the Department cannot 21 apply here, They are basically unconstitutional. I am 22 prepared to have Mr, Bridges testify today as to the facts 23 of this case if the court would like to hear that, And I 24 have a brief and some argument we would also offer, 25 THE COURT: I will be happy to take testimony THE COURT: Is there any objection? MR, KULLA: No, THE COURT: All right, It is admitted, MR, KABUSK: That's the Department's case, THE COURT: And what's the petitioner's 4 j? ~ ~ 1 if you think it is necessary. 2 3 to the stand. ~R, KULLA I Yes, I would call Mark Bridges 4 Whereupon, 5 MARK ANTHONY BRIDGES 6 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY M~. KULLA: 9 10 . 11 Pennsylvania. 12 13 14, Q A Mr, Bridges, where do you reside? I reside at 227 Ringgold Street" Waynesboro, Q I What county is that in? That's in Franklin County, And how long have you had a Pennsylvania A 15 driver'S license? Q 16 17 I received the DUI, A Approximately about a year from the date that 18 19 20 Q The year before then? A Yes, Q Now, this matter was moved to Cumberland 21 County by court ord~r, is that correct? 22 23 Yes, it was. A Q You were employed by the Franklin County 25 24 probation department? , A Yes, The juvenile probation department, 5 tlJ .' 10 11 ,12 13 14 15 Q Now, when you were charged with driving under the influence, what state were you in? A New Jersey, Q Had you ever been charged or convicted of , driving under the influence at anytime prior to that? ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 A Q concern? A Q A Q in this case? ,A Q .... Never. So this was your first arrest on this YeEl, it was, Now, what was your blood alcohol level? I believe it was ,11, Was there a motor vehicle accident involved No, there wasn't, Now, what happened in the State of New 16 Jersey? What was the adjudication in this matter? Did you 17 plead guilty or were you found guilty? 18 19 , because it was just simpler that way, Q Did you have counsel? A Yes, I had counsel. Q Did counsel in New Jersey advise you at any point of the ramifications this would have on your Pennsylvania driver's license? 7 8 9 A 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I was asked to plead guilty and take the plea He stated to me that it wouldn't have any 6 ~I " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ ~ ramifications on my Pennsylvania license, Q And what type of sentence did you receive from the State of New Jersey? A Because I was an out-of-state driver I couldn't be in their program which gave you a provisional license to go to work and be in their type of program, which is I believe twelve hours. And you do counseling if you meet certain categories, Q You said you were not eligible for that? AI was not eligible. Q And the only reason you were not eligible for that was what? A Because I am an out-of-state driver, Q So if you were from New Jersey, you would have been eligible for that? A Yes. Q So what sanction did you get from the State of New Jersey? A I received a six month suspension in the State of New Jersey, And I also had to report to a driver's re-education class. Q And did you complete that driver's education class? A Yes, I did, Q And as you said, you have been sanctioned by 7 tr!l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ ~ Q Whe~e are you employed at this point? A At, this point I am employed as a boot and hat platoon commandp,r for a boot and hat program for youthful offenders, Q Is it required for you to maintain a driver's license to get to this location? A Yes, it is, Q And if you are unsuccessful in your appeal, is your job in jeopardy? A Very much, MR, KULLA: I don't have any other questions, I think we have established a record, CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR, KABUSK: Q Mr, Bridges, on March 15th, 1997, were you stopped for DUI in New Jersey? A r was not stopped, I pulled over, And the police saw my tags, which I switched from a car I just resold another car and bought another vehicle, And the tag transfer for the State of Pennsylvania had not gone through the computer system. Q As a result of that incident were you charged with driving under the influence in the State of New Jersey? A Yes, I was. Q Did you plead guilty to that charge? 9 t'/ , ~ ~ \ MARK ANTHONY BRIDGES, Petitioner IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 97-7133 CIVIL COMMONWEAL.TH OF PA., DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent I.ICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RUI.E 1925 On June 20, 1997, the Cornrnonwelllth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, sent Mark A. Bridges correspondence notifying him that effective July 25, 1997, his driving privileges were to bc suspended thr a period of one year as mllndated by 1532(b) of the Motor Vehicle Code. The suspension was due to his conviction on Mny 29, 1997, in New Jersey, of an offense which occurred on March 15, 1997, which oflcnse the Department believed was "cquivulentto a violation of 3 731 [driving under the inlluence] of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code." The defendant has appe,uled from this Iicensc suspension. In his statcment of mailers compluined of on appcal.the petitioner contends that the New Jersey Driving While Intoxicated Statute is not un cquivnlent oflcnse to Pennsylvania's driving law pursuant to the Driver Licensing Compact and, assuming thut it is, the application of the compnct violates the petitioner's double jeopardy and equal protection rights. The identical issues raised by the petitioncr in this case were raised in the case of Kw:m A. Onuzzo v. Com. of Pa.. Dept. ofTrul1:l., Cumberland County, 97-548 Civil. In that case, in our wrillen opinion und order dated Fcbrul\ry 12. 1998, we ruled in tllvor of the Commonwealth. We auach hereto and incorporate by relercnce hercin our opinion in the GnllZZll cuse ns . ."",,, f6". 97-5408 CIVIL while intoxleatcd in Ncw Jersey on Junc 18, 1997, in violation of Title 39 New Jersey Statute Scetlon 4-50. Accordingly, it determined that the New Jersey conviction was equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, relating to driving under the inl1uenee, and, thercfore, enforced the one-ycar driving suspension mandated by Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code. Petitioner is a Pennsylvania rcsidcnt who, other than the otTense stated above, has no prior record, Additionally, in the incident which gave rise to Pctitioner's conviction in New Jersey, there was no accident involved and there was no act in conjunction with the offensc in New Jcrsey which would have constituted a violation of any of the specific offenses enumerated under Section 1542 of the Pelmsylvania Vehicle Code had the conduct occurred in Pennsylvania. Petitioner's driving privileges were suspended in New Jersey for six months, shc received a fine, and was directed to comply with a program deemed satisfactory by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center in New Jersey. Petitioner now raises several arguments concerning the impropriety of having her license suspended for a ycar. First, she claims a violation of her right to equal protection under the Pennsylvania and Fedcral Constitutions, Second, she claims that her right against double jeoPilrdy has been violated under thc Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions. Third, she claims that PennDOT incorrectly determined, pursuant to Section 1581 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, that her violation in New Jcrscy was equivalent to Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code. Finally, shc eontcnds that her rights to due proccss nnd equal protection, and against double 2 7/ ~ ,......, 97-5408 CIVIL jeopardy have been violatcd under thc New Jcrsey Constitution. Plainly read, thc above cited part 0(' Section 1581, requires the Pennsylvania Department ofTrnnsportation to look at the conduct reported (i.e, that an individual was driving under the influence), and to give the same effect (i.e. liecnse suspension) to the conduct as if the conduct had occurred in Pennsylvania, TIle petitioner argues, however, that her conduct which resulted in a driving while intoxicatcd conviction in New Jersey would Imve veryHkely placed her in an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program in Pennsylvania. And although ARD programs arc handled differently in many counties in Pennsylvania, generally,the license suspensions which DOT must effectuate in ARD programs arc six months or less. As such, the petitioner argucs that her right to equal protection is violated, since she has received a one-year suspension whereas the same conduct in Pennsylvania would have almost surely resulted in a suspension of six months or less. . We agree that ARD is generally offered to a first time violator of Pennsylvania's driving under the influence statute, and therefore there existed a good possibility that, had the petitioner been arrested in Pennsylvania for the same conduct, she would have been allowed to enter an ARQ program. We do not think, howevcr, that PennDOT, pursuant to Section 1581, violatcd the petitioner's right to equal protection, The wording of Section 1581 creates a problem of interpretation. If Penn DOT is supposed to "givc the same effect to the conduct reported," then should notlhe Department 3 7;2 .' .."'"\ ,-. 97.5408 CIVIL We are satisfied, however, that the relevant question under the Driver's License Compact is whether the conduct prohibited in the new Jersey statute is of the same type as the conduct prohibited by the Pennsylvnnia statue.. not whether the ofl'cnscs arc punished equally. In this regard, the Superior Court hus already decided that a conviction under the New Jersey statute nod a conviction under the Pennsylvania statute arc "equivalent offenses" for purpose of sentencing a defendnnt us a multiple offender. Commonwealth v. Whisnant, 390 Pa. Super. 192, 568 A.2d 259. The Superior Court noted that both statutes define the offense as operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or with a blood alcohol concentration of .1 0% or more, nnd the court also noted that the underlying poliey of the two statutes is the same. ld. at 195, 568 A.2d at 260. Despite slightly different wording in the two statutes, we believe that the statutes address the same conduct. Therefore, l'ennDOT appropriately equated the conviction in New Jersey to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pennsylvnnia Vehicle Code. The petitioner also argues that PennDOT improperly applied the Driver's License Compact because there is no evidence that the petitioner was convicted of driving under the influence to a degree which rendered her incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle us she believes is required under the Compact. The petitioner, however, has misinterpreted the lnog}lage of the statute which applies to convictions for "driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor," nnd does not further require that the driver have been found incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. Finally, the petitioner argues that her rights to due process, equal protection, and against 7 ..."", "...., 97.5408 CIVIL double jeopardy under the New Jersey Constitution have been violated by this license suspension. We disagree. The petitioner argues that her rights to equal protection and due process were violated because she was not informed that she would lose her license in Pennsylvnnia when she entered a guilty plea in New Jersey. She claims that because of this lack of information her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, nnd intelligently entered. ~ State v. Sam~, 253 N.J. Super. 335, 601 A.2d 784 (1991). It is axiomatic, however, that a licensee may not collaterally attack nn underlying criminal conviction in the context of a civil license suspcnsion proceeding. Com. v. Duf(y, 536 Pa. 436, 639 A.2d 1174 (1994). We need not address the petitioner's other arguments concerning a violation of the New Jersey Constitution as we know of no authority whereby a resident of Pennsylvania may challenge the actions of a Commonwealth agency based on the constitution of nnother state. ORDER AND NOW, this I :z. ... day of February, 1998, for the reasons stated in our opinion filed of even date herewith, the appeal of Karen A. Onuzzo from the suspension of her driver's license is DENIED. BY THE COURT, ./ld B 77