HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-4341LETITIA ANNE ORTIZ,
Appellant
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER
LICENSING,
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 0- y341 N, I P rm
LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL
APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF OPERATOR'S
PRIVILEGE NUNC PRO TUNC
AND NOW comes the Appellant, Letitia Anne Ortiz, by and through her attorney, Karl E.
Rominger, Esquire, and avers the following:
1. Appellant resides at 217 West North Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. Appellant received Notice dated ON OR BEFORE January 16, 2009, stating that as
authorized by 75 Pa. C. S. 3804 (E) (2)(i) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, as a result ofher
November 5, 2008, violation of Section 75 Pa-C. S. 1547 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code,
Chemical Test Refusal, her driving privilege was being suspended for a period of eighteen
(18) months, effective January 16, 2009. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
3. This administrative order of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation suspending /
revoking / recalling / otherwise restricting his license is improper, and done without
statutory authority, and is unlawful as there was no refusal.
4. In conjunction with her criminal defense appellant petitioned to receive services of the
public defender.
5. The letter from PennDot sent giving her notice of her suspension clearly referenced the
alleged crime for which she was appointed a public defender.
6. Appellant was never informed by the Court or her court appointed attorney that the
representation did not extend into collateral license suspension materials.
7. Further the fact that the Department of Transportation uses an official seal of the
Commonwealth as does the Commonwealth's prosecutorial authority and/or uses the same
official language and references the same charges and dates, created a situation where
Appellant reasonably believed her rights were being represented by the public defender.
8. Appellant reasonably believed that the refusal issues which was part of the ongoing
criminal prosecution was being litigated by the public defender.
9. The appointment of a public defender without any explanation or clarification by either the
Department of Transportation or the Court that her appellant rights vis a vi any action the
Department of Transportation would not be preserved to Defendant in a breakdown of
judicial process which allows for nunc pro tunc relief.
10. Further, under the facts of this case, where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has
appeared in open court and declared that in fact there was no refusal on the record, the
notions of far play and due process are also implicated, and it was a further abuse of
discretion for the Department of Transportation to enter an administrative order without
any investigation of any sort, and as such was arbitrary and capricious insomuch as if the
Department had reviewed any of the police reports and/or video documentation it most
likely would have reached the same conclusion as the prosecutorial authority for
Cumberland County.
WHEREFORE, your Appellant respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant her nunc pro
tunc relief and that she be granted the right to go forward with a license suspension appeal and
pending the same a Supersedeas be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Rominger & Associates
Date: June 26, 2009
Karl Rominger, Esquire
15 outh Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID # 81924
Attorney for Appellant
LETITIA ANNE ORTIZ,
Appellant
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER
LICENSING,
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.
LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL
CERTMCATE OF SERVICE
I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, attorney for Appellant, do hereby certify that I this day served a
copy of the Appeal From Suspension Of Operator's Privilege Nunc Pro Tunc upon the following
by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
addressed as follows:
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Office of Chief Counsel
Third Floor, Riverfront Office Center
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516
Respectfully submitted,
Rominger & Associates
Date: June 26, 2009
KaA E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID # 81924
Attorney for Appellant
? ? 4R Y
Z'N9 JUN 2b PM 3? 18
CtJWI
7 3 6
LETITIA ANNE ORTIZ,
APPELLANT
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,
APPELLEE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
09-4341 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 0- day of July, 2009, IT IS ORDERED that a hearing
shall be conducted on the issue of whether or not appellant may proceed on this appeal
from a license suspension nunc pro tunc, in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County
Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on Wednesday, October 7, 2009, at 2:00 p.m.
By the
Edgar B. Bayley,
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
For Appellant
? Philip Bricknell, Esquire
For Appellee
sal
nn
OF TP RLED-
a; f6_.?'Pr ?d y
2009 JUL -2 AM 9: 35
? _r th rr
P C: LIVA,
LETITIA ORTIZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Appellant CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,:
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, .
Appellee NO. 09-4341 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2009, this matter
having been called on a hearing to determine whether or not
petitioner may file a nunc pro tunc appeal from the suspension
of her license privilege for failure to undertake a chemical
test, a violation of Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, and there
being no legal basis for the granting of the relief, the
petition is dismissed.
,"-Philip M. Bricknell, Esquire
Fo the Department of Transportation
Michael Palermo Esquire
For Appellant
prs
04
IJI?S yYt? t
iF I I F V?{.J?
APY
2609 OCT 12 PM 1112• 17