HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1309CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said 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 entries in the following matter:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELLEN A. McNAMARA
NO. 01-1309 CIVIL TERM
1426 CD 2001
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 28 , and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 7-20-01
Jane H. Sparling, Dpty.
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
Date
Signature & Title
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the
countyof CUMBERLAND
1426 CD 2001
to No. 01-1309 CIVIL TERM
COMPLETE
COPY OF
Term. 19
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
_ is contained the following:
DOCKET ENTRY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELLEN A, McNAMARA
SEE ATTACHED CERTIFIED DOCKET ENTRIES.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
SS:
L Curtis R. Long . Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full true and correct copy of the whole reco rd of the
case therein stated, wherein
Department of Transportation
Conmonwealth of Pennsylvania
Plaintiff, and
Ellen A. gcNamara
Defendant __, as th~ same remains of record
before the said Court at No. 01-1309 of
Civil Term, A.D. 19__.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
this 20th July - ^. D., ~D01
day of' .
I, G,=owg~ E. Hoffor d~sidentJudge~fthe [N~B~
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
Curtis R. Long
· by whom the annexed record, certificate and
attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said Count~, was, at the time of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberlan~t in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith
and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere, and that the said record.
certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made by~o~~
idem ludge
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland I ss:
L Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary Of the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable _ George E. Hoffer, P.J.
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court 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 acts
as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this
20th day~ of
PYS510 Page
2-9
1
10- 13
14 - 17
18 - 19
20 ~ 27
28
2001-01309 PA DEFT OF TRANSPROTATION (vs)
Reference No..:
Case Type ..... : APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP
Judgmenn ....... 00
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc. :
........... Case Comments ...........
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
MCNAMAP~A ELLEN A
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2, :
3/07/200
4:1~
o/oo/ooo~
0/00/o00~
1426 CD 20<
General Index Attorney Info
DEPARTMENT OF TPJ~NSPORTATION APPELLANT
COMMONWEALTH OF PA
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL-3RD FL
RIVER FRONT OFFICE CENTER
HARRISBURG PA 17104
MCNAMARA ELLEN A APPELLJ~NT ABELN GREGORY B
* Date Entries
............. FIRST ENTRY .............
3/07/2001 PETITION FOR APPEAL OF LICENSE SUSPENSION
3/14/2001 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/14/01 - IN RE PETITION FOR APPEAL OF
LICENSE SUSPENSION - A HEARING IS SET FOR THE 21ST DAY OF MAY AT
10:30 AM IN CR 4 OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE PA
- BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 3/14/01
5/22/2001 OPINION AND ORDER - DATED 5/21/01 - IN RE APPEAL OF DRIVER'S
LICENSE SUSPENSION - APPEAL OF ELLEN A MCNAMARA IS SUSTAINED AND
THE ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT SUSPENDING HER OPERATING PRIVILEGES IS
REVERSED - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 5/22/01
6/20/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - BY
TIMOTHY P WILE
6/26/2001 COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING # 1426 CD 2001
7/06/2001 TRANSCRIPT LODGED
.............. LAST ENTRY ..............
* Escrow Information
* Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pvmts/Adj End Bal
APPEAL LIC SUSP 35.00 35.00 .00
TAX ON APPEAL .50 .50 .00
SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .00
JCP FEE 5.00 5.00 .00
APPEAL 30.00 30.00 .00
75.50 75.50 .00
* End of Case Information
TRUE t OPY FROM RECORD
tn Taslimony whereof. I hem unto MI my haml
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ellen A. McNamara
Vo
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing,
Appellant
.
:
No. 1426 C.D. 2001
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20~:h day of December , 2001, the
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, dated May 21,2001,
is hereby reversed.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
DEC 2 0 ZOO1
On appeal to this court,~ DOT argues that the thai court erred in
concluding that the New Jersey DUI law is not substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. We agree.
The remand of Kiebort I was not a rejection of this court's
determination that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. See Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Driver Licensing, 778 A.2d 773 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (Kiebort II). Indeed, in
Kiebort II, we held again that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. Id__~.
Accordingly, we reverse.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
3 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the thai court's findings of fact
are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law or
abuse of discretion in reaching its decision. Carlin v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of
Driver Licensing, 739 A.2d 656 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 678, 759 A.2d 924
(20O0).
3
herein as evidence in any civil or administrative proceeding." (Trial court op. at
1.)
Subsequent to her New Jersey conviction, DOT suspended Licensee's
operating privileges, and Licensee filed an appeal with the trial court. Licensee
argued that the civil reservation precluded admission of the conviction as evidence;
however, the trial court rejected this argument.2 (See Trial court op. at 1.)
Licensee also argued that the New Jersey DUI law is not substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law; therefore, it was not proper for DOT to suspend
Licensee's operating privileges under the Driver's License Compact. On this
issue, the trial court recognized this court's holding in Seibert v. Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 715 A.2d 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998),
and in Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 719
A.2d 1139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Kiebort I), reversed and remanded, 564 Pa. 33,
764 A.2d 18 (2001), that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. The trial court even acknowledged that it is bound by the
holdings of this court. (Trial court op. at 2.) Nevertheless, because our Supreme
Court recently had remanded Kiebort I to this court for proceedings consistent with
Commonwealth v. McCafferty, 563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155 (2000), the trial court
sustained Licensee's appeal. (Trial court op. at 1-3.)
2 DOT argues in its brief that the thai court correctly decided this issue; Licensee argues
that the thai court erred. However, because Licensee did not file a cross appeal, we decline to
address the matter further.
2
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ellen A. McNamara
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing,
Appellant
No. 1426 C.D. 2001
Submitted: November 16, 2001
BEFORE:
HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge
HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN
FILED: December 20, 2001
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the May 21, 2001 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court), which sustained Ellen
A. McNamara's (Licensee) statutory appeal from DOT's suspension of her driver's
license pursuant to the interstate Driver's License Compact) We reverse.
Licensee was convicted in New Jersey of driving under the influence
of alcohol (DUI). The New Jersey court granted a civil reservation "prohibiting
the use of the defendant's plea, the fact of conviction or the sentence imposed
Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1581.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ellen A. McNamara
Vo
No. 1426 C.D. 2001
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing,
Appellant
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20tla day of December , 2001, the
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, dated May 21,2001,
is hereby reversed.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
Certified from ?:~ R~c,3rd
DEC 2 0 ZOO1
end Ord¢r Exit
On appeal to this court,3 DOT argues that the trial court erred in
concluding that the New Jersey DUI law is not substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. We agree.
The remand of Kiebort I was not a rejection of this court's
determination that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. See Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Driver Licensing, 778 A.2d 773 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (Kiebort II). Indeed, in
Kiebort II, we held again that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. Id~
Accordingly, we reverse.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
3 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings of fact
are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law or
abuse of discretion in reaching its decision. Carlin v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Driver Licensing, 739 A.2d 656 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 678, 759 A.2d 924
(2O00).
herein as evidence in any civil or administrative proceeding." (Thai court op. at
1.)
Subsequent to her New Jersey conviction, DOT suspended Licensee's
operating privileges, and Licensee filed an appeal with the trial court. Licensee
argued that the civil reservation precluded admission of the conviction as evidence;
however, the trial court rejected this argument.2 (See Trial court op. at 1.)
Licensee also argued that the New Jersey DUI law is not substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law; therefore, it was not proper for DOT to suspend
Licensee's operating privileges under the Driver's License Compact. On this
issue, the trial court recognized this court's holding in Seibert v. Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 715 A.2d 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998),
and in Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 719
A.2d 1139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Kiebort I), reversed and remanded, 564 Pa. 33,
764 A.2d 18 (2001), that the New Jersey DUI law i_s substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. The thal court even acknowledged that it is bound by the
holdings of this court. (Trial court op. at 2.) Nevertheless, because our Supreme
Court recently had remanded Kiebort I to this court for proceedings consistent with
Commonwealth v. McCaffertv, 563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155 (2000), the trial court
sustained Licensee's appeal. (Trial court op. at 1-3.)
2 DOT argues in its brief that the trial court correctly decided this issue; Licensee argues
that the trial court erred. However, because Licensee did not file a cross appeal, we decline to
address the matter further.
2
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ellen A. McNamara
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing,
Appellant
No. 1426 C.D. 2001
Submitted: November 16, 2001
BEFORE:
HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge
HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN
FILED:
December 20, 2001
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the May 21, 2001 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court), which sustained Ellen
A. McNamara's (Licensee) statutory appeal from DOT's suspension of her driver's
license pursuant to the interstate Driver's License Compact.~ We reverse.
Licensee was convicted in New Jersey of driving under the influence
of alcohol (DUI). The New Jersey court granted a civil reservation "prohibiting
the use of the defendant's plea, the fact of conviction or the sentence imposed
Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1581.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ellen A. McNamara
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing,
Appellant
No. 1426 C.D. 2001
Submitted: November 16, 2001
BEFORE:
HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge
HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN
FILED: December 20, 2001
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the May 21, 2001 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court), which sustained Ellen
A. McNamara's (Licensee) statutory appeal from DOT's suspension of her driver's
license pursuant to the interstate Driver's License Compact.~ We reverse.
Licensee was convicted in New Jersey of driving under the influence
of alcohol (DUI). The New Jersey court granted a civil reservation "prohibiting
the use of the defendant's plea, the fact of conviction or the sentence imposed
Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1581.
herein as evidence in any civil or administrative proceeding." (Trial court op. at
1.)
Subsequent to her New Jersey conviction, DOT suspended Licensee's
operating privileges, and Licensee filed an appeal with the trial court. Licensee
argued that the civil reservation precluded admission of the conviction as evidence;
however, the trial court rejected this argument? (See Trial court op. at 1.)
Licensee also argued that the New Jersey DUI law is not substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law; therefore, it was not proper for DOT to suspend
Licensee's operating privileges under the Driver's License Compact. On this
issue, the trial court recognized this court's holding in Seibert v. Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 715 A.2d 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998),
and in Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 719
A.2d 1139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Kiebort I), reversed and remanded, 564 Pa. 33,
764 A.2d 18 (2001), that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. The trial court even acknowledged that it is bound by the
holdings of this court. (Trial court op. at 2.) Nevertheless, because our Supreme
Court recently had remanded Kiebort I to this court for proceedings consistent with
Commonwealth v. McCafferty, 563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155 (2000), the trial court
sustained Licensee's appeal. (Trial court op. at 1-3.)
2 DOT argues in its brief that the trial court correctly decided this issue; Licensee argues
that the trial court erred. However, because Licensee did not file a cross appeal, we decline to
address the matter further.
2
On appeal to this COUrt,3 DOT argues that the trial court erred in
concluding that the New Jersey DUI law is not substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. We agree.
The remand of Kiebort I was not a rejection of this court's
determination that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law, See Kiebort v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of
Driver Licensing, 778 A.2d 773 (Pa. Cmwlth. 200l) (Kiebort II). Indeed, in
Kiebort II, we held again that the New Jersey DUI law is substantially similar to
Pennsylvania's DUI law. Id.
Accordingly, we reverse.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
3 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings of fact
are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law or
abuse of discretion in reaching its decision. Carlin v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of
Driver Licensine, 739 A.2d 656 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 678, 759 A.2d 924
(2000).
3
1N THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ellen A. McNamara
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing,
Appellant
No. 1426 C.D. 2001
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of December , 2001, the
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, dated May 21, 2001,
is hereby reversed.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge