The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-1349IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCES L. TESLAR, Petitioner : No. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent PETITION FOR APPEAL UNDER 42 PA. C.S.A. SECTION 933 FROM SUSPENSION BY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND NOW, comes, Frances L. Teslar, by and through her attorneys, Latsha Davis & Yohe, P.C., and files this appeal pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 933 from a determination of the Department of Transportation wherein it assigned points and issued a suspension of her driver's license, and, in support thereof, states as follows: 1. Petitioner, Frances L. Teslar, is an adult individual, who currently resides at 7201 Catherine Drive, Harrisburg Pem~sylvania 17112. 2. Respondent is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, with offices located at Riverfront Office Center, 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104-2516. 3. Petitioner holds a valid driver's license issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, No. 15106791. 4. By letter dated January 9, 2001, Respondent notified Petitioner that her driving privileges would be suspended effective January 30, 2001 at 12:01 a.m., if she failed to respond to a previously issued citation, No. A54668331, before January 30, 2001. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 5. Petitioner timely responded by mail to citation No. A54668331 by paying a monetary fine of $151.50 to the District Court located on 507 N. York Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, thereby entering a plea of guilty. A true and correct copy of the receipt issued by the District Court is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 6. Despite the fact that Petitioner timely responded to citation No. A54668331 in accordance with Respondent's directives, by letter dated February 8, 2001, Respondent notified Petitioner of the assignment of four (4) points to her driving record for having been convicted of violating Section 3362 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code on November 17, 2000, and suspended her driving privileges for twenty (20) days effective immediately. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 7. Despite the fact that Petitioner timely responded to citation No. A54668331 in accordance with Respondent's directives, Respondent's notification to Petitioner that it had suspended her driving privileges for an additional twenty (20) days implicitly meant that Respondent had improperly suspended her privileges on January 30, 2001. 64904 2 8. Because Petitioner responded to Citation No. A54668331 in accordance with Respondent's directives, the suspension of her driving privileges should be voided and vacated. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Frances L. Teslar, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court void and vacate the Department of Transportation's suspension of her driving privileges. Respectfully submitted, LATSHA DAVIS & YOHE, P.C. Dated: ~c~/c,~:2OJ By: Glenn R. Davis Attorney I.D. No. 31040 Chadwick O. Bogar Attorney I.D. No. 83755 P. O. Box 825 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0825 (717) 761-1880 Attorneys for Petitioner, Frances L. Teslar 649O4 3 Exhibit A COMMONHEALTN OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Mail Date: JANUARY 09, 2001 FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR 154 LANCASTER BLVD. MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 WID ~ 010029232281557 00~ PROCESSING DATE 01/02/2001 DRIVER LICENSE # 15106791 DATE OF BIRTH 01/03/1953 Dear MS. TESLAR: Th~s is an Official Notice of the Suspension of your Driving Privilege as authorized by Section ]535A of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. Your driving privilege will be suspended ~ectlve 01/50/2001 at 12:01 a.m. for failing to respond to citation numbeP A5~668S31 (Amount Owed 151,50) issued on 11/17/2000, This citation is a result of your violation of Section 3562 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code: EXCEEDING MAXIMU~ SPEED... This suspension means that you will not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle on or after 01/30/2001 unless you are noti- fied in writing by PennDOT that your driving privilege is restored. PLEASE READ THIS LETTER IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER OF SUSPENSION. THE ONLY HAY TO AVOID THIS SUSPENSION IS TO COHPLETELY FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS BELOW FOR RESPONDIN~ TO THE CITATION BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS SUSPENSION HILL GO INTO EFFECT ON 01/30/2001. RESPONDING TO THE CITATION IT y~u P~pond to the citation BEFORE the suspene!on d=te, you will avoid this suspension. In opdeP to respond to this citation, you must follo~ the steps be/ow: I. Contact the Court= DISTRICT COURT 507 N YORK STREET ~ARCLAY BUILDING NECHANICSBURG PA 17055 (717) 766-4575 Tell the Court, in person or by mail, whether you wish to plead ~guilty' or 'not guilty~ to the violation. P&ease Note: If you pay the fine without signing ~guilty~ or ~not guilty,~ it is considered an automatic plea of '9u~lty.~ a. If you olead ~guilty~~ pay all f/nas and costs, Mail your check or money order to the Court or ap- 010029232281557 peer in Person and pay by cash, check or money or- der. It is your responsibility to make sure that the Court receives your payment BEFORE 01/$0/2001. Do not mat1 or bring your 'c/tat/on payment to PennDoT. If you plead *not guilty** pay all fines and costs plus a 5.00 hearing fee· Ha~! your check or money order to the Court or eppear in person and pay by cash, check or money order. It is your responsi- bility to make sure that the Court receives your payment D~FORE 01/~0/2001, DO not mall or bring your citation payment to PennOOT. The Court will assign you a hearing date. If you do not appear, you will be cherged as guilty. c. Contact the Court if this letter does not list an amount owed for the violation. d. If you have questions about this process or cannot afford to pay all fines and costs, contact the Court for assistance. If your response to the c/tat/on is accepted by the Court BEFORE 01/30/2001, you will receive notice from PennDOT regarding restoration of your driving privilege. Please Note: Responding to the citation before the sus- pension date excuses you from this suspension of your driving privilege, not the actual violation. If you plead guilty or are found guilty by the Court, you are still subject to the penalties for that violation under the PennsYlvania Vehicle Code· COMPLYING WITH THIS SUSPENSION You must return any current Pennsylvania driver's license, learner's permit or temporary driver*s license (camera card) Jn your possession. YOU will not receive credit t~vard serving any suspension until we receive your documents· Complete the following steps to acknowledge this suspension: 1. Return your current license, permit or camera card to the address below. If you do not have any of these items, complete and return one of the following: · A DL-16LC Acknowledgment form (available at any driver license center) ~ · A notarized affidavit (letter) stating that you are aware of the suspension of your driving privilege 2. Be sure to sign the form or affidavit. 3. Return all items to: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing P.O. Box 6869~ 010029232281557 Harrisburg, PA 17106-8695 If you do not receive a receipt from us within 3 weeks of mailing your documents, call our office immediately. PAYING THE RESTORATION FEE Z~ you do not respond to the c/tat/on BEFORE the suspension date, you w111 be suspended and must pay a restoration fee to PennDOT to be restored. Complete the following steps: 1. Complete the enclosed Application for Restoration. The amount due is listed on the application. 2. Write your driver's license number (listed on the first page) on the check or money order to ensure proper credit. 3, Follow the payment and mailing instructions on the back of the application. APPEAL You have the right to appeal this suspension to the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) within 30 days of the mail date of this letter, JANUARY 09, 2001. After you file the appeal in the County Court, send a time-stamped certified copy of the appeal by certified mail to: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel Third Floor, Riverfront Office Center Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Remember, this is an OFFZCZAL NOTZCE OF SUSPENSZON. You must respond before 01/30/2001. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Bickley, Director Bureau of Driver Licensing INFORHATION 7:00 a,m. to 9:00 p.m. IN STATE 1-800-952-4600 TDD IN STATE OUT-OF-STATE 717-591-6190 TDD OUT-OF-STATE NEB SITE ADDRESS www.dot.state.pa.us 1-800-228-0676 717-391-6191 Exhibit B COUNTY OF:. CUMBERLAND 09-3-05 GAYLE A. ELDER ^od,.ss: 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA (717) 766 -4575 FRANCES L. TESLAR 154 LANCASTER BLVD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 COMMONW. EALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 17055 VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS ~ESLAR, FRANCES LOUISE 154 LANCASTER BLVD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L Docket No.: TR-0002868-00 Date Filed: 11/20/00 RECEIPT OF RESPONSE TO CITATION/SUMMONS DATE OF RESPONSE MM/DD~Y Iol 11117 Io I1 I CITATION NO, A5466833-1 11/17/00 DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 LAST NAME TESLAR STREET ADDRESS 154 LANCASTER BLVD CITY MECHANICSBURG REGISTRATION NO. TWK963 DATE OF VIOLATION LOCATION OF VIOLATION 20BL GTTYSBRGPK STATE PA FIRST NAME FRANCE S CHARGE, SECTION AND SUBSECTION VIOLATED 75 §3362 §§A3-24 DATE OF BIRTH 1/03/53 MI SEX L F STATE ZIP CODE PA 17055 STATE YEAR MAKE MODEL PA 2001 NISSAN SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT JUSTICE DATE C. This RECEIPT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRIVE. If you are currently under suspension you are not permitted to drive until you are notified by PennDOT, or the state in which you are licensed, that your driving privilege has been restored. In addition, if you respond to the citation/summons on or after the effective date of your suspension, you will be required to pay a restoration fee. NOTE: Please be aware that payment of fines and costs for a motor vehicle violation is a plea of guilty and may result in additional action by PennDOT, or the state in which you are licensed. Depending on the type of violation, points may be assigned or an additional suspension may be imposed. If you are an out of state resident, all convictions will be reported to your home state. If you do not know the status of your PA driving privilege or require further assistance, please contact one of the numbers listed during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. In-state 1-800-932-4600 Out-of-state 717-391-6190 ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION DATE TDD In-state TDD Out-state 1/3o/ol 1-800-228-0676 717-391-6191 TIME 15:17:03 AOPC 638C-97 SEND THIS FORM TO: BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, P,O. BOX 68693, HARRISBURG, PA 17106-0037 IF THE DRIVER IS FROM OUT OF STATE OR NO OPERATOR NUMBER WAS INCLUDED ON THE CITATION. Exhibit C COMNONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Harrisburg, PA 17125 FEBRUARY 08, 2001 FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR 154 LANCASTER BLVD. MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 010329283314655 02/01/2001 15106791 01/03/1953 001 Dear Motorist: As a result of your convict/on on 01/50/2001 of violating section 5562 of the Vehicle Code EXCEEDING MAX[HUM SPEED on 11/17/2000~ 04 points have been assigned to your record. Section 1544 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to extend any ex/sting suspension/revocation at the rate of five days for each additional point. Therefore, an additional sanction of 20 DAY(S) is imposed. 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 comply with the requirements 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. Fa/lure to comply with this notice shall result in this Bureau 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 under suspension even if YOU do not surrender your license, Cpedit will not begin until all current driver's license product(s), the DLI&LC Form, or a letter acknowledging 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. The effective date of suspension ls 02/08/200Z, 12:01 a.m. ./ 010329283314655 The above mentioned sanction is in add/t/on to previously issued sanction(s), any APPEAL You have the right to appeal this action to the Court of Common Pleas (Civi! Divlsion) within 30 days of the mai! date, FEBRUARY 08, 2001, of this letter. ~f you ~11e an appea! tn the County CcuPtt the CouPt w111 give you a time-stamped certified copy of the appeal. [n order for your appeal to be valid~ you must send this tAme-stamped certified copy of the appeal by certified mai! to: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel Third Floor, Riverfront Office Center Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Sincerely~ Rebecca L. Bickley, Director Bureau of Driver Licensing SEND FEE/LICENSE/DL-16LC/TO: Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing PoO. Box 68693 Harrisburg, PA 17106-869~ INFORHAT[ON (7:00 AN TO 9:00 PN) IN STATE 1-800-952~4600 OUT-OF-STATE 717-391-6190 TDD IN STATE 1-800-228-0676 TDD OUT-OF-STATE 717-~91-6191 CERTIFICATE OF SERV_IC~EE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy o£ the foregoing Appeal under 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 933 was served by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested and First-Class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: FRANCES L. TESLAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001-1349 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19TM day of MARCH, 200 I, a hearing in the above captioned matter is scheduled for WEDNESDAY. MAY 30, 2001. at 8:30 a.m. in COURTROOM # 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pa. 17013. By the Court, Glenn R. Davis, Esquire For the Plaintiff George Kabusk, Esquire For the Dept. of Transportation :sld Edward E. Guid°' J' .~X COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag Disl NO: 09-3 -05 DJ Name: Hon GAYLE A. ELDER A~o,.ss: 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA T.,..~o..= (717) 766-4575 FRANCES L. TESI~%R 154 LANCASTER BLVD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ~7055 VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS ~ESLAR, FRANCES LOUISE 154 LANCASTER BLVD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Docket No.: TR-0002868-00 Date F ed: 11/20/00 RECEIPT OF RESPONSE TO CITATION/SUMMONS DATE OF RESPONSE MM/DD/YY Iol 1111710 I1 I J CITATION NO. A5466833 - 1 11/17/00 DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 LAST NAME TESLAR STREET ADDRESS 154 LANCASTER BLVD CITY MECHANICSBURG REGISTRATION NO. TWK963 DATE OF VIOLATION LOCATION OF VIOLATION CHARGE, SECTION AND SUBSECTION VIOLATED 20BL GTTYSBRGPK 75 §3362 §§A3-24 STATE DATE OF BIRTH PA 1/03/53 FIRST NAME MI SEX FRANCES L F STATE ZIP CODE PA 17055 STATE YEAR MAKE MODEL PA 2001 NISSAN SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT JUSTICE DATE This RECEIPT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRIVE. If you are currently under suspension you are not permitted to drive until you are notified by PennDOT or the state in which you are licensed that your dr v ng pr vilege has been restored. In addition, if you respond to the citation/summons on or after the effective date of your suspension, you will be required to pay a restoration fee. NOTE: Please be aware that payment of fines and costs for a motor vehicle violation is a plea of guilty and may result in additional action by PennDOT, or the state in which you are licensed. Depending on the type of violation, points may be assigned or an additional suspension may be imposed. If you are an out of state resident, all convictions will be repoded to your home state. If you do not know the status of your PA driving privilege or require further assistance, please contact one of the numbers listed during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. In-state 1-800o932-4600 Out-of-state 717-391~6190 ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION DATE TDD In-state TDD Out-state 1/3o/o' 1-800-228-0676 717-391-6191 TIME 15:17:03 AOPC 638C-97 SEND THIS FORM TO; BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, P.O. BOX 68693, HARRISBURG, PA 17106. IF THE DRIVER IS FROM OUT OF STATE OR NO OPERATOR NUMBER WAS INCLUDED ON THE Cl' DL-326 (9/95) DATE: May 1,2001 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that Rebecca L. Bickley, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, is the legal custodian of the Driver License records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. As the Director of the aforesaid Bureau, she has legal custody of the original or microfilm records which are reproduced in the attached certification. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID, B~LOR~OF TRANSPORTATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING AND ANNEXED IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT CERTIFIED PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF: 1) Official Notice of suspension of operating privileges dated & mailed 02/08/01, effective 02/08/01; 2) Record of Conviction Details received by the Department electronically from the DISTRICT COURT NO. 09305, for Citation No. A54668331, date of violation 11/17/00, date of conviction 01/30/01; 3) Official Notice of suspension of operating privileges dated & mailed 01/09/01, effective 01/30/01; 4) Record of Conviction Details received by the Department electronically from District Court No. 09305 indicating response for Citation No. A546668331 on 01/30/01, and 5) Driving Record, which appears in the file of the defendant FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR, operator's no. 15106791, date of birth 01/03/53, in the Bureau of Driver Licensing, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. CERTIFIED TO as prescribed by Sections 6103 and 6109 of the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. {}{}6103 and 6109. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. REBECCA L. BICKLEY, DIRE~,,~OR BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING . LO COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Harrisburg, PA 17123 FEBRUARY 08, 2001 FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR 1Sq LANCASTER BLVD. MECHANICSBURG PA ~7055 0103292~3314655 001 02/01/2001 15~0679~ 01/03/1qS3 Dear Motorist: As a result of your conviction on Il/SO/2001 of violating section 3362 of the Vehicle Code EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED on 11/17/2000, Oq points have been assigned to your record. Section ISqq of the Vehicle Code reoulras the Department to extend any ex/sting suspension/revocation at the rate of five days for each addStional point. Therefore, en additiona! sanction of 20 DAY(S) Is Imposed. In order to comply with this sanction you ara reouired 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 cooply with the requlreaants stated &bore, you ire reoulred to submit a DLI6LC Form or a sworn affide¥tt stating that you are aware of tile sanction against your driving privilege. Failure to coaply with this notice shall resu]t tn this Bureau referring this matter to the Pennsy]vanJa State Police for prosecution under SECTION ISTl(o)(4) of the Vehicle Code. Although the law mandates that your driv]ng privilege Is under suspension even if you do not surrender your license, Credit will not begin unit! al! current driver's l]cense product(s), the DLI6LC Form, or a ~etter acknowledging 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. The effective date of suepenalon lm 02/08/Z001, 12:01 a.m. The above mentioned sanction Is in addition to any previously issued sanction(s). APPEAL You have the right to appeal this action to the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) within $0 days of the date, FEBRUARY 08, 2001, of this latter. Z~ yOU appeal In the County CooPt, the CooPt w~11 give you time-stamped cePtt~ted copy of the ipplll, in order for your appeal to be valid, you must send thAs time-stamped certified copy of the appeal by certified mail Pennsvlvania Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel Third Floor, Rlverfront Office Center Harrisburg, PA Sincerely, Rebecca L. Blckle¥, Director Bureau of Driver LtcansinB SEND FEE/L%CENSE/DL-I&LC/TO~ Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing P.O. Box 6869~ Harrlsburg~ PA 17106-869~ INFORHATZON (TzO0 IN STATE OUT-OF-STATE TDD ZN STATE TDD OUT-OF-STATE AN TO 9s00 P#) 1-800-952-k&00 717-$91-&190 1-800-228-0676 717-391-6191 C7203800 3DL03802 Conviction Detail screen 1 of 2 A0730303 03/14/01 WID NO : 01032 9283 314655 001 Name : TESLAR FRANCES Check Digits : 1st Line Address: 7201 CATHERINE DRIVE 2nd Line Address: 00000 city/State/zip : HARRISBURG Date of Birth : 01/03/53 1 operator Number : 15106791 Social Security : District Number : 09305 Citation Number : A54668331 Docket Number : TR000286800 Fine : 73.00 Amount Owed : 151.50 Section violated: 3362 susp Auth Code : speed Limit : 25 Speed Traveled : 49 section Descript: EXCEED MAX SPEED LIM LOUISE PA 17112 Oper Lic State : PA Sex/Race : F violation Date : 11/17/00 2 Filing Date : 11/20/00 2 Issue Date : 11/17/00 2 Defendant Plea : GP Conviction Date : 01/30/01 2 Response Date : 0 Disposition : GP charge Seq NO : 001 Transmittal Date : 01/31/01 2 TRANSMITTAL TIME : 060001 EST BY 24 MPH 15-RETURN 21-FIRST 20-NEXT 23-NXT-ONREC C7203800 3DL03803 Conviction Detail Screen 2 of 2 A0730303 03/14/01 Customer Number : 15106791 Customer Name : TESLAR FRANCES LOUISE Comm vehicle Ind : N HAZMAT Ind : N CDL Holder : N vehicle : NISSAN Registration NO : TWK963 REGISTRATION YEAR : 2001 Registration State: PA vehicle Type : Same as Defendant : Y Defendant signed : Y AOPC send Date : 01/31/01 2 offense Place : 20BL GTTYSBRGPK offense Time : 0000 Arrest Agency : PA0211800 officer ID : 23-14 County : 21 Boro/Twp : 104 Route : Title : 75 update Indicator: Susp/Rest Ind : 1S-RETURN 20-NEXT 22-1ST-INREC COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Mail Date= JANUARY 09, 2001 FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR 154 LANCASTER BLVD. MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 WID · 010029232281SS7 001 PROCESSING DATE 01/02/2001 DRIVER LICENSE · 1S106791 DATE OF BIRTH 01/03/1qS3 Dear MS. TESLAR: This is an Official Notice of the Suspension of your Driving Privilege as authorized by Section 1553A of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. Your driving privilege will be ouependod e~~ ·ecttve 01/30/200! at 12:01 a.m. for failing to respond to cltatlon number AS466833X (Amount Owed $151.50) issued on 11/17/2000. This citation is a result of your violation of Section 3362 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED. This suspension means that you wtl! not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle on or after 01/30/2001 unless You are noti- fied in writing by PannDOT that your driving Privilege ix restored. PLEASE READ THIS LETTER ZN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS ZE A FINAL ORDER OF SUSPENSION. THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID TN~S EUBFENBZON ZS TO CONPLETELY FOLLOH THE DIRECTIONS BELOM FOR REEPONDZN~ TO THE C~TATZON BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE. ZF YOU DO NOT FOLLON THESE DZRECTZONS, THIS SUSFENB~ON N~LLDO~NTOEFFECT ON 01/30/2001. RESPONDING TO THE CITATION z~ you respond to the ¢ttot~on ~ the suspension dote, you w~11 avoSd th~s suopenelon. Zn o~der to respond to this cStatton, You must ~oZ$ow the oteps below: 1. Contact the Court: DISTRICT COURT 507 N YORK STREET BARCLAY BUILDING MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 (717) 766-~575 Tell the Court, in person or by mail, whether you wish to plead 'guilty' or 'not guilty' to the violation. Please Note: Xf you pay the fine without signing ~guilty~ or ~not guilty,~ it is considered an automatic plea of ~guilty.~ a. If you plead ~guilty~~ pay all fines and costs. Mail your check or money order to the Court or ap- pear in person and pay by cash, check or money or- der. It is your responsibility to make sure that the Court receives your payment BEFORE 01/30/2001. Do not ma%1 or bring your cltatton payment to PennDOT. b. [f you plead 'not guilty,' pay all fines and costs Plus a $5.00 hearing fee. Nail your check or money order to the £ourt or appler ~n person and Pay by payment BEFORE 01/30/2001. DO not mitX ar br~n, Your cStat~on payment to PennDOT. The Court will assign you a hearing date. If you do not appear. you will be charged as guilty. c. Contact the Court ~f this letter does not list an amount owed for the vio~ation. Zf you have questions about ~h~s process or cannot afford to pay all fines and costs, contact the Court for assistance. ~f your response to the citation is accepted by the Court BEFORE 0~/30/2001, you will receive notice from PennD~T regarding restoration of your driving pr~vilege. Please Note: Responding to the c~tation before tho sus- pension date excuses you from this suspension of your driving privilege, not the actual vto~ation. Zf you p~ead guilty or are found guilty by the Court, you are still subject to the penalties for that violation under the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, COMPLYING ~TH TH[S SUSPENSION You must return any current Pennsylvania driver's license, learner's permit or temporary driver's license (camera card) in your possession. You will not receive credit toward serving any suspension until we receive your documents. Complete the following steps to acknowledge this suspensionz Return your current license, permit or camera card to the address below. If you do not have any of these items, complete and return one of the following= · A DL-16LC Acknowledgment form (avaAlable at any driver 1Acense center) · A notarized affidavit (letter) stating that you are aware of the suspension of your driving privilege 2. Be sure to sign the form or affidavit. Return all items to: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing P.O. Box Harrisburg. PA If You do not receive a receipt from us ,itbin 3 ,eeks of mailing your documents, call our office immediately. J~_~¥~NG THE RESTORATION FEE to PennDOT to be restored. ¢olapXete ~he ~oXX~Xng Complete the enclosed Application for Restoration. The amount due Is listed on the 2. ~rite your dr~ver~s ~cense number (listed on the first page) on the check Or money order to ensure pro,er credit. Follo~ the payment and matZtng instructions on the back of the app[lcat~ono APPEAL You have the r~ght to appeal th~s suspension to the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) ~ithin $0 days of the me~l date of this letter, JANUARY 09, 2001. After you file the appeal In the County Court. send a time-stamped certified copy of the appeal by certified mai! to: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel Third Floor. Rlverfront Office Center Harrisburg, PA 1710q-251& Remember, this ts an OFFZCZAL NOTZCE OF SU~PENSZON. You must respond before 01/~0/2001. S~ncerely, Rebecca L, Blckley, Director Sureau of Driver Licensing INFORMATION 7=00 a.m. to 9:00 P.m. IN STATE 1-800-932-q&00 TDD IN STATE OUT-OF-STATE 717-~91-6190 TDD OUT-OF-STATE NEB SITE ADDRESS ~.det.stete.pa.us 1-800-228~0676 717-$91-619! C7203800 3DL03802 Conviction Deta¶l Screen 1 of 2 A0730303 05/01/01 WlD NO Name check Digits 1st Line Address: 2nd Line Address: city/State/zip Date of Birth Operator Number social security District Number citation Number Docket Number Fine Amount Owed Section violated: Susp Auth Code : Speed Limit : Speed Traveled : Section Descript: : 01031 9233 439800 002 : TE : 0 : 15106791 : 09305 : A54668331 : 000000 1533 00000 Oper Lic State : Sex/Race : violation Oate : 11/17/00 2 Filing Date : 0 Issue Date : 0 Defendant Plea : Conviction Date : Response Date : 01/30/01 Disposition Charge Seq NO Transmittal Date : 01/30/01 2 TRANSMI~AL TIME : 151703 15-RETURN 20-NEXT 23-NXT-ONREC C7203800 3DL03803 Conviction Detail screen 2 of 2 A0730303 05/01/01 Customer Number : 15106791 Customer Name : Comm vehicle Ind : HAZMAT Ind : CDL Holder : vehi cl e : Registration No : REGISTRATION YEAR : Registration state: vehicle Type : Same as Defendant oefendant Signed AOPC Send Date : 01/31/01 2 offense Place : offense Ti me : 0000 Arrest Agency : officer ID · County : 00 Boro/l~vp : Route : Title : update Indicator: Susp/Rest Ind : R 15-RETURN 20-NEXT 22-1ST-INREC PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY MAR 14 2001 PAGE 1 DRIVER: FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR 7201 CATHERINE DR HARRISBURG, PA 17112 DRIVER LICENSE (DL) LICENSE CLASS : C LICENSE ISSUE DATE: JAN 11 1999 LICENSE EXPIRES : JAN 31 2003 MED RESTRICTIONS : 1 LEARNER PERMITS : LICENSE STATUS = SUSPENDED DRIVER LICENSE NO : 15106791 DATE OF BIRTH : JAN 03 1953 SEX : FEMALE RECORD TYPE : REG LICENSE COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE (CDL) CDL LICENSE CLASS : CDL LICENSE ISSUED : CDL LICENSE EXPIRES: CDL ENDORSEMENTS : NONE CDL RESTRICTIONS : NONE CDL LEARNER PERMITS: CDL LICENSE STATUS : SUSPENDED SB ENDORSEMENT : PROBATIONARY LICENSE (PL) PL LICENSE CLASS : PL LICENSE ORIG ISS= PL LICENSE ISSUED : PL LICENSE EXPIRES : PL LICENSE STATUS : OCCUPATIONAL LIMITED LICENSE (OLL) OLL LICENSE CLASS : OLL LICENSE ISSUED : OLL LICENSE EXPIRES: OLL LICENSE STATUS : *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 2 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAR 14 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED REPORT OF VIOLATIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: MAR 20 1986 VEHICLE CODE: 3362 EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 045 MPH IN A 025 MPH ZONE MAY 01 1986 ASSIGNED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: OCT 05 1987 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3332 DESCRIPTION: IMPROPER TURNING AROUND CONVICTION DATE: NOV 19 1987 ACTION: ASSIGNED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: FEB 03 1988 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 045 MPH IN A 025 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: FEB 16 1988 ACTION: POINT EXAM ACTION: PASSED EXAM JUL 26 1988 VIOLATION DATE: MAR 07 1994 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 068 MPH IN A 045 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: MAR 25 1994 ACTION: ASSIGNED POINTS *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 3 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAR 14 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED VIOLATION DATE: NOV 23 1994 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 066 MPH IN A 040 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: MAY 24 1995 ACTION: POINT EXAM ACTION: PASSED EXAM AUG 28 1995 VIOLATION DATE: JUN 13 1995 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SP~D 070 ~PH IN A 055 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: AUG 17 1995 ACTION: ASSIGNED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: SEP 08 1996 VEHICLE CODE: 3i12A3I RED LIGHT VIOLATION OCT 18 !996 ASSIGNED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: ACTION: JAN 10 1999 VEHICLE CODE: 1533D FAIL TO RESPOND SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE MAY 14 1999 OFFICIAL NOTICE MAILED APR 23 1999 ACTION: RESTORATION OF OPERATING PRIVILEGES JUL 22 1999 *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 4 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAR 14 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: ACTION: COURT INFO: NOV 17 2000 VEHICLE CODE: 1533A FAILURE TO RESPOND SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE JAN 30 2001 OFFICIAL NOTICE MAILED JAN 09 2001 09305 CITATION NO: A54668331 PHONE NO: (717)766-4575 VIOLATION DATE: NOV 17 2000 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SP~D 049 MPH IN A 025 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: JAN 30 2001 ACTION: SUSPENSIONi?FOR 20 DAY(S) EFFECTIVE FEB 08 2001 OFFICIAL iNOTICE MAILED, iiiiFEB 08 20~01 ACTION: PRIVILEGE RESTORED PENDING APPEAL MAR 09 2001 LICENSE RECEIVED FEB 26 2001 REPORT OF MEDICALS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS NO MEDICALS OR DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 5 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAR 14 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED REPORT OF ACCIDENTS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT RECORDS LISTED ON THIS OPERATING REPORT DO NOT INDICATE FAULT FOR THE ACCIDENT. THE RECORD ONLY INDICATES THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL OR THE INDIVIDUAL'S VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT ON THE DATE LISTED. ACCIDENT DATE: LOCATION: VEHICLE TYPE: OCT 05 1987 LANCASTER CNTY PASSENGER ACCIDENT DATE: LOCATION: VEHICLE TYPE: APR 04 2000 LANCASTER CNTY TRUCK *** END OF RECORD *** PAGE 6 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAR 14 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST~ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CAUSED A SEARCH TO BE MADE OF THE FILES OF THE DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HAVE SET FORTH ABOVE AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF ALL RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON INDICATED. SINCERELY, SEAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING FOR SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS: DATE:MAR 14 2001 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT REBECCA L. BICKLEY, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS THE LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF THE DRIVER LICENSING RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE AFORESAID BUREAU, SHE HAS LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE ORIGINAL OR MICROFILM RECORDS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE ABOVE CERTIFICATION. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFOP~SAID. SINCERELY, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION SEAL DL-326 (9/95) DATE MAY 29, 2001 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that Rebecca L. Bickley, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, is the legal custodian of the Driver License records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. As the Director of the aforesaid Bureau, she has legal custody of the original or microfilm records which are reproduced in the attached certification. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. BRADLEY L. MALLORY, SECRETARY OF )ORTATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING AND ANNEXED IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT CERTIFIED PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF: PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY, SHOWING DEPARTMENTAL SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE PETITIONER FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR, OPERATOR'S NO. 15106791, DATE OF BIRTH JANUARY 03, 1953, AS IT APPEARS IN THE BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, AS OF MAY 29, 2001. CERTIFIED TO as prescribed by Sections 6103 and 6109 of the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. §§6103 and 6109. AFORESAID. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR · REBECCA L. BICKLEY, DIRECTOR BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING COMMONWEALTH,$ EXHIBIT PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TP~%NSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY MAY 29 2001 PAGE 1 DRIVER: FRANCES LOUISE TESLAR 7201 CATWRRINE DR HARRISBURG, PA 17112 DRIVER LICENSE (DL) LICENSE CLASS : C LICENSE ISSUE DATE: JAN 11 1999 LICENSE EXPIRES : JAN 31 2003 MED RESTRICTIONS : 1 LEARNER PERMITS : LICENSE STATUS : VALID DRIVER LICENSE NO DATE OF BIRTH SEX RECORD TYPE : 15106791 : JAN 03 1953 : FEMALE : REG LICENSE COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE (CDL) CDL LICENSE CLASS : CDL LICENSE ISSUED : CDL LICENSE EXPIRES: CDL ENDORSEMENTS : NONE CDL RESTRICTIONS : NONE CDL LEARNER PERMITS: CDL LICENSE STATUS : SB ENDORSEMENT : PROBATIONARY LICENSE (PL) PL LICENSE CLASS : PL LICENSE ORIG ISS: PL LICENSE ISSUED : PL LICENSE EXPIRES : PL LICENSE STATUS : OCCUPATIONAL LIMITED LICENSE (OLL) OLL LICENSE CLASS : OLL LICENSE ISSUED : OLL LICENSE EXPIRES: OLL LICENSE STATUS : *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 2 · CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAY 29 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED REPORT OF VIOLATIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS VIOLATION DATE: MAR 20 1986 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 045 MPH IN A 025 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: MAY 01 1986 ACTION: ASSIGNED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: OCT 05 1987 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3332 DESCRIPTION: IMPROPER TURNING AROUND CONVICTION DATE: NOV 19 1987 ACTION: ASSIG~NED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: FEB 03 1988 VEHICLE CODE: 3362 EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 045 MPH IN A 025 MPH ZONE FEB 16 1988 POINT EXAM ACTION: PASSED EXAM JUL 26 1988 VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: MAR 07 1994 VEHICLE CODE: 3362 EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 068 MPH IN A 045 MPH ZONE MAR 25 1994 ASSIGNED POINTS *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 3 · CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAY 29 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED ViOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: NOV 23 1994 VEHICLE CODE: 3362 EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 066 MPH IN A 040 MPH ZONE MAY 24 1995 POINT EXAM ACTION: PASSED EXAM AUG 28 1995 VIOLATION DATE: JUN 13 1995 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 070 MPH IN A 055 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: AUG 17 1995 ACTION: ASSIGNED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: SEP 08 1996 VEHICLE CODE: 3112A3I RED LIGHT VIOLATION OCT 18 1996 ASSIGNED POINTS VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: ACTION: JAN 10 1999 VEHICLE CODE: 1533D FAIL TO RESPOND SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE MAY 14 1999 OFFICIAL NOTICE MAILED APR 23 1999 ACTION: RESTORATION OF OPERATING PRIVILEGES JUL 22 1999 *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 4 . CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAY 29 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: ACTION: NOV 17 2000 VEHICLE CODE: 1533A FAILURE TO RESPOND SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE JAN 30 2001 OFFICIAL NOTICE MAILED JAN 09 2001 VIOLATION DATE: NOV 17 2000 VIOLATION: VEHICLE CODE: 3362 DESCRIPTION: EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED 049 MPH IN A 025 MPH ZONE CONVICTION DATE: JAN 30 2001 ACTION: SUSPENSION FOR 20 DAY(S) EFFECTIVE FEB 08 2001 OFFICIAL NOTICE MAILED FEB 08 2001 ACTION: PRIVILEGE RESTORED PENDING APPEAL MAR 09 2001 ACTION: RESTORATION OF OPERATING PRIVILEGES MAR 19 2001 REPORT OF MEDICALS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS NO MEDICALS OR DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD *** CONTINUED *** PAGE 5 · C.ER~IFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAY 29 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED REPORT OF ACCIDENTS AND DEPARTMENTJtL ACTIONS MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT RECORDS LISTED ON THIS OPERATING REPORT DO NOT INDICATE FAULT FOR THE ACCIDENT. THE RECORD ONLY INDICATES THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL OR THE INDIVIDUAL'S VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT ON THE DATE LISTED. ACCIDENT DATE: LOCATION: VEHICLE TYPE: OCT 05 1987 LANC-2~STER CNTY PASSENGER ACCIDENT DATE: LOCATION: VEHICLE TYPE: APR 04 2000 LANCASTER CNTY TRUCK *** END OF RECORD *** PAGE 6 . CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - MAY 29 2001 - LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 CONTINUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST, I HEREBY CERTIFY TNAT I HAVE CAUSED A SEARCH TO BE MADE OF THE FILES OF THE DEPART- MENT OF TRAnSPOrTATION, AND HAVE SET FORTH ABOVE AN ACCURATE SU~%RY OF ALL RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON INDICATED. SINCERELY, SEAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING FOR SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS: DATE:MAY 29 2001 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT REBECCA L. BICKLEY, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF T~A~8~O~TATION IS THE LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF THE DRIVER LICENSING RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMBNT OF TRANSPORTATION. AS THE DIHECTO~ OF'T HE--SAID BUREAU, SHE HAS LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE ORIGINAL OR MICROPILM RECORDS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE ABOVE CERTIFICATION. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. SINCERELY, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION SEAL DL.~32~ (gl 95) DATE: May 24, 2001 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that Rebecca L. Bickley, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, is the legal custodian of the Driver License records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. As the Director of the aforesaid Bureau, she has legal custody of the original or microfilm records which are reproduced in the attached certification. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. BRADLEY L. MALLORY, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING AND ANNEXED IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT CERTIFIED PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF: Correspondence letter with six attachments submitted to Department of Transportation, cio Attorney George Kabusk, dated 05/04/01, received 05/11/01 in the Office of Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation. Attachments as follows: 1 ) Traffic Citation No. A5466833 with letter to District Justice Elder; 2) DL-38 Report regarding Citation No. A5466833-1; 3) DL-38 Report regarding Citation No. A5466833-1; 4) Notice of Payment Determination Hearing regarding Docket No. TR-0002868-00; 5) DL-38 regarding Citation No. A5466833-1, with response date of 01/17/01 and signature of District Justice dated 01/30/01, and 6) Receipt of Payment, Receipt No: 051435, regarding Citation No. A5466833-1. CERTIFIED TO as prescribed by Sections 6103 and 6109 of the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. §§6103 and 6109. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. REBECCA L. BICKLEY, DIRECTOI~ BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING ,xlO 4 EALTH OF PENN$¥L l zt · 4 COUNTY OF' CUMBERLAND MONROE TOWNSHIP UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP MECHANICSBURO BOROUGH GAYLE A. ELDER DISTRICT JUSTICE Magisterial District 09-3-05 507 N. York St. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 OFFICE: TEL 717-766-4575 FAX 717-766-2238 May 4, 2001 Mr. George Kabusk PennDOT Bur. of Drivers Licensing 1101 S. Front St. 3~d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Dear Mr. Kabusk: Enclosed please find the information you requested concerning the case of Frances Louise Teslar. Docket number TR-2868-00, regarding citation number A5466833-1. Citation written-November 17, 2000 Citation filed-November 20, 2000 DL-38 request warning to defendant-December 5, 2000 DL-38 suspension request to PennDOT-December 29, 2000 Mail received by defendant, Including payment and a note of explanation-January 30, 2001 Payment receipt and DL response-electronically transmitted-January 30, 2001 As a courtesy and added incentive to respond to avoid a drivers license suspension, this office sent the defendant a payment determination hearing notice on January 2, 2001. The purpose of such a hearing is to determine the financial ability of a defendant to make payment. We oken hear from the public that all the paperwork they receive is to confusing to understand. The payment determination hearing notice seems to be easier to understand and we do see a better response to that notice, it this case however, the defendant did NOT respond to this notice on the date scheduled for the hearing, January 17, 2001 at 4:15 PM. The defendant did not respond until we received the payment via the postal service January 30, 2001. A money order was received January 30, 2001. The deposit and receipt are dated the same. Sincerely, / /, Gayle'A. Elder, District Justice 09-3-05 COMM~DNWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: COMBERLAND Mag DtSL NO: 09~3-05 DJ Name: Hon. GAYLE A. ELDER Add,ess~ 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA (717) 766-4575 17055 GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 DL-38 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS, DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESe FTESLAR, FRANCES LOUISE 154 I4%NCASTER BLVD/,' MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 , IDocket No.: ~R-000286S-00 Date Filed: 11/20/00 REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF DRIVING PRIVILEGE FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CITATION OR SUMMONS OR PAY FINES AND COSTS IMPOSED Oate of additional notice: 12/05/00 You have failed to respond to a citation or summons or pay any tines and costs imposed for a violation of the section of the Pennsylvania Vehicle ' Code shown below. Unless you respond to the citation and pay the fine, costs, and penalties shown, or post security for a trial within 15 days of '~ * the above date, your name will be referred to the Department of Transportation, which will suspend your driving privilege until you respond to ~ the citation and pay all tines, costs, and penalties imposed. If your license is suspended, you will be required to pay additional costs to restore your ." o~erating privileges. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ANY PARKING VIOLATIONS. ' Driving while under suspension mandates at least a fine of $200.00 and an additional I year suspension of your driving privilege. ~.~,ITATION NO. DATE OF VIOLATION LOCATION OF VIOLATION CHARGE, SECTION AND SUBSECTION VIOLATED A5466833-1 11/17/00 20B~, GTTYSBRGPK 75 ~3362 ~A3-24 DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE AND COSTS IF TRIAL REQUESTED EXCEED MAX SPEED LIM EST BY 24 MPE $151.50 OR $157.50 DRIVERSLICENSENUMBER 15106791 LAST NAME TESLAR STREET ADDRESS 154 LANCASTER BLVD CiTY MECHANICSBURG REGISTRATION NO. TWK963 STATE DATE OF BIRTH 1/o3/53 FIRST NAME MI SEX FRANCE S L F STATE ZIP CODE PA 17055 STATE YEAR MAKE MODEL PA 2001 NISSAN SUBMIT CHECK OR MONEY ORDER TO THE ABOVE NAMED DISTRICT JUSTICE OFFICE SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT JUST.,~E DATE r INSTRUCTIONS: 1. This violation may be disposed of without a trial by paying the fine and costs shown above. Payment of fine and costs prescribed is a plea of guilty, NOTE: make your check or money order payable to the magisterial district number shown above. 2. You are entitled to a trial. If you so desire, forward security in the amount of the fine and costs shown plus an additional $6,00 costs to the district justice together with your plea of not guilty. You will be notified of a trial date. It you do not appear, your security will be forfeited, 3. Failure to pay the fine and costs or post security shall result in the suspension of your driving privileges. AOPC 638A1-00 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUN:FY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag D~st No.: 09-3-05 DJ Name: H(~r~ GAYLE A. ELDER ~d~,,s: 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA Te,~*p,o,~ (717) 766-4575 17055 GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 SEAL DL-38 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS ~ESLAR, FRANCES LOUISE 154 LANCASTER BLVD MECHANICSBI/RG, PA 17055 Docket No.: TR-0002868-00 Date Filed: 11/20/00 REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF DRIVING PRIVILEGE FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CITATION OR SUMMONS TO: THE BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Date of additional notice: 12/29/00 The named defendant has failed to respond to a citation or summons and/or pay all fines and costs imposed by the issuing authority. The defendant has been given additional notice to respond to this citation, and has not responded within 15 days of such notice. You are notified to suspend the defendant's driving privilege as provided in Section 1522(a) of the Vehicle Code, (75 Pa.C.S. 1533(a)). CITATIONNO. DATEOFVIOLATION LOCATIONOFVIOLATION A5466833-1 11/17/00 20BL GTTYSBRGPK DESCRIPTIONOFVIOLATION EXCEED MAX SPEED LIM EST BY 24 HPH CHARGE, SECTION AND SUBSECTION VIOLATED 75 ~3362 §§A3-24 FINE AND COSTS IF TRIAL REQUESTED $151.50 OR $157.50 DRIVERSLICENSENUMBER 15106791 LASTNAME TESIdkR STREETADDRESS 154 LANCASTER BLVD CITY MECHANICSBURG REGISTRATIONNO. TWK963 STATE D~E OF BIRTH PA 1/03/53 FIRST NAME MI SEX FRANCES L F STATE ZIP CODE PA 17055 STATE YEAR MAKE MODEL PA 2001 NISSAN SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT JUST.,~E DATE 12/29/00 RequestforSuspension ELECTRONIC TBANSMISSION DATE 12/29/00 TIME 11:14:52 AOPC 638B-95 SEND THiS FORM TO: BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, P.O. BOX 60037, HARRISBURG, PA 17106-0037 IF THE DRIVER IS FROM OUT OF STATE OR NO OPERATOR NUMBER WAS INCLUDED ON THE CITATION. _Is COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. NO: 09-3-05 DJ Name: Hon. GAYLE A. ELDER Ad~?,,i 507 N. YORK ST. i;' 'MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717) 766-4575 17055 GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 §3362 NOTICE OF PAYMENT DETERMINATION HEARING COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS, DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS ~ESLAR, FRANCES LOUISE 154 LANCASTER BLVD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Docket No.: TR- 0002868- 00 Date F ed: 11/20/00 Charge(s): EXCEED MAX SPEED LIM EST BY 24 MPH I, GAYLE A ELDER , hereby state that on November 20 , 2000, I sentenced you, the above defendant, to pay a fine and/or costs in the amount of $151.50 for violating the above charge(s). You have failed to pay the above fines and/or costs, and accordingly, I have set a payment determination hearing to determine your financial status due to your failure to pay the fine and costs which were imposed against you in the above captioned case. To date, you owe this court ~151.50 in fines, fees and costs. The hearing is scheduled to be held as follows: Date: 1/17/01 Time: 4:15 PM Place: DISTRICT COURT 09-3-05 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 At the hearing, you must appear and inform the court of any changes in your financial condition. The court may extend, accelerate, leave unaltered or impose imprisonment for non-payment of these fines and costs. If you fail to appear, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. If it is determined that you are financially able to pay, your case may be referred to a private collection agency. At this hearing, you may have a right to be represented by an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney and you qualify, one may be appointed for you. Please contact: for additional information regarding the appointment of an attorney. Payment of fines and costs in FULL will excuse the necessity of your appearance at this hearing. If you are disabled and require assistance, please contact the Magisterial District office at the address above. If you have any questions, please call the above office immediately. 1/02/01 Date My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006. SEAL DATE PRINTED: 1/02/01 ALL COPIES PRINTED AOPC 631-99 , District Justice COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. NO.: 09-3-05 DJ Name: Hon. GAYLE A. ELDER Ada~es~ 507 N. YORK ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA T,l~0ho~,: (717) 766-4575 17055 GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N. YORK ST. MEcHANICSBURO, PA 17055 DL-38 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS i--TESLAR, FRANCES LOUISE 154 LANCASTER BLVD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 / Docket No.: TR-0002868-00 Date Filed: 11/20/00 RECEIPT OF RESPONSE TO CITATION/SUMMONS DATE OF RESPONSE MM/DD/YY I o111117 Io I1 I CITATION NO. A5466833 - 1 11/17/00 DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER 15106791 LAST NAME TESLAR DATEOFVIOLATION LOCATIONOFVIOLATION CHARGE, SECTIONANDSUBSECTIONVIOLATED 20BL GTTYSBRGPK 75 S3362 S§A3-24 STATE DATE OF BIRTH PA 1/03/53 FIRST NAME MI SEX FRANCES L F STREET ADDRESS 154 LANCASTER BL~v'D CITY STATE MECHANICSBURG PA REGISTRATION NO, STATE YEAR MAKE TWK963 PA 2001 NISSAN ZIP CODE 17055 MODEL SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT JUSTICE DATE 1/3O/Ol This RECEIPT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRIVE. If you are currently under suspension you are not permitted to drive until you are notified by PennDOT, or the state in which you are licensed, that your driving privilege has been restored. In addition, if you respond to the citation/summons on or after the effective date of your suspension, you will be required to pay a restoration fee. NOTE: Please be aware that payment of fines and costs for a motor vehicle violation is a plea of guilty and may result in additional action by PennDOT, or the state in which you are licensed. Depending on the type of violation, points may be assigned or an additional suspension may be imposed. If you are an out of state resident, all convictions will be reported to your home state. If you do not know the status of your PA driving privilege or require further assistance, please contact one of the numbers listed during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. In-state %800-932-4600 TDD In-state 1-800-228-0676 Out-of-state 717-391-6190 TDD Out-state 717-391-6191 ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION DATE 1/30/01 TIME 15:17:03 AOPC 638C-97 SEND THIS FORM TO: BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, P.O. BOX 68693, HARRISBURG, PA 17106-0037 IF THE DRIVER iS FROM OUT OF STATE OR NO OPERATOR NUMBER WAS INCLUDED ON THE CITATION. 629 A.2d 290 (Cite as: 157 Pa. Cmwlth. 283, 629 A.2d 290) ~> Page 1 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, BUREAU OF LIQUOR CONTROL ENFORCEMENT, Appellant, 139 HORSESHOE CORP. t/a York Road Tavern. Argued Feb. 4, 1993. Decided July 23, 1993. Petition forAllowance of AppealDenied Dec. 14, 1993. Liquor Control Board fined licensee for allegedly furnishing alcoholic beverages to underage patron. The Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, No. 5 MM 1991 (17), Clark, J., reversed, and Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement appealed. The Commonwealth Court, No. 1553 C.D. 1992, Smith, J., held that: (1) underaged patron's out-of-court statements did not qualify as hearsay exception for declaration against interest and thus were inadmissible, and (2) certified documents from district justice were inadmissible as official records. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1]Intoxicming Liquors<g~,108.10(8) 223k108.10(8) Commonwealth Court's scope of review of trial court's decision in Liquor Code enforcement action is limited to determining whether order of Liquor Control Board was supported by sufficient evidence and whether trial court abused its discretion or committed error of law. [2] Intoxicating Liquors ~ 108.10(7) 223k108.10(7) Common Pleas Court did not conduct de novo review of record of liquor code enforcement action or otherwise exceed its scope of review where court did not take any new evidence, consider matters not of record, or make independent factual findings. 47 P.S. § 4-471 (Repealed). [3] Constitutional Law ~;::'314 92k314 Due process principles require that party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to challenge, through confrontation and cross-examination, reliability of adverse evidence. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14. [4] Evidence(~::~272 157k272 Declaration against interest may be admissible as hearsay exception. [5] Evidence~=:'272 157k272 To qualify as declaration against interest, party seeking to have testimony admitted must show that statement was against declaratu's penal interest at time statement was made, and declarant must be unavailable at time of trial. [6] Evidence e~:'272 157k272 Witness is not unavailable for purposes of hearsay exception for declaration against interest unless prosecutorial authorities have made good faith effort to obtain witnesses~ presence at trial, and declarant's inability to give live testimony must, in no way, be fault of state. [7] Evidence ~:~272 157k272 Witness may be declared unavailable for purposes of hearsay exception for declaration against interest if party cannot locate witness within jurisdiction. [8] Administrative Law and Procedure ~::'461 15Ak461 [8] Intoxicating Liquors ~ 108.5 223k108.5 Out-of-court statements made by underaged tavern patron to Bureau of Liquor Control enforcement officer and patron questionnaire filled out by other officer at scene did not qualify as declarations against interest and thus were inadmissible where Bureau failed to show that patron was unavailable at time of administrative law hearing; patron was available at time, place, and date of hearing and it Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 629 A.2d 290 (Cite as: 157 Pa. Cmwlth. 283, 629 A.2d 290) Page 2 was Bureau's responsibility to locate her and produce her at hearing. [9] Constitutional Law ~='311 92k311 [9] Evidence ~:::'272 157k272 Although statement against penal interest to someone of authority bears some indication of reliability, mere indication of reliability is insufficient to override due process concerns. [10] Evidence ~g:::>366(1) 157k366(1) The Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enfurcemem (Bureau), appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County which reversed the order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) affirming the adjudication of the Office of the Administrative Law Judge *286 (OALJ) imposing a $1,000 fine on 139 Horseshoe Corporation, t/a York Road Tavern (Licensee), for an alleged violation of Section 493(1) of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. § 4- 493(1). The issues raised for review are whether the trial court exceeded its permissible scope of review of Liquor Code enforcement actions; and whether the OALJ properly admitted certain documents and testimony as exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Phrase "when admissible for any purpose," in statute governing proof of official records, indicates section cannot be used to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence and, thus, there must be determination regarding admissibility of evidence before section can be applied. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6103. [ 11 ] Administrative Law and Procedure <E::~461 15Ak461 [ 11] Intoxicating Liquors ~ 108.5 223k108.5 Affidavit of district justice certifying documents indicating tavern patron pled guilty to charge of nnderaged drinking as true and correct copies of original was inadmissible as official record in appeal from liquor license fine where affidavits and documents were inculpatory hearsay; absent patron's testimony, evidence was insufficient to establish any Liquor Code violation by licensee, and documents indicating her plea of guilty were admissible, if at all, only for limited purpose of establishing that guilty plea was entered. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6103. *'291 *285 Thomas M. Ballaron, Asst. Counsel, for appellant. William L. Goldman, Jr., for appellee. Before COLINS and SMITH, JJ., and KELTON, Senior Judge. SMITH, Judge. On January 24, 1989, the Bureau charged Licensee with an April 28, 1988 violation of the Liquor Code for allegedly serving an underage patron. At a June 1989 hearing before the OALJ, the Bureau was granted a continuance because a witness failed to appear. At the September 27, 1989 continued hearing, the Bureau represented to the OALJ that, although subpoenaed, the same witness had again failed to appear. The absem witness was an individual who was allegedly cited by the Bureau for underage drinking in Licensee's establishment. The Bureau nevertheless decided to proceed with the hearing. The Bureau offered the testimony of Bureau enforcement officer James P. Farano who testified that on April 28, 1988 he conducted an inspection of Licensee's establishment to determine whether there were underage patrons present. Farano observed a youthful-appearing patron to be in possession of what he believed to be a **292 glass of draft beer. He did not observe the patron order, pay for, or be served the beer. Farano testified that the patron stated to him that she was twenty years old, which he verified by transmitting her identification information through the state police computer system. Another officer at the scene filled out a "patron questionnaire" which the patron signed. Farano stated that the purpose of the patron questionnaire was to obtain information concerning the Licensee, rather than the patron, and that he issued the patron a citation for underage drinking on the basis of his personal observations and not upon Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 629 A.2d 290 (Cite as: 157 Pa. Cmwlth. 283, *286, 629 A.2d 290, **292) Page 3 the information furnished by the patron. Farano further testified that the patron was *287 arrested and charged for underage drinking and that she later pled guilty to the violation and paid a fine. The OALJ admitted the officer's testimony and the patron questionnaire into evidence, despite Licensee's hearsay objection, because the patron's statements fell within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule. The OALJ further admitted an affidavit of a district justice, which accompanied documents maintained in the district justice's file, purportedly certifying that the documents were true and correct copies of the originals. These documents indicated that the patron pled guilty to a charge of underage drinking, and attached to the district justice's affidavit was a copy of the citation issued. Over Licensee's hearsay objections, the OALJ admitted the documents as properly verified official records. The OALI thus concluded that Licensee furnished alcoholic beverages to an underage patron and imposed the fine. The Board affirmed the OALI. [1] On appeal, the trial court reversed the Board. It had come to light before the OALJ that the patron had appeared and was outside of the courtroom during the September 1989 hearing, a fact which the Bureau did not discover until after the hearing. The trial court held that because the legal representative for the Bureau did not locate the patron until after the hearing despite a responsibility to locate the subpoenaed witness prior to the hearing and produce her subject to cross-examination, she was thus "available." The trial court held that it was therefore an error of law for the OALJ to have accepted her hearsay statements as substantive evidence in the case. The trial court noted that in any event, a statement against interest is inadmissible as an attempt to inculpate a third party. Furthermore, the trial court held that it was error to accept the statement from the district justice into the record as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 6103(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103(a), regarding official records used as evidence. The trial court concluded that there was no competent evidence to support the OALI's order and it reversed the Board and further *288 ordered that the previously paid fine be refunded to Licensee. The Bureau appealed to this Court. [FN 1] FNI. This Court's scope of review of the trial court's decision in a Liquor Code enforcement action is limited to determining whether the order of the Board was supported by sufficient evidence and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Mallios, 137 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 182, 585 A.2d 590 (1991). II The Bureau first argues that the trial court exceeded the scope of its review by conducting a de novo review of the record established before the OALI and by making its own findings of fact. Under the former version of Section 471 of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. § 4-471, the trial court was to conduct a de novo review and had statutory discretion to make findings and conclusions and to alter, change, or modify the penalty imposed by the Board. See Adair v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 519 Pa. 103, 546 A.2d 19 (1988). Section 471, however, was reenacted and amended in 1987 to provide that the trial court's review of Liquor Code enforcement actions is limited to determining whether the OALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, and whether the OALJ abused **293 his or her discretion. Appeal of Iggy, Inc., 140 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 168, 592 A.2d 122 (1991). [2] Upon review of the trial court's opinion, this Court finds no indication that the trial court conducted a de novo review of the record or that it otherwise exceeded its scope of review. The trial court did not take any new evidence, consider matters not of record, nor make independent factual findings. It is clear that the trial court instead concluded that the evidence admitted by the OALJ was as a matter of law inadmissible because the witness was available to testify at the hearing. The trial court thus held that because the evidence upon which the OALJ relied was inadmissible, there remained no competent evidence to support the OALJ's order. *289 [3][4] The courts of this Commonwealth have long adhered to the strong policy that the use of hearsay evidence is to be discouraged. Heddings v. Steele, 514 Pa. 569, 526 A.2d 349 (1987). Among the policy concerns expressed in Heddings, a civil proceeding, are that hearsay statements lack guarantees of trustworthiness and cannot be tested by Copt. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 629 A.2d 290 (Cite as: 157 Pa. Cmwlth. 283, *289, 629 A.2d 290, **293) Page 4 cross- examination and the declarant is not under oath when the hearsay statements are made, concerns which are manifested in the confromation cIauses of the federal and state constitutions. Due process principles require that a party be afforded a reasonable opporttmity to challenge, through confrontation and cross~examination, the reliability of adverse evidence. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). Nevertheless, "[t]o insure a party the guarantees of trustworthiness resulting from a declarant's presence in court, a proponent of hearsay evidence must point to a reliable hearsay exception before such testimony will be admitted." Heddings, 514 Pa. at 574, 526 A.2d at 352. Under the law of this Commonwealth, a declaration against interest may be admissible as a hearsay exception. Id. [5][6][7] In order to qualify as a declaration against interest, the party seeking to have the testimony admitted must show that the statement was against the declarant's penal interests at the time the statement was made, and the declarant must be unavailable at the time of trial. Movie Distributors Liquidating Trust v. Reliance Ins. Co., 407 Pa. Superior Ct. 588, 595 A.2d 1302 (1991), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 658, 604 A.2d 249 (1992). A witness is not unavailable for purposes of the foregoing exception unless the prosectuorial authorities have made a good faith effort to obtain the witness' presence at trial: hence, a declarant's inability to give live testimony must, in no way, be the fault of the state. Commonwealth v. Stasko, 471 Pa. 373, 370 A.2d 350 (1977). Furthermore, a witness may be declared unavailable if a party cannot locate the witness within the jurisdiction. Corl v. Kacmar, 391 Pa. Superior Ct. 376, 571 A.2d 417 (1990). *290 [8] In Corl, a witness was not shown to be unavailable to testify where the attorney began to search for the witness three days before the trial, did not attempt to obtain a subpoena or bench warrant, and simply made a few telephone calls. Although the Bureau in the present matter subpoenaed the patron, this Court agrees with the conclusion of the trial court that the witness was available at the time, place, and date of the hearing and that it was the Bureau's responsibility to locate her and produce her at the hearing. Because the Bureau has not shown that the witness was unavailable at the time of the hearing, her out-of-court statements do not qualify as declarations against interest to constitute an exception to the hearsay rules of evidence and are thus inadmissible. [9] Furthermore, although a statement against penal interest to someone of authority bears some indication of reliability, Commonwealth v. Moss, 518 Pa. 337, 543 A.2d 514 (1988), [FN2] such mere indication of **294 reliability is insufficient to override the due process concerns expressed in Heddings and in L. W.B. v. Sosnowski, 117 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 120, 127, 543 A.2d 1241, 1244 (1988), where this Court observed that the "high threshold of admissibility for hearsay in administrative proceedings has served this court well and ... has not proved '291 unduly burdensome to administrative agencies." Therefore, the statements made by the patron to Farano and the patron questionnaire filled out by the other officer at the scene remain inadmissible hearsay not subject to any hearsay exception. [FN3] FN2. The OALJ relied on Moss for the proposition that inculpatory statements are admissible in evidence in the absence of a showing of cormpting influence. A review of Moss, in which the issue was the validity of an arrest warrant, does not support the conclusion of admissibility of inculpatory hearsay. To the extent that Moss may appear to stand for this proposition, this Court nevertheless declines to adopt such an interpretation in light of the prohibition against admissibility of a third party's declaration against penal interest which inculpates the party being charged. Commonwealth v. Colon, 461 Pa. 577,337 A.2d 554 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976). Although Colon involved a criminal proceeding, this Court believes that its principles are equally applicable to administrative proceedings when one considers that "[t]he Hearsay Rule is not a technical rule of evidence but a basic, vital and fundamental rule of law which ought to be followed by administrative agencies at those points in their hearings when facts crucial to the issue are sought to be placed upon the record. ~ Bleilevens v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service Comrn'n, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1, 5, 312 A.2d 109, 111 (1973). The fact that violation of Section 493(1) of the Liquor Code may impose criminal liability as well is also noteworthy in this context. See Commonwealth v. Tau Kappa Epsilon, 530 Pa. 416, 609 A.2d 791 (1992). FN3. Furthermore, the questionnaire by itself would not be sufficient to establish a violation by Licensee. Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 629 A.2d 290 (Cite as: 157 Pa. Cmwlth. 283, '291, 629 A.2d 290, It indicated, inter alia, that the patron was not observed purchasing or being served alcohol; and that the patron's drinks were ordered, served, and paid for by "a friend." [10] The Bureau next argues that the certified documents from the district justice containing his signature and seal are official records under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103, and are therefore admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Section 6103 states, imer alia, that an official record kept within this Commonwealth by any district justice "when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record.' The OALI's reliance upon Section 6103 was misplaced, however. Section 6103 merely provides that such records may be introduced without the necessity of having a records custodian appear in court to authenticate the original documents. The phrase "when admissible for any purpose" in Section 6103 indicates that this section cannot be used to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence. Thus, before Section 6103 can be applied, there must be a determination regarding admissibility of the evidence. [11] Absent the patron's testimony, her citation and the documems indicating her plea of guilty were admissible, if at all, only for the limited purpose of establishing that a guilty plea was entered. [FN4] Page 5 **294) The trial court's conclusion that the district *292 justice's affidavit and the attached records were inadmissible because they were inculpatory hearsay is therefore without error and this Court shall not disturb the trial court's holding. Without testimony from the patron, the admissible evidence is insufficient to establish any violation of the Liquor Code by Licensee. Accordingly, the trial court's order is affirmed. FN4. In addition, Appellant's reliance upon Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Emery, 135 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 274, 580 A.2d 909 (1990), is erroneous. In Emery, this Court upheld the introduction into evidence of a letter signed by a district justice stating that he had found the licensee not guilty of the underlying offense. The trial court admitted the letter over DOT's hearsay objection, holding that the signed and sealed correspondence met the fundamental criteria of Section 6103. That case is distinguishable from the matter sub judice, however, because of the exculpatory nature of the evidence, a situation not present here. ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 1993, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County is affirmed. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Get a Document - by Citation - 135 Pa. Commw. 274 Page 1 of 6 Service: LEXSEE® Citation: 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 536 135 Pa. Commw. 274, *; 580 A.2d 909, /990 Pa. Commw. LEXIE, 536, *** COMHONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP~L~T-~TION~/BUREAU LICENSING, Appellant, v. Benjamin Howar~ EHERY~ A/0pellee \ / No. 143 C.D. 1990 ~ Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 135 Pa. Commw. 274; 580 A.2d 909; 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 536 OF DRIVER July 6, 1990, Submitted on Briefs September 26, 1990, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**'1] Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Allegheny County; No. SA 2761 of 1989; Raymond L. Scheib, Judge. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant department of transportation challenged the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Pennsylvania), that granted appellee driver a nunc pro tunc proceeding to challenge the suspension of his operator's license pursuant to 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1538(c) and sustained appellee's challenge to the suspension. OVERVIEW: Appellee driver was issued a citation for exceeding the maximum speed limit in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3362(a). Appellee posted collateral and entered a plea of not guilty, but it was erroneously recorded as the payment of the fine and a plea of guilty. Appellant department of transportation suspended appellee's license for an indefinite period of time. A subsequent hearing was held on the citation, and appellee was found not guilty. Appellant was notified but refused to reinstate appellee's license. Appellee petitioned the lower court for a nunc pro tunc proceeding to challenge the suspension of his license pursuant to 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1538(c). The lower court denied appellant's motion to quash and granted appellee's request. The lower court sustained appellee's challenge to the suspension of his license. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court because the delay of appellee's challenge was caused by the error of his plea, and therefore, he was not precluded from challenging his suspension. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence that appellee was not convicted of the offense; therefore, his license should have been reinstated. OUTCOI~IE: The court affirmed the decision of the lower court that granted appellee driver a nunc pro tunc proceeding to challenge the suspension of his operator's license because the delay of the challenge was caused by the erroneous notation of a guilty plea rather than appellee's plea of not guilty. The court affirmed the reinstatement of appellee's operator's license because there was ample evidence that appellee had not been convicted of the offense. CORE TERMS: suspension, nunc pro tunc, initial burden, recording, license, license suspension, properly granted, scope of review, plea of guilty, best evidence, notice dated, certification, justifying, indefinite, frivolous, rebut, seal, competent evidence, failed to satisfy, .../retrieve?_m=efdOfedac42aafd30be5 f58d2d8c063 a&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum= 1 & startdoc=5/29/2001 Get a Document - by Citation - 135 Pa. Commw. 274 Page 2 of 6 failed to present, devoid of merit, driving record, error of law, recognizable, departmental, admissible, sustaining, collateral, signature, breakdown CORE CONCEPTS - * Hide Concepts Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: Speeding See 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6501(b). ~ Civil Procedure: Appeals: Standards of Review: Substantial Evidence Rule J~ Civil Procedure: Appeals: Standards of Review: Abuse of Discretion ~The scope of review of a trial court's decision permitting an appeal nunc pro tunc is limited to a determination of whether the trial court has abused its discretion or committed an error of law. The scope of review of a trial court's decision in an operator's license suspension case is limited to a determination of whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, whether errors of law have been committed, or whether the trial court's decision demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion. Governments: Local Governments: Licenses k75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1550(a) grants the right to appeal to any person whose operator's license has been suspended by Department of Transportation (DOT). 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571(b) requires that an appeal from a government unit such as DOT be commenced within 30 days after the entry of the order. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5572 provides that the date of mailing the order shall be the date of entry of the order. ~ Civil Procedure: Appeals: Reviewability: Time Limitations kAn appeal nunc pro tunc may be permitted upon showing that the delay in filing the appeal resulted from extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or a breakdown in the court's operations which caused injury to the appealing party. Civil Procedure: Appeals: Reviewability: Time Limitations kWrengful or negligent acts of an official, which may be a proper reason for holding that, as to an injured person, the statutory period does not run and that the wrong may be corrected by means of a petition filed nunc pro tunc within a reasonable time. ~ Governments: Local Governments: Licenses kin the case of a suspension of an operator's license based upon the accumulation of points, the initial burden of proof is upon the Department of Transportation to produce the records of convictions justifying the suspension. Criminal Law & Procedure: Sentencing: Procedures A conviction occurs when there is a finding of guilt and a sentence imposed. ~ Evidence: Hearsay Rule & Exceptions: Public Records & Vital Statistics kin an appeal from an operator's license suspension, copies of a district justice's records that contain the necessary elements of certification, including the signature and seal of a judicial officer, are admissible to prove the disposition of a motor vehicle violation. ~ Governments: Local Governments: Licenses kin order to rebut evidence of a conviction, a licensee prove by competent and convincing evidence that he was not convicted. Evidence: Hearsay Rule & Exceptions: Public Records & Vital Statistics See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6103. .../retrieve?_m=efd0fedac42aafd30be5 f58d2d8c063a&_frntstr=FULL&docnum= 1 &_startdoc= 5/29/2001 Get a Document - by Citation - 135 Pa. Commw. 274 Page 3 of 6 Civil Procedure: Appeals: Frivolous Appeals ~An appeal is frivolous within the meaning of Pa. R. App. P. 2744 when an appellant presents no justiciable question and the appeal is readily recognizable as devoid of merit in that there is little prospect of success. COUNSEL: William A. Kuhar, Jr., Asst. Counsel, with him, Timothy P. Wile, Asst. Counsel in Charge of Appellate Section, Harold H. Cramer, Asst. Chief Counsel, and John L, Heaton, Chief Counsel, for appellant. David H. Patterson, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek, Eck & Hall, Pittsburgh, for appellee. JUDGES: Smith and Pellegrini, 3J., and Silvestri, Senior Judge. OPINIONBY: SMITH OPINION: [*277] [*'911] Before this Court is an appeal by the Department of Transportation (DOT) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated December 13, 1989, which permitted Benjamin Howard Emery (Emery) to appeal nunc pro tunc from an indefinite suspension of his operator's license by DOT pursuant to Section 1538(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1538(c) (failure to attend a departmental hearing), and which sustained his appeal of the suspension. The issues before this Court are whether the trial court properly granted Emery's petition to appeal nunc pro tunc and whether DOT satisfied its initial burden of proof by producing records of convictions justifying the suspension of Emery's operator's license. This Court [***2] finds that the appeal nunc pro tunc was properly granted and that DOT failed to satisfy its initial burden of proof. On November 21, 1988, Eme_ry was issued a citation (November 1988 citation) by the Pennsylvania State Police for violation 6f~ec[ion 3362(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3362(a) (exceeding the maximum speed limit). On January 9, 1989, Emery responded to the citation by posting $102.50 as collateral for his appearance at trial and e'nterirrg a plea of not guilty. However, the posl;i_n_g of collateral ag~ ~h~ pl~a of qpt_g_uJ!ty_ wec~_r_ecoKd~d_..!n_~error at the clZ~d~ju~i~,S offJce~as payment Of the fine and a plea of guilty. As a consequence of the recording error, the office of the district justice inaccuratelY reported to D01' th~'Emery ['27B_~!_ -entered a pl~a of g~iityl n~ ~-i~e~ i~y-~eceiv~d an offi~al'notl'ce d~t'e~ March 2~ -1-9~T9 ~{~in-§ t~ai: 6ecause of his "C0~vid:i0~"; he accu~nfil~d'-$7~ppoints on his drivin'~ record and was required to attend a departmental he, ring on April 18, 1989. Emery failed {o-attend that hearing. He also receiVed a notice dated April 5, 1989 from District Justice Brenda M. Knepper stating that a hearing would be held on [***3] the November 1988 citation on April 25, 1989. Emery was found not guilty at that hearing. .................. Footnotes .................. nl Section 6501(b) of the Vehicle Code, ~75 Pa.C.S. § 6501(b), provides that "Iai payment by any person charged with a violation of this title of the fine prescribed for the violation is a plea of guilty." ................. End Footnotes ................. By official notice dated and mailed May,.3!, 1989, DOT informed Emery that his operating privileges were scheduled for indefinite suspension pursuant to Section 1538(c) of the Vehicle Code. Upon notification by Emery of the recording error that resulted in the suspension, District Justice Knepper forwarded a letter dated September 15, 1989 to DOT stating that Emery w~as found not guilty 0h the'~ovember-l_988 citation. DOT, however, refused to correct Emery's arising record.. O~ Oc~b~ !~;-~Sgr, Eme~ffiedz.~a-~Pn to app_ea! nunc Pro tunc .../retrieve?_m=e fd0 fedac42 aafd30be5 f58 d2d8 c063 a&_fmt str=FULL&docnum= 1 &_startdo c= 5/29/2001 Get a Document - by Citation - 135 Pa. Commw. 274 Page 4 of 6 from the suspension in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. At a de novo hearing before the trial court, DOT moved to quash the appeal as untimely. The trial court denied DOT's [***4] motion and sustained Emery's appeal from the suspension because he was found not guilty on the November 1988 citation, n2 .................. Footnotes .................. n2 This Court's scope of review is dual; :cThe scope of review of a trial court's decision permitting an appeal nunc pro tunc is limited to a determination of whether the trial court has abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safe~ v. Rick, 75 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 514, 462 A.2d 902 (1983). The scope of review of a trial court's decision in an operator's license suspension case is limited to a determination of whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, whether errors of law have been committed, or whether the trial court's decision demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion. Waldspurger v. Commonwealth, 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 148, 520 A.2d 83 (1987). ................. End Footnotes ................. DOT contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Emery's appeal from the susper~s[on [*~5] because the [m279] appeal Was un~irnely; Section 1550(a) of the Vehicl~ Cod% as ambnded, :ie75 Pa; C;S~ § 1550(a), ~rants th-e-right to appeal to any person whose operator's license has been suspended by DOT. Section 5571(b) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571(b), requires that an appeal from a government unit such as DOT be commenced within thirty days after the entry of the order. Section 5572 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. [*'912] C.S. § 5572, provides that the date of mailing the order shall be the date of entry of the order. Emery filed his appeal from the suspension on October 17, 1989, more than four months after the mailing of the suspension notice. Thus, there is no dispute that Emery failed to comply with the statutory requirements for filing his appeal. Despite untimeliness of the appeal, the trial court did not lack jurisdiction under the circumstances in this case. DOT also contends that the trial court improperly granted Emery's appeal nunc pro tunc because he failed to present evidence that constituted grounds for permitting an appeal nunc pro tunc. :CAn appeal nunc pro tunc may be permitted upon showing that the delay in filing the appeal resulted from extraordinary [~*~6] circumstances involving fraud or a breakdown in the court's operations which caused injury to the appealing party. Rick, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 516, 462 A.2d at 903 (1983). The delay in filing Emery's appeal resulted from the recording error at the district justice's office which clearly constituted a breakdown in court operations. Moreover, the recording error is an example of ":cwrongful or negligent acts of [an] official ... [which] . . . may be a proper reason for holding that, as to an injured person, the statutory period does not run and that the wrong may be corrected by means of a petition filed nunc pro tunc within a reasonable time." Wess v. Department of Welfare, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 628, 631,462 A.2d 955, 957 (1983). Thus, the recording error constituted proper grounds for the trial court to grant Emery's petition to appeal nunc pro tunc. DOT also argues that, even if the trial court properly granted Emery's petition to appeal nunc pro tunc, [~280] Emery failed to present evidence to rebut DOT's proof of the conviction that justified suspension of his operating privileges. :cln the case of a [~'7] suspension of an operator's license based upon the accumulation of points, the initial burden of proof is upon DOT to produce the records of convictions justifying the suspension. George Appeal, 101 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 241, 515 A.2d 1047 (1986); Commonwealth v. $iedlecki, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. :130, 300 A.2d 287 (1973). This Court has held that "[:Ca] conviction occurs when there is a finding of guilt and a senter~ce mpo~e-d." Departmento£ Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v.-Edwards, 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 43, 45, 519 A.2d :1083, 1084 (:1987). At the April :18, 1989 hearing before District Justice Knepper, Emery .../retrieve?-m~~fd~fedac42aafd3~be5f58d2d8c~63a&-fmtstr=FULL&d~cnum--~&-startd~c=5/29/2~~~ Get a Document - by Citation - 135 Pa. Commw. 274 Page 5 of 6 was found not guilty. Consequently, there was no conviction on the November 1988 citation. DOT could not have produced the record of a conviction that did not occur. Thus, DOT failed to satisfy its initial burden of proof because it did not produce the records of convictions justifying the suspension of Emery's operator's license. Even if DOT did satisfy its initial burden of proof, Emery presented evidence to rebut DOT's evid n.,.~.e_0~of a conviction. Emery presented the [**'8] "~ptemDer :15, 1989 letter of District Justice Kfiepper star,raJ that he was found not guilty. DOT contends that the letter is inadmissible hearsay, and does not qualify as an official record under Section ~103 of the Judici~C6de_~_42 Pa. C.S. § 6103. n3 .~In~_~9 a~ppeal i'rom ~n oper,ator's ~'s-~guspension, copies of a district justice's records that contain the necessary elements of certification, in_~ding the ' _~]Im~m-aru:Ls~l of a judicial officer, are admissible to prove the dislSosition of a?fiotor ['281'] v-e"rffc"lLr~viola~See Departmefi~ 6~ Trbnsportation, Bureau of Traffic' S~f~ty v. Kluge-~,z Pa.~i~ornmonwealth Ct. 460, 317 A.2d 686 (1974). The letter that Emery presented at the trial C0q~ s~t~!ng _that he ~as~mnd..[*~1:~] not guilty contained t-he signature and official seal of District Justice Knepper. The letter, p~biS~/f]~-c~rrified~was ad~'hissible as an orticial reco~d within the meaning of Section 6103. Thus, Emery satisfied the rec~uirement that, Yin order to rebut evidence of a conviction, a licensee "prove by competent and convincing evidence that he was not convicted." George, 101 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 243, 515 A.2d at 1047 (1986). [**'9] .................. Footnotes .................. n3 ~Section 6103 of the Judicial Code provides: An official record kept within this Commonwealth by... any district justice... or any entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record. , . and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties with respect to the government in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office .... ................. End Footnotes ................. DOT also contends that the letter of the District Justice is inadmissible because it is not the best evidence. DOT cites Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cox, 92 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 591,499 A.2d 1140 (1985) as authority for the rule that the best evidence of the disposition of a citation is the certification of the disposition of that citation. As this Court finds that [**'10] the letter of the District Justice constitutes proper certification, it is only necessary to address DOT's argument by pointing out that "It]he rule requiring production of the best evidence calls for the best that can be produced at the time it is offered." Anderson v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 521, 525, 550 A.2d 1049, 1050 (1988), citing L.C.S. Colliery, Znc. v. Globe Coal Co., 369 Pa. 1, 9, 84 A.2d 776, 781 (1951) (emphasis in original). At the time Emery offered the letter into evidence, DOT also presented its records to the trial court. The contents of the documents were in conflict. The trial court resolved the conflict in favor of Emery, by sustaining Emery's appeal. Tn an operator's license suspension appeal, the resolution of evidentiary conflicts is for the trial court. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Fleming, 119 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 343, 547 A.2d 488 (1988). Therefore, the trial court's decision to accept the letter of the District Justice over the records presented by DOT will not be disturbed. [*282] Finally, DOT contends that [**'11] the finding of not guilty at the April 25, 1989 hearing is a nullity because the District Justice imposed a sentence following Emery's "conviction" and consequently lacked jurisdiction to conduct the April 25th hearing. DOT .../retrieve?_m=efd0fedac42aafd30be5 f58d2d8c063 a&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum= 1 &_startdoc= 5/29/2001 Get a Document - by Citation - 135 Pa. Commw. 274 Page 6 0£6 argues that, under Commonwealth v. Bassion, 390 Pa.Superior Ct. 564, 568 A.2d 1316 (1990), Emery's sole means of challenging the suspension was to appeal the underlying conviction to the court of common pleas. That case does not apply to Emery because there was no conviction to appeal. After Emery entered a plea of not guilty, it was appropriate for the District Justice to initially correct her recordkeeping error and to then proceed to hold a hearing on the November 1988 citation, Moreover, the District Justice would not have held a hearing had she previously imposed a sentence against Emery as DOT would lead this Court to believe. The finding of not guilty was not, therefore, a nullity. Emery contends that DOT's appeal to this Court is frivolous, and therefore, he is entitled to an award of costs including a reasonable counsel fee. ~'An appeal is frivolous within the meaning of Pa. R.A.P. 2744 when an appellant presents no [***~.2] justiciable question, and the appeal is readily recognizable as devoid of merit in that there is little prospect of success. Hewitt v. Commonwealth, 116 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 413, 541 A.2d 1183 (1988), appeal denied, 520 Pa. 620, 554 A.2d 511 (1989). The questions raised by DOT in this appeal present issues of first impression and thus it cannot be said that the appeal is readily recognizable as devoid of merit. This Court therefore finds that DOT's appeal is not frivolous and will decline Emery's request for an award of costs. Accordingly, as the trial court committed no error of law in allowing Emery's appeal nunc pro tunc, and further that the record amply demonstrates competent evidence to support the trial court's decision, this Court must affirm. ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 1990, the December 13, 1989 order of the Court of Common Pleas of ['283] Allegheny County sustaining Appellee Benjamin Howard Emery's appeal of an indefinite license [*~9~.4] suspension imposed by the Department of Transportation is hereby affirmed. Service: LEXSEE® Citation: 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 536 View: Full Date/Time: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 2:11 PM EDT About LEXiS-NEXIS I Terms and Conditions Copyright © 2001 LEXIS-NEXIS Group, All rights reserved. .../retrieve? m=efdOfedac42aafd30be5f58d2d8cO63a& fmtstr=FULL&docnum=l& startdoc=5/29/2001 FRANCES L. TESLAR, Petitioner COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRA/~SPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent : NO. 2001-1349 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - I~.W IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2001, after hearing, Petitioner's appeal is sustained, and the action of the Department in suspending her operating privileges pursuant to Section 1544 is reversed. By the Court, E~ido, Chadwick O. Bogar, Esquire ~ For the Petitioner ~ George Kabusk, Esquire k ~ ~ For the Respondent . ~' \~