HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2182 criminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. 02-2182 CRIMINAL TERM
CHARGE: DRIVING UNDER SUSPENSION
JUSTIN BRADLEY
IN RE: 1925 OPINION
HOFFER, P.J.: "~
The defendant appeals his conviction for Driving Under Suspension. His
sole reason is stated as follows:
"1. The trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty of Driving
Under Suspension, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1543(a), when the Commonwealth
failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish the required element that
the defendant have actual notice of his drivers license suspension.
Commonwealth v. Kane, 460 Pa. 582,333 A.2d 925 (1975)."
On August 9, 2001, a policeman made a legal stop of a motor vehicle
which was being driven by the defendant. Defendant could not produce a
driver's license. Defendant said he did not have his license.
Defendant gave his current address to the police officer as 1065 Nanroc
Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
A certified driving record indicated two suspensions for defendant. The
first, for a violation on December 30, 2000, was mailed out by official notice on
March 27, 2001; the second, for a violation May 27, 2001, was mailed out by
official notice on July 2, 2001. Both notices were mailed to defendant's address
of record with PennDOT, 130 Hickory Road, Carlisle, PA. This PennDOT
certification was made on August 10, 2001.
The defendant's story is that he had given PennDOT an address of: P.O.
Box 142, New Kingstown, PA, in approximately August 2000. Defendant
indicated that his old address was 130 Hickory Road until June 2000. Defendant ~.
intimated that he called someone at PennDOT after August 9, 2001. Defendant ~,
claims he did not receive~notice of any s~pension~but he made the following
statement:
"It [the suspension notice] was sent to that address [130 Hickory Road],
which would have been forwarded to my P.O. Box address, I had set that up."
(N.T.p. 17.)
This admission belies his denial of any suspension notice.
An additional PennDOT record reveals that PennDOT was not furnished
defendant's 1065 Nanroc Road address until sometime after August 10, 2001.
This whole matter is controlled by Commonwealth v. Heckman, 590 A.2d
1261 (Pa. Superior 1991):
"When a defendant fails to notify PennDOT of a change in address
pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1515, the defendant cannot rely on this violation
of the law to insulate him from more serious violation by claiming lack of
actual notice."
2