Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1684 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH VS. ALL STAR CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH C/O RUSS SWARTZ · CHARGE: · AFFIANT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 97-1684 CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM SUMMARY: (1) USE OF DEALER REGISTRATION PLATES (2) REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE REQUIRED (3) REQUIRED FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PTL. JOHN KIDMAN IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 The defendant, All Star Chrysler Plymouth, has appealed the decision of this court that it violated 75 Pa.C.S. section 1336(a), by allowing an unauthorized use of dealership plates· The defendant claims in the Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal that there is no evidence at the trial which indicated a violation of the named statute on May 6, 1997. On May 6, 1997, Officer John Kidman of the Camp Hill police department, while on patrol duty, pulled over a maroon Oldsmobile with dealer plates and a registration sticker that had expired in July of 1996. Officer Kidman ran the plates of the car and discovered that the car was registered to the defendant. The driver was Philip S. Gatton and he was unable to produce any registration information, but he explained why he was driving the vehicle· Mr. Gatton did not testify, so we are unaware of what was said, but his wife, Mary Jo Gatten, testified as to why they were in possession of a car registered in the defendant's name. Mrs. Gatton said that she decided to purchase the car from the defendant's car dealership on March 6, 1996. She dealt with a sales representative by the name ofLindsey Sisti. After 97-1684 CRIMINAL agreeing to a price of around $10,500, which included a trade-in of the Gatton's 1987 Ford Mustang, Mr. Sisti informed Mrs. Gatton that she could drive the vehicle offthe lot with the dealer plates. Mrs. Gatton had not paid for the car and Mr. Sisti said the dealership would call her when the paper work was prepared. Apparently, Mr. Sisti left his employment with the dealership a few days later. Subsequently, no one from the dealership called Mrs. Gatton to inform her about the paperwork. Rather, Mrs. Gatton called the dealership in the first week of April in 1996. She was told that the paperwork was not complete and told to be patient. She continued to call the dealership over the course of the ensuing months with no results. She knew the registration on the dealer plates would expire after July and called the Attorney General's Office to ask for assistance. 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1336, titled "Use of dealer registration plates," lists the manners in which a vehicle being held for sale with dealer plates may be used. By allowing one of its vehicles to be driven off its lot by a prospective purchaser for more than five days we believe the defendant went beyond any of the uses listed. Specifically, section 1336(a)(5) provides that the vehicle can be "[loaned] to a prospective purchaser for a period not exceeding five days for the purpose of demonstrating the vehicle." The defendant's use of the plates went well beyond the scope of this allowance. In fact, by May 6, 1997, the vehicle had been permitted to be operated for more than a year with dealer registration plates. This occurred, despite the fact that Mrs. Gatton had placed the dealership on notice on numerous occasions. 97-1684 CRIMINAL We further note that All Star Chrysler Plymouth is subject to the penalty as a "person" under section 1336. 75 Pa.C.S. section 102 defines person as "a natural person, firm, copartnership, association or corporation." Moreover, it is clear that the statute applies to the dealer and to vehicles which continue to be "owned" by the dealer as opposed to the customer to whom the car was loaned. See 75 Pa.C.S. 1336. In addition, the Crimes Code, at 18 Pa.C.S. 307, makes it clear that a corporation may be convicted of the condition of an offense iff 1. The offen~e is a summary offense or the offense is defined by a statute other than this title in which a legislative purpose to impose liability on corporations plainly appears and the conduct is performed by an agent of the corporation acting in behalf of the corporation within the scope of his office or employment... 18 Pa.C.S. 307(a). The defendant in this case is a corporation. As such, the acts of its employees are clearly chargeable to it. In fact, we can think of no more classic violation of Section 1336 than the one with which we are here presented. January Q q 1998 Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney L. C. Heim, Esquire For the Defendant :rim ess, J.