Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2485 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH V. MAURICE L. YOUNG IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-2485 CRIMINAL TERM Guido, J., May IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 ,2002 After a bench trial on February 13,2001, we found the defendant guilty of driving under suspension in violation of Section 1543(b) of the Vehicle Code.~ He was sentenced on January 8, 2002.2 He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in this timely appeal. Specifically, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was given actual notice of the DUI related license suspension.3 The standard to be applied in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, are sufficient to establish all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 536 Pa. 355, 639 A.2d 763, (1994). Section 1543(b) of the Vehicle Code provides, in relevant part, as follows: Any person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway or trafficway of this Commonwealth at a time when their operating privilege is suspended or revoked.., because of a violation of section 1547 (b) (1) (relating to suspension for refusal).., shall, upon conviction be guilty of a summary offense and shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and to under go imprisonment for a period of not less than 90 days. ~ 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1543(b). : The defendant was originally scheduled for sentencing on March 27, 2001. However, he failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued. 3 See Amended Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. NO. 2000-2485 CRIMINAL 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1). In addition to the above statutory elements, our appellate courts have added the additional element that the defendant receive "actual notice" of the D.U.I. related suspension. Commonwealth v. Gamble, 376 Pa. Super. 590, 546 A.2d 681 (1988). The notice requirement is "a judicially created element, designed to protect a defendant's due process rights." Commonwealth v. Crockford, 443 Pa. 23, 660 A.2d 1326, 1329 (1995). After hearing the evidence, we were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had received "actual notice" of the D.U.I. related suspension. On February 6, 2000, the defendant was stopped for making a right turn on red at an intersection clearly posted "No Turn on Red.''4 Pursuant to the ensuing traffic stop, the officer discovered that the defendant's license was under suspension. Upon receipt of a certified copy of his driving record, the officer issued a citation under Section 1543(b) of the Vehicle Code. The defendant had been arrested on January 6, 2000, and charged with driving under the influence. He refused to submit to a blood test and was specifically advised that his license would be suspended for one year as a result of the refusal.5 Notice of the suspension was mailed by Penn Dot on January 19, 2000, addressed to the defendant at 4016 Crooked Hill Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17101.6 The suspension was effective on the date of mailing. 4 The defendant was also convicted of violating 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3112 (A)(3)(II). He does not challenge that conviction. s See Commonwealth Exhibit 2. 6 See Commonwealth Exhibit 1. NO. 2000-2485 CRIMINAL The defendant's license had been suspended on at least four prior occasions for failing to respond to citations and on one prior occasion for possession of a controlled substance. Notice of all prior suspensions were mailed to the same address, i.e. 4016 Crooked Hill Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17101 .? Further, the defendant acknowledged that to be his correct address. At the time of the traffic stop, the defendant admitted that his license was under suspension. However, at trial he testified that he told the officer his license was under suspension for unpaid tickets. He also testified that he did not receive the January 19, 2000, notice of his suspension for the test refusal. We did not believe that testimony. We recognize that mailing alone is not sufficient to prove actual notice. Commonwealth v. Kane, 460 Pa. 582, 333 A.2d 925 (1975). However, "evidence of mailing of notice coupled with some other, additional evidence of knowledge will suffice to establish actual notice beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Crockford, supra, 660 A.2d at 1329. There is "no hard and fast rule as to the kinds of proof required to establish actual notice of suspension," id. However, we were guided by the following review of cases made by the Crockford Court: In Commonwealth v. Burkett, supra, 300 Pa. Super. 72, 445 A.2d 1304, for example, this court held that evidence that notice was mailed, combined with evidence that defendant returned his license to the Bureau of Traffic Safety, and that, when stopped by police, defendant switched seats with a passenger, was sufficient to establish actual notice beyond a reasonable doubt. In Commonwealth v. Gray, 356 Pa. Super. 299, 514 A.2d 621 (1986), allocatur denied, 514 Pa. 638, 523 A.2d 345 (1987), we found actual notice where there was evidence that notice was mailed, together 7 We were satisfied that he received those notices since he acknowledged that his license was suspended for "unpaid tickets." Further, the driving record indicates that the department received an affidavit shortly after the last notice was mailed advising the defendant of his suspension for possession of a controlled substance. NO. 2000-2485 CRIMINAL with proof that the defendant had surrendered his license on a previous suspension for which notice was mailed to the same address, as well as evidence that the defendant was not carrying his license when he was stopped. In Commonwealth v. Homey, supra, at 365 Pa. Super. 152, 529 A.2d 18, actual notice was found where there was evidence that notice was mailed, together with defendant's admission that he received an earlier letter at the same address notifying him that he had to take a special exam to keep his driver's license, and evidence that he failed to complete the exam. Commonwealth v. Crockford, supra, 660 A.2d at 1330. In the instant case, we were satisfied that there was sufficient additional evidence to establish actual notice beyond a reasonable doubt. The notice was mailed to the correct address, an address to which prior notices had been mailed and received, and an address at which defendant had lived for nine years. Further, the defendant had been specifically advised on January 6, 2000, that his license would be suspended as a result of the test refusal. He had no license with him at the time of the traffic stop and he admitted to the officer that his license was under suspension. Based upon those facts, we found that the defendant had actual notice of the January 19, 2000, D.U.I. related suspension. DATE: Edward E. Guido, J. Jaime M. Keating, Esquire William G. Braught, Esquire :sld