HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-0000111-2009
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. : CHARGE: FAILURE TO PRODUCE VALID
: INSURANCE/REGISTRATION
: CARDS
GEORGE MACKIE :
CORNWALL, III : NO. CP-21-SA-0111-2009
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., October 9, 2009.
In this summary offense case, Defendant has filed a pro se appeal to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court from a judgment of sentence in the form of a $25
1
fine for failure to exhibit evidence of valid registration and insurance coverage to
2
a police officer upon request. The offense occurred in November of 2008, during
the pendency of an appeal by Defendant from a similar conviction involving the
3
same vehicle in July of that year.
The basis for Defendant’s present appeal can not be ascertained because he
has failed to comply with an order directing that he file a statement of errors
4
complained of on appeal.
1
Order of Court, July 31, 2009.
2
Defendant’s Notice of Appeal of Verdict in Trial de Novo, filed August 31, 2009.
3
See Commonwealth’s Ex. 3 (record from earlier proceeding involving charge of failure to
maintain a valid registration and certificate of title), In re: Opinion Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925
(containing history of earlier prosecution). The earlier case was ultimately disposed of by a
dismissal of Defendant’s appeal by the Pennsylvania Superior Court under Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 3517 (failure to file docketing statement). See Commonwealth’s Ex. 3
(record from earlier proceeding involving charge of failure to maintain a valid registration and
certificate of title).
4
See Order of Court, September 11, 2009. Defendant has likewise failed to comply with
directions of the court that he comply with Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring service of
notice of the appeal upon the trial judge, court reporter and district attorney, and filing and service
upon the stenographer of an order directing the transcription and filing of the trial notes of
testimony, and that he pay to the stenographer one-half of the estimated charge of the transcript
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 5000.6 as a condition precedent to
preparation and filing of the same. See id. The order of court to which Defendant has not
responded was sent to the Oregon address which Defendant supplied to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court in connection with his appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
As the result of a vehicle stop on November 24, 2008, in the Borough of
Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Defendant received
citations for (a) failure to exhibit evidence of valid registration and insurance
5
coverage in response to a request of a police officer, (b) violation of vehicle
6
equipment standards, and (c) failure to comply with the requirements of a police
7
officer. He pled not guilty, was found guilty in absentia by a magisterial district
89
judge, and filed an appeal to this court.
At the trial de novo before this court, the Commonwealth withdrew the
10
charge respecting an equipment violation. With respect to the charge involving a
failure to exhibit evidence of valid registration and insurance coverage, Defendant
conceded in his own testimony that his insurance on the vehicle in question had
11
lapsed prior to the stop and that the facts in existence at the time of his first
violation with respect to the registration had not basically changed as of the
1213
current alleged violation. In each case, Defendant took the position that he
lived primarily in Oregon, notwithstanding numerous indicia of primary residence
in Pennsylvania, including home ownership in Mount Holly Springs, address on
his Pennsylvania driver’s license of Mount Holly Springs, etc. At the de novo trial
Due to Defendant’s failure to order transcription and filing of the trial notes of testimony, and
payment of one-half the estimated cost of the transcript, citations to the notes of testimony herein
are in brackets, based upon a rough draft of the notes of testimony.
5
See 75 Pa. C.S. §6308(a).
6
See 75 Pa. C.S. §4107(a)(1).
7
See 75 Pa. C.S. §6311.
8
N.T. [49], Trial, July 14, 2009.
9
Notice of Appeal, filed May 27, 2009; see Transcript, Magisterial District Judge, TR-0007632-
08, TR-0007633-08, TR-0007629-08.
10
See Order of Court, July 14, 2009.
11
N.T. [39], Trial, July 14, 2009.
12
N.T. [49], Trial, July 14, 2009.
2
in the present case, he also admitted that he had voted in Pennsylvania in April of
14
2008.
With respect to the charge involving a failure to comply with the
requirements of a police officer, the Chief of Police of Mount Holly Springs
Borough testified as follows:
Q Now, prior to November 24th of 2008, had you had any
contact with the defendant?
A Multiple times.
Q What consisted of that contact?
A Well, the first time I think that I had contact with Mr.
Cornwall was roughly January 2007. At that time there was a dispute
between he and a gentleman that he was buying the property that he
currently has. At that time my notes said Mr. Cornwall had an Oregon
registration on, and I was informed that Mr. Cornwall had been there [in
Mount Holly] since roughly September, and it was concerning settlement
on the property.
At that time I advised Mr. Cornwall for the first time that he would
have to be changing his registration to Pennsylvania because he was a
resident. At that time Mr. Cornwall also had an Oregon driver’s license,
and roughly, I don’t know, over the course of—up until Officer Petty had
cited Mr. Cornwall the first time, I had probably warned him and talked to
him no less than probably five, maybe six times and advised him to change
his registration to Pennsylvania.
He did change his driver’s license to Pennsylvania, and I’m not
exactly sure when. I did have a printout of that, but I’m aware that Mr.
Cornwall had registered to vote in Pennsylvania through voter registration.
15
He pays taxes in Pennsylvania. He has property in Pennsylvania. . . .
At the conclusion of the de novo trial, the court took the case under
advisement. On July 31, 2009, the court entered a verdict finding Defendant not
guilty of failure to comply with the requirements of a police officer and guilty of
13
The record from the earlier case, including the court’s opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule
of Appellate Procedure 1925, is an exhibit in the present case. See Commonwealth’s Ex. 3.
14
N.T. [44-45], Trial, July 14, 2009.
15
N.T. [19-20], Trial, July 14, 2009.
3
16
failing to exhibit evidence of valid vehicle registration and insurance coverage.
17
On the latter charge, Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $25.00.
From that order, Defendant filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior
18
Court on August 31, 2009.
DISCUSSION
Statement of law. Section 6308(a) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code
provides as follows:
Duty of operator or pedestrian.—
The operator of any vehicle or
any pedestrian reasonably believed to have violated any provision of this
title shall stop upon request or signal of any police officer and shall, upon
request, exhibit a registration card, driver’s license and information
relating to financial responsibility . . . .
75 Pa. C.S. §6308(a).
Section 6311 of the Vehicle Code provides as follows:
If a driver fails or refuses to comply with the requirements of a police
officer . . . given pursuant to this title, the police officer . . . shall have
authority to take the vehicle into temporary custody for the purpose of
inspecting, testing or weighing the vehicle, its equipment, documents or
load. In addition to any fine or penalty attributable to the weight,
inspection, test or other offense, any driver who fails or refuses to comply
commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to
pay a fine of $500. Any costs incurred in weighing, testing or inspecting
shall be paid by the driver to the person or agency incurring the costs or to
the issuing authority for payment to the person or agency incurring the
costs.
75 Pa. C.S. §6311.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, while more narrowly applied in criminal
cases than in civil cases, does have a limited application in criminal cases. See
generally Commonwealth v. Holder, 569 Pa. 474, 805 A.2d 499 (2002). In this
regard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:
We have followed the rule [enunciated elsewhere] in criminal cases,
employing the federal three-part test to determine if collateral estoppel
16
Order of Court, July 31, 2009.
17
Order of Court, July 31, 2009.
18
Defendant’s Notice of Appeal of Verdict in Trial de Novo, filed August 31, 2009.
4
applies to limit further litigation on a particular issue. We engage in the
following inquiries:
1) an identification of the issues in the two actions for
the purpose of determining whether the issues are
sufficiently similar and sufficiently material in both
actions to justify invoking the doctrine;
2) an examination of the record of the prior case to
decide whether the issue was “litigated” in the first case;
and
3) an examination of the record of the prior
proceeding to ascertain whether the issue was necessarily
decided in the first case.
Commonwealth v. States, 595 Pa. 453, 460, 938 A.2d 1016, 1021 (2007) (citations
omitted).
Finally, in criminal law the more particularized statute is, as a general rule,
to be preferred over the general one for purposes of prosecutions. 1 Pa. C.S.
§1933; see Commonwealth v. Kavetny, 583 Pa. 514, 536, 880 A.2d 505, 518
(2005). Furthermore, Section 6311 of the Vehicle Code appears generally to be
19
applied to orders of police relating to the weighing of trucks.
Application of law to facts. In the present case, Defendant conceded that his
insurance on his vehicle had lapsed at the time of its stop and request by a police
officer that he exhibit proof of insurance. In addition, the facts pertinent to
Defendant’s residence at the time of the stop, as was the case in a trial for the same
offense prior to this one, did not support Defendant’s position that his primary
residence was in Oregon rather than Pennsylvania and that the vehicle thus did not
need to be registered in Pennsylvania. For these reasons, the court concluded that
Defendant had been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating Section
6308(a) of the Vehicle Code and sentenced him accordingly for the offense.
19
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Robert H. Carr & Son, 196 Pa. Super. 410, 175 A.2d 111 (1961).
In this regard, it has been said that Section 6311 creates “a summary offense punishable by a
$500 fine for any truck driver to refuse to permit his truck to be weighed when stopped by a
police officer ....” Burkhoff, J.M., Criminal Offenses and Defenses, 15 West’s Pa. Practice,
th
Criminal Offenses and Defenses, V.40 (5 ed.) (2009).
5
The court found Defendant not guilty of violating Section 6311 of the
Vehicle Code, on the theory that Section 6308 represented a more particularized
version of the prohibited conduct under the facts of this case.
BY THE COURT,
_________________
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Office of the District Attorney
George Mackie Cornwall, III
1897 Boca Ratan Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Defendant, pro Se
6