Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-5969 JOSHUA MONIGHAN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : : COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF : TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF : No. 13-5969 CIVIL DRIVERS LICENSING : : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Hess, P.J., May 23, 2014:-- Appellant Joshua Monighan filed an appeal from an indefinite suspension of his driver’s license by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”). After a hearing before this court, the appeal was remanded to PennDOT for corrective action. Appellant Monighan filed the instant appeal along with a Statement of Matters Complained of. The facts of this case are anything but straightforward. On May 10, 2009, PennDOT was notified by the state of Florida that Mr. Monighan had failed to pay the fines and costs of a citation issued in Florida. (Notes of Testimony, In Re: License Suspension Appeal, January 17, 2014 at 3 (hereinafter “N.T. at __”)). On August 18, 2009, PennDOT informed Mr. Monighan of the impending suspension as a result of the outstanding balance owed to the state of Florida. (N.T. at 9). On September 22, 2009 PennDOT indefinitely suspended Mr. Monighan’s driver’s license under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533(b). Sixteen months later, on January 21, 2011, Mr. Monighan was pulled over by a police officer and informed that he was driving under a suspended license due to outstanding costs and fines from the Florida citation. (N.T. at 5). At this time, Mr. Monighan was cited for a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543, driving while under suspended license. (N.T. at 5). Upon notification by the officer that his license was suspended, Mr. Monighan attempted to contact the Volusia County Court in Florida and satisfy the outstanding fines and costs. (N.T. at 17-18). However the debt was not satisfied at that time, as the debt had been referred to a collection agency. (N.T. at 18). Mr. Monighan did not attempt to remit payment to the collection agency. (N.T. at 18). On April 21, 2011, PennDOT notified Mr. Monighan that his license was to be suspended for one (1) year because of the violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543 that occurred on January 21, 2011. (N.T. at 10). That one year suspension apparently became effective when Mr. Monighan surrendered his driver’s license on February 14, 2013. (N.T. at 11). On September 13, 2013, PennDOT notified Mr. Monighan that his license was indefinitely suspended under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533(a) as a result of his failure to pay costs and fines associated with the January 21, 2011 § 1543 citation. (N.T. at 10). It is from this second indefinite suspension that Mr. Monighan is appealing. (N.T. at 6). On December 10, 2013, Mr. Monighan obtained a letter from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles indicating that his obligations had been satisfied and he only needed to show the letter and pay reinstatement fees in order for his driving privileges to be restored. (N.T. at 23). On December 23, 2013, Mr. Monighan showed this letter to PennDOT and had apparently satisfied his remaining obligations. (N.T. at 13). During the appeal hearing, PennDOT was seeking remand to correct their records to reflect the satisfaction of Mr. Monighan’s obligations, as, once corrected, the 2 appeal before the court would be moot. (N.T. at 11). Mr. Monighan meanwhile maintained that the second indefinite suspension should never have occurred because he was never notified by Florida of the outstanding costs and fines and therefore should not have had his license suspended the first time under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533(b). (N.T. at 26). This is also the basis upon which Mr. Monighan files the instant appeal, alleging some sort of besmirchment of his reputation because his license was based on a non- existent conviction. (Statement of Matter Complained of, filed Mar. 17, 2014). Despite appealing from the 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533(a) suspension, Mr. Monighan’s arguments revolve solely around the § 1533(b) suspension. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533(b) says: \[t\]he department shall suspend the operating privilege of any person who has failed to respond to … any state which has entered into an enforcement agreement with the department … for any violation of the motor vehicle laws of such state … or who has failed to pay any fine or costs import by such court upon being duly notified in accordance with the laws of such jurisdiction in which the violation occurred. Mr. Monighan argues that because he was not convicted in Florida, this necessarily means that he should not have had his license suspended here in Pennsylvania. This argument carries no weight. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533 does not require a conviction in order to impose a suspension. All that is needed is that an individual failed to respond to a citation or failed to pay a fine or costs. Mr. Monighan also maintains that he was never notified by Florida that he owed a fine or costs. (N.T. at 25). This contention is also without merit. In fact, Mr. Monighan admitted that, when he received the citation from the Florida police officer, he was notified of his obligations and what would occur if he failed to pay 3 the fine. (N.T. at 29). Mr. Monighan also complains that the language of the citation issued in Florida is a product of the executive and not the judicial branch of that state. (N.T. at 29, 33). That the language of a citation given by a police officer can be the product of a court-made rule appears lost on Mr. Monighan. In any event, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533(b) only requires that the individual be notified by the issuing jurisdiction, not notified by a letter from the court of that jurisdiction. In summation, Mr. Monighan received a citation in Florida that conveyed to him the obligations imposed by that state. (N.T. at 29). Mr. Monighan failed to satisfy those obligations, and Florida subsequently informed the Commonwealth of that fact under the Driver License Compact authorized by 75 Pa.C.S. § 6146. (N.T. at 3). The Commonwealth informed Mr. Monighan of the impending suspension and provided him with the information necessary to remedy the deficiency. (N.T. at 9). Therefore, Mr. Monighan’s indefinite suspension for the Florida citation was proper under the provisions of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533(b) because the Commonwealth has proven he was notified of the citation and failed to pay the fine imposed. Com. v. Utley, 13 Pa. D. & C.3d 643 (1980) (holding suspension only proper when the Commonwealth has proven the individual failed to respond upon being duly notified of the citation). Since the underlying suspension was proper, and because Mr. Monighan eventually satisfied the obligations of both Florida and the Commonwealth (N.T. at 7, 31), the proper recourse is to remand the appeal to PennDOT to allow for 4 the update of their records and the removal of the indefinite suspensions of 1 Mr. Monighan’s driver’s license. BY THE COURT, _____________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. Joshua Monighan 6363 Basehore Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Philip M. Bricknell, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel rd Riverfront Office Center, 3 Floor 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 :rlm 1 Mr. Monighan has, essentially, appealed an order that is favorable to him. A remand by this court will restore his license much sooner than the same action by the Commonwealth Court. To this extent, Mr. Monighan has done a masterful job of cutting off his nose to spite his face. 5