C.R. Vance v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
C.R. Vance v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing - 1621 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 24, 2017Background
- On June 28, 2016 PennDOT notified Connor Vance of a one-year suspension under 75 Pa.C.S. §1543(c)(1) based on his August 21, 2014 conviction for driving with a suspended license (citation dated August 9, 2014).
- PennDOT introduced certified records at the show-cause hearing: the conviction record, two October 11, 2013 notices of indefinite suspension (effective Nov. 1, 2013) for unpaid fines/costs, and Vance’s certified driving history showing the suspensions remained in effect through August 9, 2014.
- Vance (pro se) and his mother testified they repeatedly tried to resolve the 2013 citations but encountered misdirection, a closed Luzerne County district court, missing notice of magistrate hearings, and mismatched addresses that impeded contact and resolution.
- The trial court found Vance’s and his mother’s testimony credible and sustained Vance’s appeal, rescinding the one-year suspension on due process/fundamental fairness grounds.
- The Commonwealth Court agreed PennDOT met its prima facie burden that the conviction and preexisting suspension supported the one-year penalty, and that Vance’s testimony of unawareness did not rebut the records.
- Because the record showed possible administrative breakdowns in handling the 2013 matters, the court vacated the trial court’s order but remanded to hold the suspension appeal in abeyance to allow Vance to seek leave to file nunc pro tunc appeals of the underlying convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PennDOT met its burden to suspend driving privilege under §1543(c)(1) | Vance argued due process/fundamental fairness because administrative errors prevented timely resolution of prior citations | PennDOT argued certified records show (1) conviction for §1543(a) and (2) license was suspended on date of offense, satisfying §1543(c)(1) | PennDOT met prima facie burden; certified records supported the suspension and Vance’s testimony of ignorance did not rebut them |
| Whether Vance could collaterally attack prior convictions in the suspension appeal | Vance effectively sought relief based on failures to notify and administrative misdirection that prevented appeal | PennDOT maintained collateral attack on convictions is impermissible in license suspension proceedings | Court held collateral attack is impermissible; licensee must rebut records with clear and convincing evidence, which Vance did not provide |
| Whether the record justified equitable relief (nunc pro tunc appeal) due to administrative breakdown | Vance pointed to misdirecting notices, closed court, and lack of notice as extraordinary circumstances | PennDOT acknowledged potential administrative breakdown and agreed relief like Piasecki could be appropriate | Court found the factual record could show an administrative breakdown; remanded to hold the suspension appeal in abeyance to allow nunc pro tunc appeals |
| Remedy if nunc pro tunc relief not pursued or denied | Vance sought immediate rescission of suspension to avoid further bureaucratic delay | PennDOT asked for remand consistent with Piasecki, not outright rescission | Court vacated trial court’s rescission, remanded with directions to stay the suspension appeal while Vance seeks nunc pro tunc relief; if unsuccessful or not pursued within a reasonable time, trial court to resolve the suspension consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Piasecki v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 6 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (narrow equitable relief—hold suspension in abeyance to permit nunc pro tunc appeal where administrative breakdown shown)
- Zawacki v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 745 A.2d 701 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (Department bears initial burden to establish record of conviction supports suspension)
- Orndoff v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 654 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (requirements for suspension under §1543(c)(1) and inability to rely on unawareness as rebuttal)
- Carter v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 838 A.2d 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (burden shifts to licensee to rebut records by clear and convincing evidence)
- Duffey, Commonwealth v., 639 A.2d 1174 (Pa. 1994) (licensee may not collaterally attack underlying criminal conviction in civil suspension proceeding)
- Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 127 A.3d 871 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (nunc pro tunc appeals permitted only for extraordinary circumstances such as administrative breakdown)