16 A.3d 545
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Cesare was convicted of driving while his operating privileges were suspended on Sept. 2 and Sept. 3, 1998 under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b).
- The Department imposed two two-year add-on revocations, one for each 1998 violation, by notices dated Dec. 16, 1998 and Jan. 14, 1999, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(c)(2).
- Cesare timely appealed the revocation resulting from the Sept. 2, 1998 violation; the underlying conviction was upheld on appeal.
- In 2002, the Department reimposed the Sept. 2 revocation after Cesare withdrew his earlier appeal; an order dated Feb. 14, 2003 (mailed Feb. 24, 2003) indicated withdrawal, with notice to the Department on Feb. 28, 2003.
- The Department took no further action until Aug. 10, 2006, when it reimposed the two-year revocation effective July 7, 2008, prompting Cesare to again appeal in the trial court.
- The trial court found the Department’s 42-month delay in reimposing the revocation prejudicial to Cesare; the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding no prejudice and addressing waiver and related arguments against the Department.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Department’s 42-month delay prejudicial? | Cesare: delay caused detriment and prejudice. | Department: no prejudice; delay did not change Cesare’s circumstances. | No prejudicial effect established; delay insufficient to sustain appeal. |
| Did Cesare change his circumstances to his detriment due to the delay? | Cesare relied on delay, considered selling his business, and claimed prejudice. | No admissible change in circumstances at the time of conviction; not enough to show prejudice. | No change in circumstances at conviction supported prejudice; speculative sales discussions insufficient. |
| Did ongoing suspensions/pending revocations nullify the prejudice claim? | Cesare’s history of other suspensions showed prejudice from delay. | Pending suspensions do not establish prejudice from delay of the targeted revocation. | Prejudice not established by ongoing history; delay not shown to cause detriment. |
| Was the Department’s argument on prejudice waived because not raised below? | Department waived prejudice issue by not raising it earlier. | Department preserved prejudice argument; not waived. | Department did not waive the prejudice issue; it was preserved and properly argued. |
| What is the proper burden-shifting framework for delay claims in this context? | Delay proves prejudice under Fisher/Terraciano framework if evidence shows detriment. | Department met its burden re: delay; burden shifted to Cesare for prejudice, which was not proven. | Department’s delay was proven; Cesare failed to prove actual prejudice; therefore no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Dep't. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 682 A.2d 1353 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996) (prejudice shown by reliance on Department assurances and misimpression of license status)
- Terraciano v. Dep't. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 562 Pa. 60, 753 A.2d 233 (Pa. 2000) (prejudice requires changed circumstances based on belief license would not be impaired)
- Grover v. Dep't. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 734 A.2d 941 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (delay must be shown to cause prejudice beyond administrative inaction)
- Kirk, Dep't. of Transp. v. William A. Kirk, 410 A.2d 97 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1980) (prejudice can be based on changes in driving-related opportunities due to delay)
- Bennett v. Dep't. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 642 A.2d 1139 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994) (illustrates prejudice from changing jobs for driving-related duties)