Commonwealth v. Harden
103 A.3d 107
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Harden appeals a February 12, 2014 judgment of sentence after a summary appeal affirmed his conviction for driving while suspended.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; the court granted withdrawal and proceeded to review the merits.
- Harden was initially cited May 20, 2011 for refusing a chemical test under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547; suspension issued but became effective July 29, 2013 due to prior suspensions.
- On July 15, 2013 Harden was cited for § 1543(b)(1) (driving with suspended license); he was found guilty in absentia after failing to appear for a summary appeal.
- At the February 12, 2014 summary appeal, Officer McGee testified Harden’s driving record showed a suspension (DUI-related) and Harden provided only a name and date of birth; Harden claimed later he operated the vehicle.
- The trial court convicted Harden of § 1543(b)(1) and imposed 60 days’ incarceration and a $500 fine plus costs; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of actual notice of suspension. | Harden argues the record lacks proof of actual notice. | Commonwealth contends mailed notice plus circumstantial factors suffice. | Not solely mailing suffices; there must be additional facts; record supports actual notice. |
| Whether the evidence supports actual notice under the applicable case law. | Harden cites Kane to require actual notice beyond mailed notices. | Commonwealth argues Dietz/Crockford allow inference of notice with mailing plus other factors. | Record contains sufficient additional factors (e.g., prior suspensions, failing to present license, identification issues) to infer notice. |
| Whether timing of suspensions defeats § 1543(b)(1) applicability given a DUI-related suspension pending. | Harden contends timing negates § 1543(b)(1) applicability. | Nuno Jenner doctrines apply; once notice of DUI suspension is issued, § 1543(b) applies for duration of suspension. | Jenner/Nuno control; timing does not defeat application of § 1543(b)(1). |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders and whether any nonfrivolous issues exist. | Harden had potential sufficiency issue. | Counsel complied with Santiago/Nischan requirements. | Counsel’s withdrawal granted; appeal deemed frivolous; no meritorious issues identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kane, 333 A.2d 925 (Pa. 1975) (actual notice required; mailed notice alone is insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Jenner, 681 A.2d 1266 (Pa. 1996) (DUI-related suspension triggers § 1543(b) for duration of suspension)
- Commonwealth v. Nuno, 559 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 1989) (notice of DUI suspension subjects defendant to § 1543(b))
- Commonwealth v. Crockford, 660 A.2d 1326 (Pa. Super. 1995) (collection of facts may infer notice)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 514 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 1986) (notice mailed plus additional facts support notice)
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 445 A.2d 1304 (Pa. Super. 1982) (notice mailed with conduct suggesting knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Dietz, 621 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. 1993) (facts beyond mailing show knowledge of suspension)
- Commonwealth v. Zimmick, 653 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 1995) (list of factors for actual notice)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 93 A.3d 847 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- Commonwealth v. Horney, 529 A.2d 18 (Pa. Super. 1987) (notice evidence can be direct or circumstantial)