127 A.3d 840
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- On March 16, 2014 Officer Slater stopped Nathan Kriegler and discovered he held an occupational limited license (OLL) issued after a DUI conviction and related suspension.
- OLLs permit limited driving (work, school, or scheduled/emergency medical treatment) while the underlying operating privilege remains suspended.
- Kriegler admitted he was not driving to or from work or school and was not enrolled in school; he claimed he drove because his daughter had a migraine and he had taken over driving.
- Neither Kriegler nor his daughter said they were en route to a medical facility; the daughter was able to drive away after the stop.
- He was charged with driving while operating privilege suspended or revoked (DUI-related), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1). After a non-jury trial he was convicted and sentenced to 60 days imprisonment and a $500 fine.
- Kriegler appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence and (2) that he should have been convicted under the more specific OLL-misuse provision § 1553(f)(3) (lesser penalty) rather than § 1543(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kriegler should have been convicted under the more specific OLL-misuse provision (§ 1553(f)(3)) instead of § 1543(b)(1) | Commonwealth: may prosecute under both statutes; § 1543(b)(1) imposes stiffer penalty for driving while DUI-suspended and applies when an OLL holder drives outside restrictions. | Kriegler: general/specific rule requires conviction under the more specific § 1553(f)(3) (lesser penalty) rather than the general § 1543. | Rejected defendant’s reliance on general/specific rule; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9303 permits prosecution under both; § 1543 applies when OLL conditions are violated and carries the stiffer penalty. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove driving while DUI-suspended | Commonwealth: record and admission prove Kriegler was DUI-suspended and he was driving outside OLL restrictions (not going for emergency medical treatment). | Kriegler: he acted under OLL exception because he drove due to his daughter’s medical emergency (migraine) and transported her to a place to recuperate. | Evidence sufficient. Court found no emergency medical treatment was sought or intended; daughter could drive after the stop; transporting her to her dormitory did not constitute emergency medical treatment. Conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (statutory abrogation of the general/specific rule for criminal prosecutions)
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 897 A.2d 504 (Pa. Super. 2006) (legislature can create graduated penalty schemes for specific offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Tisdale, 100 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 2014) (apply specific lesser offense when legislature intended graduated penalties)
- Commonwealth v. Javit, 734 A.2d 922 (Pa. Super. 1999) (possession of a restricted/probationary license does not negate underlying suspension)
- In re N.W., 6 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2010) (single course of conduct may violate multiple statutes)