Commonwealth v. Sales
173 A.3d 825
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On May 16, 2016 Trooper Morningstar stopped Scotty Joe Sales, a Kentucky CDL holder, for speeding on I-70 in Pennsylvania and learned Sales’ Kentucky CDL had been suspended effective March 27, 2016.
- Sales was cited for speeding and for driving while commercial operating privilege suspended (75 Pa.C.S. § 1606(c)(1)(ii)); a magisterial judge convicted him and the speeding conviction was later withdrawn.
- Sales appealed; at the de novo trial-level hearing Trooper Morningstar testified Sales gave a shrug/cock-of-head when told his license was suspended; Sales testified he was unaware of any suspension and denied receiving notice.
- The Commonwealth introduced Sales’ Kentucky driving record showing a suspension date but no proof that Kentucky mailed notice as required by KRS § 186.570(4).
- The trial court found the evidence insufficient to prove Sales had actual notice of the suspension and Sales was convicted at trial; the Superior Court reversed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth proved Sales had notice of his Kentucky CDL suspension under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1606(c)(1)(ii) | Commonwealth relied on Kentucky driving record and Trooper’s observation of Sales’ indifferent reaction to infer notice | Sales denied knowledge and denied receipt of any suspension notice; no proof Kentucky mailed first-class notice to his last known address | Reversed: Commonwealth failed to prove actual notice; driving record alone insufficient and no proof of mailing under Kentucky law |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rose, 820 A.2d 164 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requires proof of actual notice of out‑of‑state CDL suspension for conviction under § 1606)
- Commonwealth v. Crockford, 660 A.2d 1326 (Pa. Super. 1995) (discusses actual vs. constructive notice and proof approaches)
- Commonwealth v. Heberling, 678 A.2d 794 (Pa. Super. 1996) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Vetrini, 734 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. 1999) (evidence weighting and sufficiency principles)
- Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 668 A.2d 1143 (Pa. Super. 1995) (related sufficiency law cited for burden of proof rules)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 939 S.W.2d 336 (Ky. 1997) (Kentucky precedent that a certified driver history can prove suspension under Kentucky statute; distinguished here)