J. Blystone v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
745 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- Licensee (Blystone) had four convictions under the Drug Act (35 P.S. §780-113(a)(16)) with offense dates in 1998, 2000, 2012, and 2014.
- The Pennsylvania DOT suspended his driving privileges under 75 Pa.C.S. §1532(c)(1)(iii) for two years based on the fourth Drug Act conviction (a third-or-subsequent-offense suspension).
- Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which found two prior convictions were “very old” (over a decade) and reduced the suspension from two years to one year.
- The Department appealed the common pleas’ reduction, arguing Section 1532(c) contains no temporal look-back limit for prior Drug Act convictions.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed statutory text and precedent, focusing on whether courts may impose a de facto 10-year look-back (as exists in DUI law) where the statute is silent.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed common pleas, holding the plain language of §1532(c)(1)(iii) required reinstatement of the two-year suspension because the Department’s certified conviction records were conclusive and no legislative time limit exists in that provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common pleas could limit §1532(c) by excluding older Drug Act convictions from the enhancement | Blystone: older convictions (15+ years) are too remote; court should reduce penalty | DOT: §1532(c) contains no look-back limit; certified convictions trigger mandatory suspension | Commonwealth Court: Courts cannot add a temporal limitation; two-year suspension required |
| Whether Department met its burden to prove prior convictions | Blystone: implied challenge based on remoteness and equities | DOT: introduced certified records, satisfying burden of production | Commonwealth Court: certified records create conclusive presumption absent clear-and-convincing rebuttal; Licensee produced none |
| Whether public-safety or remedial purposes justify judicially importing a 10-year look-back (analogous to DUI law) | Blystone: public-safety rationale does not implicate remote convictions; equity favors reduction | DOT: legislative silence controls; DUI 10-year limit is explicit and not transferable | Commonwealth Court: legislative language governs; court may not rewrite statute to import a look-back period |
| Whether common pleas misapplied statutory interpretation principles | Blystone: discretion to temper statutory severity | DOT: courts must follow plain statutory text | Commonwealth Court: common pleas erred by adding language absent from the statute; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohamed v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012) (courts may not add language to unambiguous statutes)
- Carter v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 838 A.2d 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (certified conviction records satisfy Department’s burden)
- Orloff v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 912 A.2d 918 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (certified records create a rebuttable presumption of conviction)
- Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Diamond, 616 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (presumption from certified record becomes conclusive absent clear-and-convincing rebuttal)
- Dick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 3 A.3d 703 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (licensee must challenge record regularity or introduce direct evidence to rebut conviction presumption)
- Summit School, Inc. v. Department of Education, 108 A.3d 192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (courts should not imply statutory language omitted by legislature)
- Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Prekop, 627 A.2d 223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (inclusion in one statutory section and exclusion in another implies intent)
- Plowman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 635 A.2d 124 (Pa. 1993) (purposes of Drug Act suspensions include deterrence and preventing proliferation of drug use)