M. Mshimba v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, M. Mshimba v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing

Licensee Mwavua Mshimba was cited March 23, 2015 for driving with a suspended license (DUS) and convicted May 21, 2015; DOT mailed a one‑year suspension notice May 29, 2015 effective July 3, 2015.
DOT’s certified driving record showed an earlier suspension effective December 15, 2014 based on a November 24, 2014 notice for failure to make regular payments on fines from a 2014 citation; the license was later reinstated March 26, 2015.
Licensee timely appealed the administrative suspension to the trial court and testified he (1) made installment payments to the magisterial district court and (2) never received DOT’s November 24, 2014 suspension notice.
The trial court denied the license‑suspension appeal; Licensee’s collateral criminal appeal of the DUS conviction was dismissed as untimely and affirmed by the Superior Court.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court: DOT met its prima facie burden with certified records; Licensee’s payment receipts and denial of receipt were not a proper collateral attack on the conviction and did not overcome DOT’s showing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOT improperly suspended Licensee in Dec. 2014 because Licensee made required installment payments	Licensee: receipts prove timely payments so no basis for DOT’s Nov. 2014 suspension	DOT: certified records show the suspension was issued and Licensee was under suspension when cited; civil appeal cannot collaterally attack the criminal conviction	Held: Rejected Licensee — his payment evidence did not permit collateral attack; DOT met prima facie burden and suspension stands
Whether DOT must prove Licensee actually received the Nov. 24, 2014 notice	Licensee: he did not receive the mailed notice, so lacked actual notice of suspension	DOT: proof of mailing to correct address (certified driving record) creates rebuttable mailbox presumption; DOT need not prove actual receipt	Held: Rejected Licensee — mailing evidence sufficed and Licensee’s denial did not overcome the presumption
Whether the civil suspension appeal may revisit the merits of the underlying DUS conviction	Licensee: argues administrative defects (payments/notice) rendered the earlier suspension improper, excusing DUS	DOT: civil suspension appeal is limited to whether conviction occurred and DOT acted per law; cannot collaterally relitigate conviction	Held: Civil appeal may not be used to attack the underlying criminal conviction; because conviction stood, the one‑year suspension follows

Kalina v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 929 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (initial burden on DOT to produce conviction record; burden then shifts to licensee)
Passel v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 928 A.2d 381 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (same rule on prima facie showing by DOT)
Tarnopolinski v. Dep’t of Transp., 626 A.2d 138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (DOT must show conviction and lawful action to support suspension)
Zeitlen v. Dep’t of Transp., 525 A.2d 876 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (evidentiary standards for administrative suspension appeals)
Grasse v. Dep’t of Transp., 606 A.2d 544 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (proof of mailing raises rebuttable presumption of receipt under mailbox rule)
Rinehart v. Dep’t of Transp., 537 A.2d 930 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (civil suspension appeals cannot be used to collaterally attack criminal convictions)
Kane v. Commonwealth, 333 A.2d 925 (Pa. 1975) (to convict for operating with suspended license, actual notice of suspension is an element; mailing evidence is admissible but not conclusive)
Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 761 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2014) (mailbox rule presumption for regular mail can be rebutted by competent evidence)