R.T. Currie v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
142 A.3d 186
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Licensee (Robert T. Currie) was convicted of two DUIs arising from July 20, 2011, and December 8, 2011. The July conviction was certified to DOT in 2012; the December conviction was not certified until April 22, 2015.
- DOT imposed a one-year suspension after the July 2011 conviction effective November 7, 2012; Licensee’s privilege was not restored until March 23, 2015 because he failed to pay required fines.
- After DOT received certification of the December 2011 conviction, it imposed a second one-year suspension effective June 29, 2015 (technically about three years after the conviction but only three months after restoration).
- Licensee appealed the 2015 suspension to the Court of Common Pleas, which after a de novo hearing sustained the appeal, reasoning that the clerk/records office delay in reporting the December conviction prejudiced Licensee and made the suspension unjust.
- DOT appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court (Friedman, S.J.) reversed, applying the en banc Gingrich decision and holding the trial court abused its discretion in finding prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a suspension can be invalidated for unreasonable delay when the delay in reporting convictions is attributable to the clerk/records office rather than DOT | Currie: The clerk’s three-year delay prejudiced him and the late suspension no longer serves public safety; relief is appropriate | DOT: Precedent bars relief unless delay is attributable to DOT; suspension was properly imposed after certification | Under Gingrich, extraordinary clerk delay may justify relief if licensee shows prejudice, but here court held Currie failed to prove prejudice; reversal of trial court |
| Whether Currie demonstrated prejudice from the reporting delay sufficient to defeat suspension | Currie: Loss of ability to obtain NJ license and other consequences after restoration show prejudice | DOT: The second suspension occurred shortly after restoration; first suspension’s extension was due to Currie’s unpaid fines, so delay did not prejudice him | Currie did not demonstrate prejudice because the second suspension would have been consecutive and could not have been served earlier; trial court abused its discretion in finding prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gingrich v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 134 A.3d 528 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (creates limited exception allowing relief for extraordinary clerk delay when licensee shows prejudice)
- Pokoy v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 714 A.2d 1162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (general rule: only delays attributable to DOT invalidate suspensions)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Green, 546 A.2d 767 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (same general rule regarding administrative vs. judicial delay)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Gonzalez, 543 A.2d 231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (consecutive suspensions are required for multiple DUI convictions)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Martin, 517 A.2d 216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (penalties for separate violations may be imposed consecutively)
- Blackwell v. State Ethics Commission, 589 A.2d 1094 (Pa. 1991) (appellate courts apply the law in effect at time of appellate decision)