Spagnoletti v. Commonwealth
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 549
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- PennDOT notified Licensee in May 2012 of a five-year operating-privilege revocation for habitual offender status after her third DUI conviction.
- Certified documents, including Licensee’s three DUI convictions and driving history, were admitted; trial court conducted hearings and received further testimony on plea agreements.
- Licensee, proceeding pro se, acknowledged three DUIs within six weeks and described victimization as mitigating, with counsel reportedly not discussing habitual-offender consequences.
- The trial court concluded that lack of prior warning about habitual-offender consequences invalidated the suspension and sustained Licensee’s appeal, rescinding the five-year revocation.
- This Court reversed, holding the habitual-offender designation and the five-year revocation were mandatory under Section 1542 and that lack of notice did not render the suspension invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the five-year revocation mandatory for habitual offenders under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542? | PennDOT: designation is proper and revocation mandatory. | Licensee: trial court may override or rescind due to lack of notice and mitigating circumstances. | Habitual-offender designation and five-year revocation are mandatory. |
| Does lack of notice about habitual-offender consequences invalidate the suspension? | No statutory warning requirement; notices not needed for collateral civil consequences. | Trial court deemed lack of notice invalidates the suspension. | No warning is required; rescission improper; designation remains valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bursick, 526 Pa. 6 (1990) (habitual offender revocation is mandatory, not discretionary)
- Commonwealth v. Duffey, 536 Pa. 436 (1994) (license suspension deemed collateral civil consequence; no need to warn)
- Commonwealth v. Abraham, 619 Pa. 293 (2012) (Padilla and direct vs collateral consequences; ineffective assistance analysis)
- Zanotto v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 475 A.2d 1375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (due process and notice for collateral consequences via de novo hearing)
- Duffey (cited within opinion as part of direct/collateral distinction), 536 Pa. at 440-41 (1994) (license suspension as collateral consequence; no requirement to warn)