T. Bellamy v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 14 C.D. 2016

Background

On March 9, 2014 Trooper Oliverio found Tamika Bellamy asleep in the driver’s seat of a vehicle that had struck a guardrail on I-95; keys were in the ignition and the vehicle partially blocked a travel lane.
Bellamy admitted she had been driving home, ran out of gas, backed into the guardrail while trying to pull onto the shoulder, and had taken 7.5 mg of Percocet that morning.
Trooper Oliverio administered field sobriety tests, concluded Bellamy was impaired, arrested her, read implied-consent warnings, and Bellamy refused the chemical test at the hospital.
DOT suspended Bellamy’s license for one year under 75 Pa.C.S. §1547(b)(1)(i) for refusing testing; Bellamy filed a statutory appeal to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas.
Bellamy requested multiple continuances; after several granted continuances, she sought a third continuance for medical reasons but failed to submit medical documentation. She did not appear at the de novo hearing on December 16, 2015.
The trial court dismissed the appeal based on the trooper’s testimony and Bellamy’s nonappearance; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, addressing notice, continuance denial, and sufficiency of evidence (actual physical control/refusal).

Issues

Issue	Bellamy's Argument	DOT's Argument	Held
Whether Bellamy lacked proper notice of the December 16, 2015 hearing	She claimed she did not receive the mailed notice and therefore lacked proper notice	Court Administration contacted her and she later learned of the December 16 date; she had actual notice	Denied — Bellamy admitted she had actual notice; actual notice sufficed
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance	She alleged medical problems from the accident and requested a continuance	Court had previously granted two continuances and required medical proof for another; Bellamy failed to provide documentation	Denied — no abuse of discretion where court conditioned continuance on a doctor’s note which was not produced
Whether DOT proved "actual physical control" while impaired	Bellamy contested that she was in physical control or driving while impaired	Trooper observed vehicle damage, keys in ignition, location on a highway, admission she had been driving, failed sobriety tests, and her admission to taking Percocet; she refused chemical testing after being warned	Held for DOT — totality of circumstances provided reasonable grounds to conclude Bellamy was in actual physical control while under the influence
Whether DOT satisfied refusal and warning elements under §1547	Bellamy argued insufficiency of evidence to suspend for refusal	Trooper testified he read DL-26 implied consent warnings verbatim and Bellamy refused the test	Held for DOT — elements met: arrest, request to submit, refusal, and warning were established

Key Cases Cited

Bartholomew v. State Ethics Comm'n, 795 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (party statements in brief can be treated as judicial admissions)
In re Phillip F., 78 Cal. App. 4th 250 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (actual notice of a continued hearing date can satisfy due process)
Stanford-Gale v. Tax Claim Bureau of Susquehanna County, 816 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (actual notice waives strict statutory notice requirements)
Kollar v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 7 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (elements required to sustain §1547 suspension)
Banner v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 737 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 1999) (totality of circumstances for "actual physical control")
Gammer v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 995 A.2d 380 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (need for objective evidence of control over vehicle movement)
Miller v. Miller, 577 A.2d 205 (Pa. Super. 1990) (denial of continuance proper where court conditions continuance on medical excuse that is not produced)
Sitoski v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 11 A.3d 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion in continuance rulings)