Williamson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 129 A.3d 597

The Bureau of Driver Licensing mailed James R. Williamson a notice on June 26, 2014, informing him of an 18-month suspension for refusing chemical testing after a DUI arrest; an appeal had to be filed within 30 days.
The 30-day appeal period expired on Saturday, July 26, 2014, making the effective filing deadline Monday, July 28, 2014.
Williamson filed a petition for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc on July 30, 2014, explaining he misread the suspension notice and believed the effective date was the appeal deadline; he retained counsel and filed immediately after consulting an attorney.
At a hearing, Williamson testified he read but did not understand the notice and claimed a due-process defect in the officer’s advice about testing; the trial court credited his testimony and granted the nunc pro tunc appeal as only two days late.
The trial court later dismissed the Bureau’s case for failure to prosecute and sustained Williamson’s appeal, reinstating his driving privileges; the Bureau appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that a licensee’s subjective misunderstanding of clear written appeal instructions cannot justify extending the statutorily mandated 30-day appeal period, and ordered reinstatement of the 18-month suspension.

Issue	Williamson's Argument	Bureau's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly allowed a nunc pro tunc appeal for a 2-day late filing	Misreading/confusing the notice and promptly retaining counsel made the late filing non-negligent and merited relief	Statutory 30-day appeal period is jurisdictional; mere misunderstanding of clear written notice is not extraordinary or non-negligent, so nunc pro tunc relief is improper	Reversed: misunderstanding of clear appeal language does not justify nunc pro tunc relief; the late appeal was jurisdictionally defective
Whether the Bureau waived the right to contest nunc pro tunc because its counsel did not argue at the hearing	Not specifically argued; relied on the trial court’s grant	Failure to object or argue at hearing does not waive jurisdictional defects; subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised anytime	Held that waiver did not apply; jurisdictional defect may be raised on appeal

Hudson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (statutory appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional)
Bass v. Commonwealth, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979) (nunc pro tunc relief may be allowed for non-negligent attorney-related circumstances)
Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (Bass extended to non-negligent circumstances involving the appellant)
Kovalesky v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 850 A.2d 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (misunderstanding of clear notice does not warrant nunc pro tunc relief)
Ercolani v. Commonwealth, 922 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (licensee charged with knowledge of statutorily mandated appeal period)
Kulick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (nunc pro tunc available only for extraordinary circumstances like fraud or administrative breakdown)