Opinion by
The Department of Transportation (DOT) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, dated June 9, 1986, which affirmed an April 1986 order directing DOT to rеinstate the operating privileges of John Milford Lefever. The department had suspended Lefevers license for refusal to submit to chemical analysis following his arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol, pursuant to Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1547. The twelvemonth suspension became effective November 12, 1984. Lefever appealed the suspension nunc pro tunc in February 1986. The department unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the trial courts order to reinstate Le-fevers license. We reverse the trial courts decision.
(1) Whether the trial court properly ordered reinstatement of Lefevers operating license, when the time for appeal of DOT’s suspension had expired; and
(2) Whether the trial court exceeded its scope of review of the license suspension by considering Lefevers separate criminal plea agreement.
On September 24, 1984, state troopers arrested Lefever after he collided with a parked car. The officers took Lefever to a hospital for treatment of his injuries. When asked to submit to a blood alcohol level test, Le-fever refused. The officer later receivеd a blood alcohol test result of .195% from the hospital. 1 The state troopers notified DOT that Lefever had refused to submit to chemical analysis to determine his blood alcohol level.
On October 9, 1984, DOT notified Lefever that his license would be suspended for twelve months, effective November 12, 1984, for refusing to submit to the blood test. Lefever did not аppeal the suspension within the thirty day appeal period, but instead mailed in his license and began serving the suspension.
On May 7, 1985, Lefever entered a guilty plea to two counts of driving under the influence, pursuant to a plea agreement with the district attorney. In that agreement, the district attorney agreed to withdraw the notice of refusal sent to DOT, in exchange for Lefevers consent to use the results of the blood test as evidence in the criminal proceeding. The trial judge was not informed that Lefever was already serving the twelve
On June 12, 1985, DOT notified Lefever that he would begin serving the mandatory twelve month suspension 2 for the driving under the influence conviction on November 12, 1985, consecutive to the twеlve month refusal suspension. Lefever took no action regarding either suspension until February 26, 1986. At that time, Lefever filed an appeal nunc pro tunc, challenging the first suspension on the grounds that DOT had not complied with the criminal courts order to withdraw the refusal suspension.
The department responded to Lefevers appeal by bringing a motion to quash, arguing that the petition was untimely filed. The appeal period for the refusal suspension had expired in November 1984; Lefever had already served the twelve month refusal suspension and was currently serving the twelve month conviction suspension. The trial court granted Lefever leave to file his petition nunc pro tunc, denied DOTs motion to quash, and directed DOT to reinstate Lefevers license. On reconsideration, the lower court affirmed this order, finding that “even though the suspension proceeding is independent of the underlying criminal action, the agreement to withdraw the refusal must be honored, and doing so obviates the suspension for the refusal.”
Our scope оf review of a decision by a trial court in a license suspension case is limited to determining whether the findings of that court are supported by
Seсtion 1550(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1550(a), grants any person whose license had been suspended by DOT the right to appeal. Under Section 5571(b) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §5571(b), appeals from governmental units such as DOT must be taken within 30 days after entry of order. Section 5572 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §5572, provides that the date of service of the order of a governmental unit, or the mailing date if service is by mail, shall be deemed the date of entry. Following these rules, Le-fever had 30 days from the letter dated October 9, 1984, to appeal the departments mandatory refusal suspension. There is no dispute that Lefevers appeal, filed in February 1986, was untimely. Indeed, as DOT points out, Lefever hаd already served the complete term of the refusal suspension, as well as three months of the conviction suspension, by the time he brought his appeal.
Courts have no power to extend the period for taking appeals, absent fraud or a breakdown in the courts operation through a default of its officers.
Altieri v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole,
In our view, the trial court exceeded its scope of review by considering the terms of Lefevers criminal plea agreement when reviewing the refusal suspеnsion. In
Oden,
Further, we conclude that neither the district attorney in plea bargaining, nor the court of common pleas when deciding a criminal matter, has jurisdiction to bind DOT to withdraw а civil license suspension. The statutory suspensions following a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test or a conviction for driving under the influence are not bargaining сhips to be traded in exchange for criminal convictions; rather, they are mandatory civil penalties, imposed not for penal purposes, but “to protect the public by providing an effective means of
Accordingly, we reverse the trial courts decision granting Lefеvers appeal nunc pro tunc, and reinstate the departments order suspending Lefevers license for twelve months, effective November 12, 1984. Lefever shall serve both the refusal and the consecutive conviction suspension.
Order
Now, November 13, 1987, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, dated June 9, 1986, is reversed.
Notes
The record is unclear whether the officers requested the hospital to run a blood alcohol test after Lefevers refusal, or whether the test was run in the course of treatment of Lefevers injuries.
Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1532(b)(3).
Commonwealth v.
Ebert,