Commonwealth v. Englert

457 A.2d 121, 311 Pa. Super. 78, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2665

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 4, 1983
• Docket: 844
• Status: Published

Opinions

WIEAND, Judge:

Is a district justice who finds a motorist guilty of a summary violation of Section 3743 of the Vehicle Code required to advise the motorist of a potential license suspension by the Department of Transportation in order that the appeal period begin to run? The trial court held that such a requirement did not exist and refused to allow an appeal nunc pro tunc five months after the conviction and sentence. We affirm.

Regis Paul Englert was found guilty, after hearing on December 26, 1979, of failing to stop at the scene of an accident in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3743(a).¹ He paid the fine imposed by the district justice and took no appeal. On May 27, 1980, Englert filed a petition requesting leave of court to file an appeal nunc pro tunc. In support of this request he alleged that he had been unaware that a license suspension would follow his conviction. In fact, his license had been suspended for six months on April 15, 1980 pursuant to Section 1532(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C. S.A. § 1532(b)(1). This section directs the Department of Transportation to suspend the operating privileges of a driver for six months upon conviction of Section 3743 of the Code. The trial court initially allowed the appeal but thereafter reconsidered and granted a Commonwealth motion to quash. This appeal followed.

When an Act of Assembly fixes the time within which an appeal may be taken, courts are without power to extend the period or allow an appeal nunc pro tunc absent fraud or its equivalent or some breakdown in the court’s operation. West Penn Power Company v. Goddard, 460 Pa. 551, 556, 333 A.2d 909, 912 (1975); Commonwealth v. Horner, 449 Pa. 322, 324, 296 A.2d 760, 762 (1972); Commonwealth v. Bey, 437 Pa. 134, 137 and n. 4, 262 A.2d 144, 145 and n. 4 (1970); Hesson v. Weinrebe, 288 Pa.Super. 216, 218, 431 A.2d 1015, 1016 (1981); Appeal of Girolamo, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 159, 164, 410 A.2d 940, 943 (1980); MacKanick v. Rubin, 244 Pa.Super. 467, 470-472, 368 A.2d 815, 817-818 (1976); Commonwealth v. Lord, 230 Pa.Super. 96, 100, 326 A.2d 455, 458 (1974); Klugman v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc., 198 Pa.Super. 268, 275, 182 A.2d 223, 226 (1962).

Judicial extensions of time, in the absence of fraud or its equivalent, are specifically prohibited by Section 5504 of the Judicial Code, which provides:

§ 5504. Judicial extension of time

(a) General rule.—Except as provided in section 1722(c) (relating to time limitations) or in subsection (b) of this section, the time limited by this chapter shall not be extended by order, rule or otherwise.

(b) Fraud.—The time limited by this chapter may be extended to relieve fraud or its equivalent, but there shall be no extension of time as a matter of indulgence or with respect to any criminal proceeding.

Appeals from summary convictions are to be filed within thirty days. See: Pa.R.Crim.P. § 67(c) and 42 Pa.C. S.A. § 5571(b). Appellant’s petition for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc was filed one hundred and fifty-two days after he had been convicted of a violation of the Vehicle Code. He did not allege that his failure to file a timely appeal had been caused by “fraud or its equivalent” or because of a “breakdown in the court’s operation.” He contended merely that he had been unaware that the Department of Transportation would suspend his operating privileges because of such conviction.

The suspension of operating privileges is a collateral consequence of a conviction for failing to stop at the scene of an accident in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3743. It is a consequence, civil in nature, whose imposition has been vested in an administrative agency over which the magistrate had no control and for which he had no responsibility. “Courts have ... consistently held that a trial court’s failure to inform a defendant of [a] potential collateral consequence does not invalidate [a plea of guilty].” Commonwealth v. Wellington, 305 Pa.Super. 24, 27, 451 A.2d 223, 224 (1982). Accord: Fruchtman v. Kenton, 531 F.2d 946, 949 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 895, 97 S.Ct. 256, 50 L.Ed.2d 178 (1976); Cuthrell v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 475 F.2d 1364 (4th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1005, 94 S.Ct. 362, 38 L.Ed.2d 241 (1973); Tindall v. United States, 469 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.1972); Meaton v. United States, 328 F.2d 379 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 916, 85 S.Ct. 902, 13 L.Ed.2d 801 (1965); United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180, 186 (3rd Cir.1963); Redwine v. Zuckert, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 130, 132, 317 F.2d 336, 338 (1963); Tafoya v. State, 500 P.2d 247, 251 (Alaska 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 945, 93 S.Ct. 1389, 35 L.Ed.2d 611 (1973); People v. Thomas, 41 Ill.2d 122, 125-26, 242 N.E.2d 177, 179 (1968); State v. Reid, 148 N.J.Super. 263, 265-66, 372 A.2d 626, 628 (1977). If unawareness of .collateral consequences will not prevent a knowing and intelligent plea of guilty, it is difficult to comprehend how such unawareness can. adequately excuse a failure to file a timely appeal from a summary conviction. See: Commonwealth v. Meshey, 278 Pa.Super. 73, 419 A.2d 1363 (1980).

One can possibly contemplate many collateral consequences that may flow from a criminal conviction. To permit an appeal period to be extended whenever a defendant has failed to contemplate or has not been judicially advised of all collateral consequences of a conviction would be unrealistic and would, to a large extent, nullify established appeal periods. We conclude, therefore, that a failure to anticipate collateral consequences is an inadequate basis on which to allow an untimely appeal.

Appellant has not contended that he was “prevented from appealing by reason of fraud or a wrongful or negligent act of a court official____” Conrad v. Kemmerer, 301 Pa.Super. 410, 412, 447 A.2d 1032, 1034 (1982). Thus, there is neither legal nor equitable reason for allowing an untimely appeal,² and the trial court was correct in refusing to allow appellant to proceed nunc pro tunc.

The order is affirmed.

BECK, J., files a dissenting opinion.

1 . This section provides as follows:

The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to a vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible but shall forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until he has fulfilled the requirements of section 3744 (relating to duty to give information and render aid). Every stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.

2 . It may also be observed that appellant learned of the suspension on April 15, 1980, and, again, more than thirty days expired before he attempted to appeal nunc pro tunc.