Commonwealth v. King

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. King

303 A.2d 848, 9 Pa. Commw. 200, 1973 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 607

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 24, 1973

DocketAppeal, No. 1029 C.D. 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.2d 848 (Commonwealth v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. King, 303 A.2d 848, 9 Pa. Commw. 200, 1973 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 607 (Pa. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

Elmer F. King, Jr. (King) was convicted of a number of violations of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, 75 P.S. §101 et secy, accumulated 11 points and had his license suspended by the Secretary if Transportation for a period of 120 days. King appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, which appeal acted as a supersedeas. At the de novo hearing before the lower court, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence records of King’s convictions and the compilation of points against him. King presented no testimony or evidence of any nature. The lower court sustained the appeal and restored King’s operating privileges on the ground that he had not been granted a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of his license.

[202]*202When an appeal is taken from the suspension of an operator’s license for the accumulation of points, the burden is on the Commonwealth to produce records of convictions sufficient to support such suspension. Thereafter the burden shifts to the licensee to prove that he was not so convicted or that the records or point calculations were incorrect. Commonwealth v. Siedlecki, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 130, 300 A. 2d 287 (1973); Commonwealth v. James, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 493, 296 A. 2d 530 (1972). Here, the Commonwealth established a prima facie case and King failed to rebut any element of it.

As to King’s contention that he was entitled to a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of his license, we have recently had the opportunity to review this issue. We have held that, at least where a licensee is to receive a de novo hearing and a supersedeas has been granted by the lower court, there is no necessity for a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of the license. Commonwealth v. Trimble, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 443, 300 A. 2d 92 (1973); Commonwealth v. Grindlinger, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 300 A. 2d 95 (1973). These cases are controlling here.

The order of the court below is, therefore, reversed and the order of the Secretary of Transportation suspending the license of Elmer E. King, Jr., is hereby reinstated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

Elmer F. King, Jr. (King) was convicted of a number of violations of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, 75 P.S. §101 et secy, accumulated 11 points and had his license suspended by the Secretary if Transportation for a period of 120 days. King appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, which appeal acted as a supersedeas. At the de novo hearing before the lower court, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence records of King’s convictions and the compilation of points against him. King presented no testimony or evidence of any nature. The lower court sustained the appeal and restored King’s operating privileges on the ground that he had not been granted a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of his license.

[202]*202When an appeal is taken from the suspension of an operator’s license for the accumulation of points, the burden is on the Commonwealth to produce records of convictions sufficient to support such suspension. Thereafter the burden shifts to the licensee to prove that he was not so convicted or that the records or point calculations were incorrect. Commonwealth v. Siedlecki, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 130, 300 A. 2d 287 (1973); Commonwealth v. James, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 493, 296 A. 2d 530 (1972). Here, the Commonwealth established a prima facie case and King failed to rebut any element of it.

As to King’s contention that he was entitled to a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of his license, we have recently had the opportunity to review this issue. We have held that, at least where a licensee is to receive a de novo hearing and a supersedeas has been granted by the lower court, there is no necessity for a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of the license. Commonwealth v. Trimble, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 443, 300 A. 2d 92 (1973); Commonwealth v. Grindlinger, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 300 A. 2d 95 (1973). These cases are controlling here.

The order of the court below is, therefore, reversed and the order of the Secretary of Transportation suspending the license of Elmer E. King, Jr., is hereby reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.2d 848, 9 Pa. Commw. 200, 1973 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-king-pacommwct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack