Commonwealth v. Lehman

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Lehman

305 A.2d 730, 8 Pa. Commw. 603, 1973 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 767

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 25, 1973

DocketAppeal, No. 1093 C.D. 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.2d 730 (Commonwealth v. Lehman) 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. Lehman, 305 A.2d 730, 8 Pa. Commw. 603, 1973 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 767 (Pa. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Wilkinson,

On two occasions, once on January 26, 1971, and again on October 26, 1971, appellee paid fines and costs for violations of Section 1002(b) (6) of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. §1002(b) (6), travelling at the rate of seventy (70) miles per hour in a fifty-five (55) miles per hour zone. This resulted in his operator’s privileges being suspended by the Secretary of Transportation for sixty (60) days under the provisions of Section 619.1 of The Vehicle Code, 75 P.S. §619.1.

Appellee appealed the suspension and had a de novo hearing before the court below. He freely admitted paying the fine and costs and raised only the question that he had not had a hearing before the Secretary.

As this Court has held repeatedly, the only case appellee can produce to overcome the prima facie case of [605]*605the Commonwealth is to show that he was not convicted of the offenses. See Commonwealth v. James, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 493, 296 A. 2d 530 (1972); Commonwealth v. Siedlecki, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 130, 300 A. 2d 287 (1973). Nevertheless, the lower court sustained the appeal and reversed the Secretary on the grounds that appellee was entitled to a hearing, citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 29 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1971), and Reese v. Kassab, 334 F. Supp. 744 (W.D. Pa. 1971).

For the reasons set forth in Commonwealth v. Grindlinger, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 300 A. 2d 95 (1973), and Commonwealth v. Trimble, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 443, 300 A. 2d 92 (1973), this Court has held that the de novo hearing held by the court below cured any procedural defect which may have existed because appellee was not afforded a departmental hearing.

Accordingly, the order of the court below is reversed, and the order of the Secretary of Transportation suspending the appellee’s operating privileges is reinstated.

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

Opinion by

Judge Wilkinson,

On two occasions, once on January 26, 1971, and again on October 26, 1971, appellee paid fines and costs for violations of Section 1002(b) (6) of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. §1002(b) (6), travelling at the rate of seventy (70) miles per hour in a fifty-five (55) miles per hour zone. This resulted in his operator’s privileges being suspended by the Secretary of Transportation for sixty (60) days under the provisions of Section 619.1 of The Vehicle Code, 75 P.S. §619.1.

Appellee appealed the suspension and had a de novo hearing before the court below. He freely admitted paying the fine and costs and raised only the question that he had not had a hearing before the Secretary.

As this Court has held repeatedly, the only case appellee can produce to overcome the prima facie case of [605]*605the Commonwealth is to show that he was not convicted of the offenses. See Commonwealth v. James, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 493, 296 A. 2d 530 (1972); Commonwealth v. Siedlecki, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 130, 300 A. 2d 287 (1973). Nevertheless, the lower court sustained the appeal and reversed the Secretary on the grounds that appellee was entitled to a hearing, citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 29 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1971), and Reese v. Kassab, 334 F. Supp. 744 (W.D. Pa. 1971).

For the reasons set forth in Commonwealth v. Grindlinger, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 300 A. 2d 95 (1973), and Commonwealth v. Trimble, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 443, 300 A. 2d 92 (1973), this Court has held that the de novo hearing held by the court below cured any procedural defect which may have existed because appellee was not afforded a departmental hearing.

Accordingly, the order of the court below is reversed, and the order of the Secretary of Transportation suspending the appellee’s operating privileges is reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.2d 730, 8 Pa. Commw. 603, 1973 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lehman-pacommwct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack