Commonwealth v. O'Neill

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. O'Neill

349 A.2d 823, 22 Pa. Commw. 608, 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 698

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 12, 1976

DocketAppeal, No. 486 C.D. 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 349 A.2d 823 (Commonwealth v. O'Neill) 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. O'Neill, 349 A.2d 823, 22 Pa. Commw. 608, 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 698 (Pa. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The Commonwealth appeals from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County reversing a suspension of James Melvin O’Neill’s operating privileges. The suspension resulted from O’Neill’s accumulation of 14 points on his record of violation, notice of which was [609]*609sent to him on August 30, 1973. He requested a departmental hearing which he did not obtain, and he also appealed to the lower court which issued a supersedeas order on October 24, 1973. The lower court conducted a hearing on March 13, 1975 at which the Commonwealth presented copies of citations indicating the convictions which led to O’Neill’s suspension, and, although O’Neill presented no evidence, the lower court reversed the suspension on the basis that he had received no departmental hearing prior to his appeal. This was clearly error, as acknowledged by the lower court in its own opinion.

As we held in Commonwealth v. Grindlinger, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 300 A.2d 95 (1973) and in several subsequent cases, a licensee is not entitled to a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of his license when, as here, the Department of Transportation is on notice, by reason of the grant of supersedeas, that he will receive a de novo hearing before the lower court. See Commonwealth v. Cannillo, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 198, 303 A.2d 580 (1973).

The lower court’s order is, therefore, reversed and the suspensión is reinstated.

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

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The Commonwealth appeals from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County reversing a suspension of James Melvin O’Neill’s operating privileges. The suspension resulted from O’Neill’s accumulation of 14 points on his record of violation, notice of which was [609]*609sent to him on August 30, 1973. He requested a departmental hearing which he did not obtain, and he also appealed to the lower court which issued a supersedeas order on October 24, 1973. The lower court conducted a hearing on March 13, 1975 at which the Commonwealth presented copies of citations indicating the convictions which led to O’Neill’s suspension, and, although O’Neill presented no evidence, the lower court reversed the suspension on the basis that he had received no departmental hearing prior to his appeal. This was clearly error, as acknowledged by the lower court in its own opinion.

As we held in Commonwealth v. Grindlinger, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 300 A.2d 95 (1973) and in several subsequent cases, a licensee is not entitled to a departmental hearing prior to the suspension of his license when, as here, the Department of Transportation is on notice, by reason of the grant of supersedeas, that he will receive a de novo hearing before the lower court. See Commonwealth v. Cannillo, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 198, 303 A.2d 580 (1973).

The lower court’s order is, therefore, reversed and the suspensión is reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 A.2d 823, 22 Pa. Commw. 608, 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-oneill-pacommwct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack