OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDot) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) sustaining Stephen G. Puckett’s (Licensee) statutory appeal from eight consecutive six-month suspensions of his operating privilege imposed by PennDot.
On March 12,1998, Licensee was arrested and charged with nine violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Devices and Cosmetic Act (Act), Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233,
as amended, 35
P.S. § 780-101-780-142 — six counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act, 35 P.S. § 780-HSiaXSO),
and two counts of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 13(a)(16) of the Act, 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(16).
On August 7, 1998, Licensee was arrested and charged with two more violations of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act and two more violations of Section 13(a)(16) of the Act. On March 12, 1999, Licensee was convicted of all the charges which included, in total, four violations of Section 13(a)(16) of the Act and eight violations of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act. On May 7, 2000, Licensee was sentenced to serve a period of incarceration of two and one-half years to five years.
After receiving notification of Licensee’s convictions, between June 1, 1999, and June 15, 1999, PennDot sent official notices to Licensee informing him that due to his convictions, his operating privilege would be suspended for six months for each conviction pursuant to Section 1532(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c).
The notices were sent to Licensee’s parents’ address which was also Licensee’s registered address with PennDot. Upon receipt of the notices, Licensee’s mother surrendered his license to PennDot. After learning of the receipt of the PennDot notices and the subsequent surrender of his license when he was released from incarceration on February 8, 2001, Licensee filed a petition to file appeal nunc pro tunc
and a
de novo
hearing was held.
At the hearing, PennDot entered into evidence a packet of certified documents which included the reports indicating Licensee’s convictions of Sections 13(a)(16) and 13(a)(30) of the Act, as well as copies of the notices sent to Licensee at his registered address. Alleging that he had not received any notice of those suspensions until February 8, 2001, Licensee argued that he was entitled to an appeal
nunc pro tunc
and, because eight of the suspensions were based on violations of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act, and, therefore, were lesser included offenses of the Section 13(a)(16) violations, those suspensions could not be applied in a consecutive manner. Finding that extraordinary circumstances existed as to warrant Licensee’s appeal
nunc pro tunc,
the trial court granted his appeal. Additionally, finding that a conviction under Section 13(a)(30) of the Act was a lesser-included offense to a conviction under Section 13(a)(16), the trial court concluded that the suspensions attributable to the Section 13(a)(30) convictions should be merged into the Section
13(a)(16) convictions and run concurrent to them and sustained Licensee’s appeal as to the eight Section 13(a)(S0) six-month suspensions.
This appeal followed.
Initially, PennDot contends that the trial court erred in granting Licensee’s appeal
nunc, pro tunc.
It argues that Licensee was not entitled to have his untimely appeal heard on the merits merely because he was incarcerated at the time the notice of suspension letters were mailed to his address of record.
As a general rule, an appeal
nunc pro tunc
will be granted in civil cases only where the appeal was untimely filed due to fraud or a breakdown in the court’s operations.
Smith v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing,
749 A.2d 1065 (Pa.Cmwlth.),
petition for allowance of appeal denied,
568 Pa. 669, 795 A.2d 980 (2000). However, that standard has been relaxed where a litigant’s right to appeal has been lost due to “extraordinary circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Stock,
545 Pa. 13, 679 A.2d 760 (1996). Each case, however, is limited to the unique and compelling factual circumstances of that particular case.
Smith.
The courts of this Commonwealth have addressed the issue of whether extraordinary circumstances existed such that allowance of an appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate on numerous occasions.
See Stock
(appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate in criminal context where litigant requested attorney to file appeal; however, attorney failed to file timely appeal);
Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
543 Pa. 381, 671 A.2d 1130 (1996) (appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate where hospitalization of litigant during the running of the appeals period resulted in the non-negligent late filing of appeal);
Bass v. Commonwealth,
485 Pa. 256, 401 A.2d 1133 (1979) (appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate to avoid a litigant’s loss of her day in court where the failure of a litigant’s attorney to file a timely appeal was non-negligent and the delay was minimal);
Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
75 Pa.Cmwlth. 116, 461 A.2d 346 (1983) (appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate where post office failed to forward referee’s decision resulting in untimely filing of appeal). While the holdings in those cases expand the general rule for granting an appeal
nunc pro tunc,
implicit in each of those holdings is a finding that the litigant himself did not act in a negligent manner.
In this case, Licensee does not contend any incapacitation such that he could not have filed a timely appeal or any non-negligent action on the part of a third person such that made fifing a timely appeal impossible. Instead, Licensee argues that he was unable to file a timely appeal from his license suspension solely because he was incarcerated and did not receive notice of the suspension until after he was released from prison, approximately 20 months after the appeal period had passed. In
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Johnson,
434 Pa.Super. 1, 641 A.2d 1170
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDot) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) sustaining Stephen G. Puckett’s (Licensee) statutory appeal from eight consecutive six-month suspensions of his operating privilege imposed by PennDot.
On March 12,1998, Licensee was arrested and charged with nine violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Devices and Cosmetic Act (Act), Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233,
as amended, 35
P.S. § 780-101-780-142 — six counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act, 35 P.S. § 780-HSiaXSO),
and two counts of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 13(a)(16) of the Act, 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(16).
On August 7, 1998, Licensee was arrested and charged with two more violations of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act and two more violations of Section 13(a)(16) of the Act. On March 12, 1999, Licensee was convicted of all the charges which included, in total, four violations of Section 13(a)(16) of the Act and eight violations of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act. On May 7, 2000, Licensee was sentenced to serve a period of incarceration of two and one-half years to five years.
After receiving notification of Licensee’s convictions, between June 1, 1999, and June 15, 1999, PennDot sent official notices to Licensee informing him that due to his convictions, his operating privilege would be suspended for six months for each conviction pursuant to Section 1532(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c).
The notices were sent to Licensee’s parents’ address which was also Licensee’s registered address with PennDot. Upon receipt of the notices, Licensee’s mother surrendered his license to PennDot. After learning of the receipt of the PennDot notices and the subsequent surrender of his license when he was released from incarceration on February 8, 2001, Licensee filed a petition to file appeal nunc pro tunc
and a
de novo
hearing was held.
At the hearing, PennDot entered into evidence a packet of certified documents which included the reports indicating Licensee’s convictions of Sections 13(a)(16) and 13(a)(30) of the Act, as well as copies of the notices sent to Licensee at his registered address. Alleging that he had not received any notice of those suspensions until February 8, 2001, Licensee argued that he was entitled to an appeal
nunc pro tunc
and, because eight of the suspensions were based on violations of Section 13(a)(30) of the Act, and, therefore, were lesser included offenses of the Section 13(a)(16) violations, those suspensions could not be applied in a consecutive manner. Finding that extraordinary circumstances existed as to warrant Licensee’s appeal
nunc pro tunc,
the trial court granted his appeal. Additionally, finding that a conviction under Section 13(a)(30) of the Act was a lesser-included offense to a conviction under Section 13(a)(16), the trial court concluded that the suspensions attributable to the Section 13(a)(30) convictions should be merged into the Section
13(a)(16) convictions and run concurrent to them and sustained Licensee’s appeal as to the eight Section 13(a)(S0) six-month suspensions.
This appeal followed.
Initially, PennDot contends that the trial court erred in granting Licensee’s appeal
nunc, pro tunc.
It argues that Licensee was not entitled to have his untimely appeal heard on the merits merely because he was incarcerated at the time the notice of suspension letters were mailed to his address of record.
As a general rule, an appeal
nunc pro tunc
will be granted in civil cases only where the appeal was untimely filed due to fraud or a breakdown in the court’s operations.
Smith v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing,
749 A.2d 1065 (Pa.Cmwlth.),
petition for allowance of appeal denied,
568 Pa. 669, 795 A.2d 980 (2000). However, that standard has been relaxed where a litigant’s right to appeal has been lost due to “extraordinary circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Stock,
545 Pa. 13, 679 A.2d 760 (1996). Each case, however, is limited to the unique and compelling factual circumstances of that particular case.
Smith.
The courts of this Commonwealth have addressed the issue of whether extraordinary circumstances existed such that allowance of an appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate on numerous occasions.
See Stock
(appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate in criminal context where litigant requested attorney to file appeal; however, attorney failed to file timely appeal);
Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
543 Pa. 381, 671 A.2d 1130 (1996) (appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate where hospitalization of litigant during the running of the appeals period resulted in the non-negligent late filing of appeal);
Bass v. Commonwealth,
485 Pa. 256, 401 A.2d 1133 (1979) (appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate to avoid a litigant’s loss of her day in court where the failure of a litigant’s attorney to file a timely appeal was non-negligent and the delay was minimal);
Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
75 Pa.Cmwlth. 116, 461 A.2d 346 (1983) (appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate where post office failed to forward referee’s decision resulting in untimely filing of appeal). While the holdings in those cases expand the general rule for granting an appeal
nunc pro tunc,
implicit in each of those holdings is a finding that the litigant himself did not act in a negligent manner.
In this case, Licensee does not contend any incapacitation such that he could not have filed a timely appeal or any non-negligent action on the part of a third person such that made fifing a timely appeal impossible. Instead, Licensee argues that he was unable to file a timely appeal from his license suspension solely because he was incarcerated and did not receive notice of the suspension until after he was released from prison, approximately 20 months after the appeal period had passed. In
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Johnson,
434 Pa.Super. 1, 641 A.2d 1170 (1994), the Superior Court noted that PennDot is required only to send a suspension notice to the licensee’s address of record, and that pursuant to Section 1515 of the Vehicle Code, the
licensee is required to notify PennDot of a new address within 15 days of a change of address. Because the burden was on Licensee to notify PennDot of any change in his registered address for service of process which he did not do, and he was not in any other way incapacitated from filing an appeal of his license suspension while serving out his sentence on the criminal charges, we cannot say that extraordinary circumstances existed such that an appeal
nunc pro tunc
was appropriate.
Because no extraordinary circumstances existed to cause Licensee’s untimely filing of his appeal, the trial court erred in granting his appeal
nunc pro tunc,
and, therefore, it was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed and the suspension of Licensee’s operating privilege imposed by PennDot is reinstated.
ORDER
AND NOW, this
1st
day of
August,
2002, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, No. SA # 575 of 2000, dated September 20, 2001, is reversed.