Yeckley v. Commonwealth
This text of 474 A.2d 71 (Yeckley v. Commonwealth) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
'Thomas P. Yeekley, Sr. (Appellant), appeals from Judge Papadakos’ order dismissing his consolidated appeals which, in turn, were taken from the Department of Transportation’s (Department) revocation of Yeekley’s driving privileges. After carefully considering the Appellant’s arguments we affirm the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
The facts are not in dispute. The Appellant Was convicted of violating Section 3731 of the Motor Vehicle Code (Code)1 (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance), on four separate occasions. Under Section 1542 of the Code, the “habitual offender” provision,2 Appellant’s driving privileges were revoked for five years after his third conviction and for an additional two yeans following his fourth conviction. The action taken by the Department was fully consistent with §1542. Indeed, the Department’s action was not discretionary.3
The Appellant challenges Section 1542 on constitutional grounds. His task is not an easy one as we recognize the considerable presumption in favor of [578]*578the constitutionality of legislation. Lehigh Foundations, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 39 Pa. Commonwealth. Ct. 416, 423, 395 A.2d 576, 580 (1978).
Appellant argues la ok of due process and denial of equal protection. Notice and opportunity to be heard requirements of due process have been met by virtue of a de novo hearing in the court below.4 Appellant’s equal protection claim is equally untenable. Habitual offenders are not a suspect class nor is driving a fundamental right, thus under a rational relation standard the statute in question clearly passes constitutional muster.
Yeokley’s challenge under the Eighth Amendment, that revocation is “cruel and unusual” punishment, is without foundation. We believe that such a revocation does not shook the general conscience, where the Appellant has been convicted of drunk driving on four separate occasions.5
[579]*579Appellant cites no authority to support his contention that Section 1542(e)6 is unconstitutional and his naked assertion of unconstitutionality does not justify discussion.
Order
And Now, April 13, 1984, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing the Appellant’s appeal is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
474 A.2d 71, 81 Pa. Commw. 576, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeckley-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1984.