Zanotto v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Zanotto v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

475 A.2d 1375, 83 Pa. Commw. 69, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1569

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 6, 1984

DocketAppeal, No. 967 C.D. 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 475 A.2d 1375 (Zanotto v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation) 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

Zanotto v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 475 A.2d 1375, 83 Pa. Commw. 69, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1569 (Pa. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

James Zanotto appeals from an order by the Dauphin County Common Pleas Court, which affirmed the Department of Transportation’s five-year revocation of his driver’s license under section 1542, the habitual offender provision, of the Motor Vehicle Code.¹

We have been asked to decide if the habitual offender provision violates due process and the double jeopardy clause² of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The record reveals that Mr. Zanotto committed the following offenses and suffered the following consequences under the Code:

Code Violation Date of Offense Date of Conviction DOT Action Taken

§3731³ 11-24-77 6-15-78 6-month suspension

§3731⁴ 5-12-82 9-29-82 6-month suspension

43733⁵ 5-12-82 9-29-82 5-year revocation

[71]*71Mr. Zanotto contends that a de novo hearing in common pleas court does not satisfy due process, because at the time of his convictions, he was not informed of the ultimate consequences of multiple convictions, i.e., the triggering of the habitual offender provision. We have recently held, however, that a de novo hearing adequately safeguards the notice and hearing requirements of due process. Yeckley v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 576, A.2d (1984). Cf. Commonwealth v. Englert, Pa. Superior Ct. , 457 A.2d 121 (1983) (the suspension of operating privileges is a collateral consequence, civil in nature, of a conviction; a trial court’s failure to inform a defendant of a potential collateral consequence does not invalidate a guilty plea).

Mr. Zanotto also contends that the habitual offender provision violates the double jeopardy clause. We cannot agree. Driver suspension and revocation proceedings are remedial sanctions which are civil in nature, designed to protect the public from unsafe drivers; as such, they cannot be grounds for a double jeopardy challenge. See Callan v. Bureau of Traffic Safety, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 635, 637-38, 339 A. 2d 163, 164-65 (1975); Commonwealth v. Abraham, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 535, 536-37, 300 A.2d 831, 832 (1973); See also, In Re Friedman, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 274, 281 n.10, 457 A.2d 983, 987 n.10 (1983) (double jeopardy challenge to revocation of occupational license after criminal conviction).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Order

Now, June 6, 1984, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, dated May 10, 1983, dismissing the appeal of James Zanotto, is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

James Zanotto appeals from an order by the Dauphin County Common Pleas Court, which affirmed the Department of Transportation’s five-year revocation of his driver’s license under section 1542, the habitual offender provision, of the Motor Vehicle Code.¹

We have been asked to decide if the habitual offender provision violates due process and the double jeopardy clause² of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The record reveals that Mr. Zanotto committed the following offenses and suffered the following consequences under the Code:

Code Violation Date of Offense Date of Conviction DOT Action Taken

§3731³ 11-24-77 6-15-78 6-month suspension

§3731⁴ 5-12-82 9-29-82 6-month suspension

43733⁵ 5-12-82 9-29-82 5-year revocation

[71]*71Mr. Zanotto contends that a de novo hearing in common pleas court does not satisfy due process, because at the time of his convictions, he was not informed of the ultimate consequences of multiple convictions, i.e., the triggering of the habitual offender provision. We have recently held, however, that a de novo hearing adequately safeguards the notice and hearing requirements of due process. Yeckley v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 576, A.2d (1984). Cf. Commonwealth v. Englert, Pa. Superior Ct. , 457 A.2d 121 (1983) (the suspension of operating privileges is a collateral consequence, civil in nature, of a conviction; a trial court’s failure to inform a defendant of a potential collateral consequence does not invalidate a guilty plea).

Mr. Zanotto also contends that the habitual offender provision violates the double jeopardy clause. We cannot agree. Driver suspension and revocation proceedings are remedial sanctions which are civil in nature, designed to protect the public from unsafe drivers; as such, they cannot be grounds for a double jeopardy challenge. See Callan v. Bureau of Traffic Safety, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 635, 637-38, 339 A. 2d 163, 164-65 (1975); Commonwealth v. Abraham, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 535, 536-37, 300 A.2d 831, 832 (1973); See also, In Re Friedman, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 274, 281 n.10, 457 A.2d 983, 987 n.10 (1983) (double jeopardy challenge to revocation of occupational license after criminal conviction).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Order

Now, June 6, 1984, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, dated May 10, 1983, dismissing the appeal of James Zanotto, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 A.2d 1375, 83 Pa. Commw. 69, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zanotto-v-commonwealth-department-of-transportation-pacommwct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack