Opinion
Argued January 7, 1976
March 15, 1976.
Motor vehicles — Revocation of motor vehicle operator's license — The Vehicle Code, Act 1959, April 29, P.L. 58 — Driving while intoxicated — Conviction record — Sufficient evidence — Merits of conviction — Hearing de novo — Procedural irregularities.
1. In a proceeding to revoke a motor vehicle operator's license under The Vehicle Code, Act 1959, April 29, P.L. 58, following the conviction of the operator for driving while intoxicated, evidence consisting of a certified copy of the pertinent conviction record is sufficient to sustain the revocation order and in such proceeding the courts will not review the criminal conviction itself. [27-8]
2. The fact that a de novo hearing is held in a court of common pleas in a motor vehicle operator's license revocation case cures any procedural irregularities occurring in the prior administrative hearing. [28]
Argued January 7, 1976, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT.
Appeal, No. 674 C.D. 1975, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County in case of Department of Transportation v. William E. Martz, No. 299 December Term, 1974.
Revocation of motor vehicle operator's license by Secretary of Transportation. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County. Appeal dismissed. KIVKO, P.J. Licensee appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Stephen Cohen, for appellant.
John L. Heaton, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anthony J. Maiorana, Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) revoked the motor vehicle operating privileges of William E. Martz (Appellant) for one year. His appeal to the Court of Common Pleas was dismissed and he appeals that order to us.
Upon Appellant's plea of guilty to the charge of driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 1037 of the Vehicle Code (Code), the Secretary, after receiving a certification of conviction, revoked Appellant's operating privileges for one year as mandated by Section 616(a) of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 616(a).
Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1037.
Acceding to Appellant's request, the Secretary conducted a hearing and the revocation was upheld. After a hearing de novo in the Court of Common Pleas, at which time the Secretary presented the record of Appellant's conviction in evidence, the revocation was affirmed.
Initially, we remind Appellant that our review is of the order of revocation and not the criminal conviction which prompted the revocation. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Groat, 22 Pa. Commw. 540, 350 A.2d 431 (1976). Where the court below, after a hearing de novo, orders revocation of operating privileges we must determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence or whether there were errors of law. Civitello v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 11 Pa. Commw. 551, 315 A.2d 666 (1974).
The certified record of a conviction of driving while intoxicated is sufficient to sustain an order of revocation.
Section 616(a) of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 616(a).
Appellant urges that the hearing conducted by the Secretary was a sham. However, after reviewing the record made in the court below, we are satisfied that his interests were adequately protected there by counsel and that he had the opportunity to offer evidence. Therefore, the de novo hearing cured whatever procedural irregularities, if any, which may have existed during the Secretary's hearing. See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 8 Pa. Commw. 603, 305 A.2d 730 (1973).
Appellant asserts that he was not given an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony, ask questions, or take notes.
Affirmed.