Opinion
No. 1067 C.D. 2011
02-08-2012
Pittsburgh Parking Authority v. Eric Smith, Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Eric Smith appeals pro se from the May 10, 2011, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) finding him guilty of a parking violation. We reverse.
On January 23, 2011, Smith received a ticket for overtime parking in violation of City of Pittsburgh (City) Ordinance §549.01. Smith filed a summary appeal from this citation, and the trial court held a de novo hearing on the matter on May 10, 2011. At the hearing, the Pittsburgh Parking Authority (Parking Authority) presented the testimony of parking enforcement officer Vickie Mason that she ticketed Smith because he parked for one hour and fifteen minutes in an area restricted to one-hour parking without a permit. Smith, however, testified that he moved his vehicle and that, "I wasn't really even there the whole time is what I'm saying." (N.T., May 10, 2011, at 9.) The trial court credited Mason's testimony that she "observed [Smith's] vehicle at 3:15 p.m. and again at 4:28 p.m. in a parking space restricted to 1 hour under the city ordinance." (Tr. Ct. Op. at 2.) The trial court thus found Smith guilty of violating City Ordinance §549.01 and imposed a fine of $120.00, without costs. Smith then appealed to this court.
Our scope of review of a trial court's decision on an appeal from a summary conviction is limited to determining whether there has been an error of law or whether the trial court's findings are unsupported by competent evidence. Commonwealth v. Tarlecki, 647 A.2d 970, 971 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
On appeal, Smith argues, inter alia, that he did not violate the time limit set forth in City Ordinance §549.01. Upon review, we agree with Smith that the trial court's determination that Smith violated City Ordinance §549.01 is not supported by the record.
Although the Parking Authority asserts that Smith violated City Ordinance §549.15 (Parking Authority's Br. at 1), the citation issued to Smith indicates that he was actually charged with violating City Ordinance §549.01. (See C.R., Public Parking Authority of Pittsburgh Parking Ticket.) Regardless, the Parking Authority maintains, among other things, that Smith should not prevail because he is essentially rehashing issues of fact and law that he previously raised—and lost—before the trial court. (Parking Authority's Br. at 1.)
City Ordinance §549.01 (emphasis added) specifically provides: "No person shall park in a designated residential parking permit area without a residential parking permit during restricted periods for more than two (2) hours." Here, as previously noted, Mason testified on behalf of the Parking Authority that she "actually timed [Smith] at 3:15 [p.m.], came back at 4:28 [p.m.]. He was there for an hour and 15 minutes. . . ." (N.T., May 10, 2011, at 4.) However, Mason specifically cited Smith for violating City Ordinance §549.01, which provides for a two-hour restricted parking period absent a permit. Because there is no evidence that Smith parked his vehicle for more than two hours in violation of this ordinance section, the trial court's finding that Smith is guilty of such a violation is wholly unsupported.
See www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us. A copy of this ordinance section is not in the certified record. However, we take judicial notice of City Ordinance §549.01 pursuant to section 6107(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §6107(a), which provides that "[t]he ordinances of municipal corporations of this Commonwealth shall be judicially noticed." --------
Accordingly, we reverse.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge Judge Brobson did not participate in the decision in this case.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2012, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated May 10, 2011, is hereby reversed.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge