Opinion
Argued March 6, 1975
April 8, 1975.
Motor vehicles — Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license — The Vehicle Code, Act 1959, April 29, P.L. 58 — Special speed limit — Conviction.
1. Under The Vehicle Code, Act 1959, April 29, P.L. 58, the motor vehicle operator's license of one violating a special speed limit established therein may be suspended regardless of the fact of or propriety of a conviction by a magistrate of such a violation. [329]
Argued March 6, 1975, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 148 C.D. 1974, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Jerome W. Valenti, No. SA 596 of 1973.
Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license by Secretary of Transportation. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Appeal sustained. FIOK, J. Commonwealth appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed. Suspension order reinstated.
John L. Heaton, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anthony J. Maiorana, Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellant.
Chris F. Gillotti, for appellee.
The Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to Section 618(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 618(b)(2), suspended the operating privileges of Jerome M. Valenti for a period of three months for violating Section 1002(b)(8) of the Act, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1002 (b)(8) by operating his vehicle at the rate of 70 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour speed zone. Valenti appealed to the court below, a judge of which sustained the appeal on the ground that the magistrate's conviction report was not properly completed and that the Commonwealth had not, therefore, proved that Valenti had been convicted of the offense charge. The Commonwealth has appealed and we reverse.
At the trial de novo below the Commonwealth proved the violation charged by the testimony of a State police officer. The appellant made no defense other than that a conviction had not been proved.
We have repeatedly held that the issue in appeals from suspensions imposed pursuant to Section 618(b)(2) is whether the licensee has violated the Act and that the fact or propriety of a conviction by a magistrate is irrelevant and entitled to no consideration. Civitello v. Commonwealth, 11 Pa. Commw. 551, 315 A.2d 666 (1974); Commonwealth v. Mislivets, 12 Pa. Commw. 59, 315 A.2d 307 (1974); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 9 Pa. Commw. 474, 308 A.2d 165 (1973).
ORDER
And now, this 8th day of April, 1975, the order of the court below is reversed and the order of suspension imposed by the Secretary of Transportation is reinstated. A reinstated order shall be issued within thirty (30) days.