From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scarantino v. Commonwealth

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 25, 2014
No. 2115 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 25, 2014)

Opinion

No. 2115 C.D. 2013

09-25-2014

Joseph B. Scarantino, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing


BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER

Appellant, Joseph B. Scarantino, appeals from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County denying the appeal of his license suspension. We vacate and remand.

Appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal from suspension of driving privileges through his counsel, Christopher P. Fiore, Esquire (Counsel). Despite Counsel's name and address appearing on the documents submitted to the trial court, the notice of hearing was mailed and served upon Appellant only. Appellant did not receive the notice because he was either incarcerated or receiving in-patient treatment. The trial court held a hearing with neither Appellant nor Counsel present and subsequently suspended Appellant's driving privileges.

Upon release, Appellant discovered the notice of hearing and order and immediately filed a motion for extraordinary relief in the form of a motion to vacate the order denying the license suspension appeal. The motion asserted that Appellant was denied his right to due process because he was not given sufficient notice of his hearing.

Appellee, Department of Transportation, does not contest any of those facts. Indeed, the parties filed a joint stipulation and motion which states that the Montgomery County Court Administrator erred in failing to send the notice of hearing to Counsel, therefore denying Appellant his right to due process. The parties stipulated and agreed that the trial court's order denying extraordinary relief should be vacated and the matter remanded for a de novo hearing. Senior Judge Quigley denied the motion stating that it was impermissible for a single judge of this Court to conclude that the trial court erred in the disposition of a matter because a single judge is not a quorum of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal was assigned to this panel for disposition.

Appellee notes that the trial court has adopted Local Rule of Court 1012, Montg. Co. R.C.P. 1012, which states in pertinent part "[i]n the event an initial pleading or legal paper, including an initial responsive pleading or legal paper, filed by an attorney is not accompanied by a written entry of appearance, the Prothonotary... shall enter the name of said attorney as counsel of record for the party." Consistent with the joint stipulation of the parties, we conclude that the Court Administrator erred by not sending a notice of the hearing to Counsel, leaving Counsel unable to represent Appellant, and ultimately depriving him of his right to due process.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand for a hearing on the merits.

/s/_________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

Judge ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2014, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in the above-captioned matter is hereby VACATED. This matter is REMANDED for a hearing on the merits of Appellant's license suspension appeal.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

/s/_________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

Judge


Summaries of

Scarantino v. Commonwealth

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 25, 2014
No. 2115 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 25, 2014)
Case details for

Scarantino v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:Joseph B. Scarantino, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania…

Court:COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 25, 2014

Citations

No. 2115 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 25, 2014)