Opinion
February 6, 1984.
Motor vehicles — Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license — Scope of appellate review — Dismissal of appeal — Due process.
1. Review by the Commonwealth Court in a motor vehicle operator's license suspension case is to determine whether the lower court committed an error of law or abuse of discretion or made findings of fact unsupported by competent evidence. [160]
2. A court of common pleas does not act improperly in dismissing a motor vehicle operator's license suspension appeal while retaining jurisdiction having remanded the matter for a departmental hearing. [160]
3. A procedural due process deficiency in an administrative hearing in a motor vehicle license suspension case is cured when a de novo hearing is held in the court of common pleas. [161]
Submitted on briefs May 11, 1983, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges WILLIAMS, JR. and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1993 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Roosevelt White, Jr., No. SA 754.
Motor vehicle operator's license suspended by Department of Transportation. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Appeal dismissed. WEKSELMAN, J. Licensee filed motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. Licensee appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Wendell G. Freeland, for appellant.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Roosevelt White, Jr. appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing his appeal from the suspension of his motor vehicle operator's license by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety pursuant to Section 1539 (a) of the Vehicle Code.
Section 1539(a), 75 Pa. C. S. § 1539(a), provides in pertinent part:
When any person's record shows an accumulation of 11 points or more, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of the person. . . .
White's point accumulation reached 11 as the result of a conviction for a stop sign violation for which he received 3 points.
In reviewing a decision of a common pleas court in a license suspension case, we are limited to determining whether the findings of that court are supported by competent evidence, whether there has been an erroneous conclusion of law or whether the common pleas court's decision demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion. Waigand v. Commonwealth, 68 Pa. Commw. 541, 449 A.2d 862 (1982).
The sole question presented here is whether the common pleas court acted properly in dismissing White's appeal subsequent to its order remanding the matter for a departmental hearing where such a hearing had not been held.
While it is true that the record of this case does not disclose that a departmental hearing was held pursuant to the remand order, we cannot conclude that the court acted improperly in dismissing the appeal. This is so because in its October 5, 1979 remand order, the court also continued the case before it, thereby retaining jurisdiction over the matter. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of its dismissal order, the court afforded White a de novo hearing in which he participated and, as this Court has held, such a hearing cures any procedural due process defects which might have been caused by the lack of an administrative hearing in license suspension cases. Elias Appeal, 70 Pa. Commw. 404, 453 A.2d 372 (1982); Commonwealth v. Grindlinger, 7 Pa. Commw. 347, 300 A.2d 95 (1973). Accordingly, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County must be affirmed.
The remand order reads as follows:
AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 1979 the above appeal having come on for hearing, upon consideration thereof, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is continued and the matter is remanded for a departmental hearing. (Emphasis added.)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 1984, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated July 22, 1980, is hereby affirmed.