IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lamont P. Palmer, Sr. :

:

:

:

 v. : No. 1009 C.D. 2020

: Submitted: October 10, 2023

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

:

Appellant :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

PER CURIAM FILED: November 21, 2023

The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) 

appeals the order of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) 

sustaining the statutory appeal of Lamont P. Palmer, Sr. (Licensee) and rescinding 

the three-month suspension of his operating privilege imposed by DOT pursuant to 

Section 1532(b)(4) of the Vehicle Code,

1 based on his conviction for violating 

Section 1371 of the Vehicle Code.

2 We affirm.

1

75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(4). Pursuant to Section 1532(b)(4), DOT “shall suspend the 

operating privilege of any driver for three months upon receiving a certified record of the driver’s 

conviction of [S]ection 1371 (relating to operation following suspension of registration)[.]” 

2

75 Pa. C.S. §1371. Section 1371 of the Vehicle Code provides as follows:

(a) General rule.--No person shall operate and no owner shall 

permit to be operated upon any highway a vehicle the registration of 

which has been suspended.

(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

On April 25, 2019, DOT mailed Licensee an Official Notice of 

Suspension of his operating privilege pursuant to Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle 

Code as a result of his April 17, 2019 conviction for violating Section 1371 of the 

Vehicle Code. On May 22, 2019, Licensee appealed DOT’s suspension to the trial 

court.3 On September 10, 2020, the trial court issued an order sustaining Licensee’s 

appeal and rescinding DOT’s suspension of his operating privilege. On October 6, 

2020, DOT filed the instant timely appeal of the trial court’s order.

On appeal,4 DOT claims that the trial court erred in sustaining the 

appeal and rescinding the suspension because the trial court permitted Licensee to 

collaterally attack the conviction underlying the suspension of his operating 

privilege in his statutory appeal. However, as this Court has explained:

An appellate court is limited to considering only 

those facts that have been duly certified in the record on 

appeal. City of Pittsburgh Commission on Human 

Relations v. DeFelice, 782 A.2d 586, 593 n.10 (Pa.

(b) Penalty.--Any person violating this section is guilty of a 

summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a 

fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500. In the case of a motor 

carrier vehicle other than a trailer, the fine shall be double the 

registration fee for the maximum weight at which the vehicle could 

have been registered in this Commonwealth.

3

In Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Meckler, 635 A.2d 718, 

721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), we explained that when a license suspension is based on a conviction, 

the only issues in such a statutory appeal are (1) whether the licensee was actually convicted, and 

(2) whether DOT acted in accordance with applicable law in imposing the license suspension. In 

order to meet its burden of proof, which we characterized as “an easy one to meet,” DOT must 

offer certified proof of the conviction in the trial court. Id. 

4 Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s findings were supported by 

substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether the trial court’s

determination constituted an abuse of discretion. Reinhart v. Department of Transportation, 

Bureau of Driver Licensing, 954 A.2d 761, 765 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 
3

Cmwlth. 2001). For purposes of appellate review, that 

which is not part of the certified record does not exist. Id.

Documents attached to a brief as an appendix or 

reproduced record may not be considered by an appellate 

court when they are not part of the certified record. Stabler 

Development Company v. Board of Supervisors of Lower 

Mt. Bethel Township, 695 A.2d 882, 887 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth.

1997), appeal denied, [718 A.2d 787 (Pa. 1998)]. “[I]t is 

the responsibility of the appellant to supply this Court with 

a complete record for purposes of review. The failure by 

an appellant to insure that the original record certified for 

appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper 

review constitutes waiver of the issue(s) sought to be 

examined.” Salameh v. Spossey, 731 A.2d 649, 658 (Pa.

Cmwlth.), appeal denied, [747 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999)]

(citation omitted).17

* * *

17 See also Smith v. Smith, [637 A.2d 622, 623-24 

(Pa. Super. 1993)], appeal denied, [652 A.2d 1325 (Pa. 

1994)] (“[I]t is the responsibility of the [a]ppellant to 

supply this Court with a complete record for purposes of 

review . . . [and] a failure by an [a]ppellant to insure that 

the original record certified for appeal contains sufficient 

information to conduct a proper review constitutes a 

waiver of the issue(s) sought to be examined.”) (emphasis 

in original and citations omitted); Boyle v. Steiman, [631 

A.2d 1025, 1030-31 (Pa. Super. 1993)], appeal denied, 

[649 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1994)] (“[I]t is the duty of the appellant 

to supply this Court with a record which is sufficient to 

permit a meaningful appellate review. A failure by the 

appellant to insure that the original record certified for 

appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a 

meaningful appellate review constitutes a waiver of the 

issue sought to be reviewed[.]”) (citations omitted).

B.K. v. Department of Public Welfare, 36 A.3d 649, 657-58 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

Our review of the Original Record and Supplemental Record that were 

lodged by the trial court in this Court demonstrates that they do not contain any 

transcripts of the hearings conducted before the trial court relating to Licensee’s 
4

appeal, or any of DOT’s certified proof offered in support of the instant license 

suspension. In the absence of any record evidence supporting the suspension of 

Licensee’s operating privilege in the first instance, DOT is deemed to have waived 

any allegation of trial court error, and we will affirm the trial court’s order sustaining 

Licensee’s statutory appeal and rescinding DOT’s three-month suspension of his 

operating privilege pursuant to Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code.5

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

5

It is well settled that this Court may affirm the trial court’s order on any basis appearing, 

or in this case not appearing, in the record. See, e.g., Washington v. Department of Transportation, 

Bureau of Driver Licensing, 301 A.3d 982 , 985 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (“This Court may affirm a 

trial court’s order on any basis appearing in the record. Feldman v. Lafayette Green 

Condo[minium] Ass[ociatio]n, 806 A.2d 497, 502 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).”).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lamont P. Palmer, Sr. :

:

:

:

 v. : No. 1009 C.D. 2020

: 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

:

Appellant :

PER CURIAM

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2023, the order of the Dauphin 

County Court of Common Pleas dated September 10, 2020, is AFFIRMED.