IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Andres Rafael Garcia Lugo :

:

v. : No. 1463 C.D. 2022

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

Appellant : Submitted: June 4, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge (P.)

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: July 2, 2024

Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 

Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from the Court of Common Pleas 

of Lehigh County’s (Common Pleas) November 29, 2022 order. Through that order, 

Common Pleas granted Appellee Andres Rafael Garcia Lugo’s (Lugo)1statutory 

appeal regarding the Department’s suspension of Lugo’s driver’s license and 

directed that the suspension be rescinded. We reverse.

I. Background

On September 7, 2022, the Department mailed a letter to Lugo, through which 

it informed him that his driver’s license was going to be suspended for a period of 

six months; according to the letter, this suspension was due to Lugo’s conviction for 

careless driving that had unintentionally caused the death of another person.

1 Lugo has been precluded from submitting a brief in this matter, due to his repeated failure 

to comply with this Court’s filing deadlines. See Cmwlth. Ct. Order, 9/11/23, at 1.
2

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 6a-8a (citing 75 Pa. C.S. § 3714(b)).2 Lugo then 

appealed this suspension by filing a petition with Common Pleas on September 14, 

2022, arguing therein that the suspension was improper or unlawful because he 

needed a driver’s license “for work purposes and for every day [sic] living.” R.R. at 

4a-9a.

Common Pleas then convened a hearing regarding Lugo’s appeal on 

November 28, 2022. The Department began by entering into evidence certified 

documentation showing that Lugo had been convicted of two Vehicle Code 

violations: exceeding the maximum posted speed limit (by going 101 miles-per-hour 

in a 70 miles-per-hour zone); and careless driving that had unintentionally caused 

another person’s death. Hearing Tr., 11/28/22, at 4-7; Department’s Ex. C-1, #2-#3.

According to the Department’s documents, Lugo had committed both of these 

violations on May 29, 2022, and had been convicted as a result on August 29, 2022.

Department’s Ex. C-1, #2-#3. In response, Lugo initially testified that a police 

officer had only given him a warning after pulling him over on May 29, 2022, and 

that, contrary to the Department’s assertions, Lugo had not been convicted as a result 

of either speeding or careless driving that had unintentionally caused another’s 

death. Hearing Tr., 11/28/22, at 8, 10-11. During cross-examination, however, Lugo 

2 Section 3714 of the Vehicle Code reads as follows, in relevant part:

(a) General rule.--Any person who drives a vehicle in careless 

disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of careless 

driving, a summary offense.

(b) Unintentional death.--If the person who violates this section 

unintentionally causes the death of another person as a result of the 

violation, the person shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a 

fine of $500.

75 Pa. C.S. § 3714(a)-(b). Per Section 1532(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, the Department is required 

to impose a six-month driver’s license suspension upon an individual who is convicted of violating 

Section 3714(b) of the Vehicle Code. 75 Pa. C.S. § 1532(b)(1).
3

confirmed that he had received a citation for speeding on May 29, 2022, but then 

tried to support that point by inexplicably producing a speeding ticket that had been 

issued to him on April 3, 2021, and then stated that he did not have a copy of the 

May 29, 2022 citation in his immediate possession. Id. at 12-15. Additionally, Lugo 

admitted on cross that he owned and operated the vehicle listed in the Department’s 

exhibits (a Toyota Highlander) and provided a driver’s license number and a home 

address that matched those attributed to him in those exhibits. See id. at 11-12; 

Department’s Ex. C-1, #2-#3. Maria Garcia, Lugo’s daughter, then testified that she 

was unaware of any accidents through which her father had caused someone else’s 

death, as well as that she did not know whether Lugo had ever been cited for anything 

other than speeding. Hearing Tr., 11/28/22, at 16-17. Garcia also admitted, however, 

that she had not been with Lugo when he had been ticketed on May 29, 2022, and 

that all of her knowledge regarding what had transpired during that day’s incident 

had come directly from her father. Id. at 17-19.

With that, Common Pleas closed the hearing by ruling from the bench that the 

Department had failed to establish that Lugo had been convicted of violating Section 

3714(b) of the Vehicle Code. Id. at 19. Common Pleas then stated that it would 

consequently grant Lugo’s appeal and direct the Department to refrain from 

suspending Lugo’s license. Id. This decision was formalized the following day, 

November 29, 2022, when Common Pleas docketed an order to that effect. R.R. at 

53a. This appeal followed shortly thereafter.3

3 The Department also filed a “Motion to Reconsider [Lugo’s] Sustained Appeal” in 

Common Pleas on December 12, 2022, which was denied on December 28, 2022. R.R. at 44a-49a, 

61a.
4

II. Discussion

The Department presents a single, straightforward argument on appeal, which 

we summarize as follows:

4 Common Pleas erroneously granted Lugo’s appeal, 

because the Department’s evidence created a rebuttable presumption that Lugo had 

been convicted of violating Section 3714(b) of the Vehicle Code, which Lugo failed 

to successfully rebut through clear and convincing evidence. Bureau’s Br. at 11-26. 

We agree. It is well settled that

once the Department introduces certified conviction 

records [as evidence during a license suspension appeal 

hearing] showing that a licensee’s record merits a 

suspension, it has established a prima facie case and the 

burden shifts to the licensee, who must then prove by clear 

and convincing evidence that the conviction did not occur. 

Roselle v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 

865 A.2d 308, 314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); Glidden v. Dep’t 

of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 962 A.2d 9, 12 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Clear and convincing evidence is 

defined as “evidence that is so clear and direct as to permit 

the trier of fact to reach a clear conviction, without 

hesitancy, as to the truth of the facts at issue.” Mateskovich 

v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 755 A.2d 

100, 102 n. 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (quoting Sharon Steel 

Corp. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Myers), 670 A.2d 

1194, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996)). To rebut a prima facie

case established by a certified conviction record, the 

licensee must either challenge the regularity of the record, 

or introduce direct evidence showing that the record is 

incorrect and that the conviction was never entered. Id. at 

102.

4

“In reviewing a decision of the trial court in a license suspension case, the standard of 

review of an appellate court is to determine if the factual findings of the trial court are supported 

by competent evidence, and whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of 

discretion.” Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Boucher, 691 A.2d 450, 453 (Pa. 

1997).
5

Dick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 3 A.3d 703, 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2010) (cleaned up). By contrast, a licensee cannot successfully rebut the 

Department’s prima facie valid case through uncorroborated testimony, as such 

evidence does not satisfy the aforementioned clear and convincing standard. Stevens 

v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 309 A.3d 193, 204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2024); Fell v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 925 A.2d 232, 239 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2007); Fagan v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 875 A.2d 

1195, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).5

In this instance, Lugo failed to offer any evidence that could be used to 

successfully defeat the Department’s efforts to suspend his driver’s license. The 

Department presented certified evidence to Common Pleas, in the form of 

documentation showing that Lugo had been convicted on August 29, 2022, of 

violating Section 3714(b) of the Vehicle Code, due to his conduct on May 29, 2022. 

Hearing Tr., 11/28/22, at 4-7; Department’s Ex. C-1, #2-#3. Lugo responded by 

simply testifying that he had never been convicted of this offense, without presenting 

anything else that both corroborated this bald assertion and unmistakably showed 

that the records provided by the Department were incorrect or irregular. In other 

words, the Department met its burden by offering prima facie valid proof regarding 

Lugo’s conviction, which Lugo then failed to rebut via clear and convincing 

evidence to the contrary.

5

“Whether evidence meets the ‘clear and convincing’ standard is a question of law.” 

Stevens, 309 A.3d at 201.
6

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing analysis, we conclude that Common Pleas erred by 

granting Lugo’s appeal and consequently reverse Common Pleas’ November 29, 

2022 order.

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Andres Rafael Garcia Lugo :

:

v. : No. 1463 C.D. 2022

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2

nd day of July, 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court 

of Common Pleas of Lehigh County’s November 29, 2022 order is REVERSED.

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge