IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christa Dolce :

:

v. : No. 201 C.D. 2016

: SUBMITTED: July 22, 2016

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: October 28, 2016

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Department of 

Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, appeals from an order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County that, in pertinent part, sustained the statutory

appeal of Licensee, Christa Dolce,1by rejecting the Department’s requirement that 

she install an ignition interlock device on her vehicle upon completion of her 

suspension and before restoration of her operating privilege. Because the 

Department is not appealing from that part of the trial court’s order modifying

Licensee’s operating privilege suspension from eighteen to twelve months, the 

narrow issue before us is whether the court erred in holding that Licensee was not 

 

1

In July 2016, this Court entered an order precluding Licensee from filing a brief in this 

matter for failure to comply with a prior order directing her to file a brief.
2

required to comply with the ignition interlock requirement. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm the trial court’s order sustaining Licensee’s statutory appeal to 

the extent that it directed the Department to impose a twelve-month suspension, 

but reverse it to the extent that it failed to require Licensee to comply with the 

ignition interlock requirement found in Section 3805(a) of the Vehicle Code

(Code), 75 Pa. C.S. § 3805(a). 

On July 18, 2005, Licensee was convicted of a December 25, 2004, 

violation of Section 3802(c) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3802(c), driving under the 

influence of alcohol or controlled substance-highest rate of alcohol, and, 

consequently, the Department suspended her operating privilege for eighteen 

months. December 1, 2015, Hearing, Exhibit C-1 at #s 4 and 5; Reproduced 

Record (R.R.) at 38a and 41a.

2

 Approximately ten years later, on August 25, 2015, 

Licensee was convicted of a February 24, 2015, violation of Section 3802(d)(3) of 

the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3802(d)(3), driving “under the combined influence of 

alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the 

individual’s ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the 

movement of the vehicle.” Id. at #2; R.R. at 35a. Thereafter, the Department 

imposed an operating privilege suspension of eighteen months and an ignition

interlock requirement. Id. at #1; R.R. at 32-34a. In October 2015, Licensee filed a 

timely appeal with the trial court, which held a hearing de novo.

At the hearing, the trial court admitted Commonwealth Exhibit C-1 

into evidence, without objection. In addition, based on an amended DL-21, 

depicting a change from conviction of a first degree misdemeanor to an ungraded 

 

2 As the Department noted in its brief, its counsel mistakenly stated at the hearing that 

Licensee accepted ARD for her first DUI violation. Department’s Brief at 7 n.1.
3

misdemeanor, both counsel agreed that the trial court should remand the matter to 

the Department to modify the suspension from eighteen to twelve months.3 

December 1, 2015, Hearing, Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 3-4; R.R. 23-24a. The 

Department, however, adhered to its argument that Licensee was still required to 

comply with the ignition interlock requirement because her second DUI violation 

occurred less than ten years after her first DUI conviction.

Subsequently, the trial court entered an order sustaining Licensee’s 

appeal and directing that her operating privilege be suspended for a period of 

twelve months. It further ordered, however, that she did not have to comply with 

the ignition interlock provision upon completion of her license suspension. 

Common Pleas’ January 14, 2016, Order; R.R. at 47a. The Department appealed, 

noting its agreement with the suspension reduction but reiterating its position that 

Licensee should be subject to the ignition interlock requirement. In its opinion,

filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), the trial court

acknowledged that Licensee should be subject to the ignition interlock 

requirement. We agree.

In general, the Department “shall impose an ignition interlock 

requirement in situations where a person commits a DUI violation and has a prior 

offense within the last ten years.” Smith v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver 

Licensing, 41 A.3d 924, 928 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). For purposes of Section 3805(a) 

of the Code, the ignition interlock provision, the term “prior offense” is defined in 

Section 3806(a) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3806(a). Whalen v. Dep’t of Transp., 

 

3

In pertinent part, Section 3804(e)(2)(i) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3804(e)(2)(i), provides 

for a twelve-month suspension for an ungraded misdemeanor.
4

Bureau of Driver Licensing, 32 A.3d 677, 680 (Pa. 2011). Accordingly, those two 

statutory provisions control the present case.

In relevant part, Section 3805(a)(1) and (2) of the Code, the ignition 

interlock provision, provides:

(a) If a person violates section 3802 (relating to 

driving under influence of alcohol or controlled 

substance) and, within the past ten years, has a prior 

offense as defined in section 3806(a) (relating to prior 

offenses) . . . and the person seeks a restoration of 

operating privileges, the department shall require as a 

condition of issuing a restricted license pursuant to this 

section that the following occur:

(1) Each motor vehicle owned by the person or 

registered to the person has been equipped with an 

ignition interlock system and remain so for the duration 

of the restricted license period.

(2) If there are no motor vehicles owned by the 

person or registered to the person that the person so 

certify to the department. A person so certifying shall be 

deemed to have satisfied the requirement that all motor 

vehicles owned by the person or registered to the person 

be equipped with an ignition interlock system as required 

by this subsection.

75 Pa. C.S. § 3805(a)(1) and (2) (emphasis added). Section 3806(a)(1) of the 

Code, which defines prior offenses, provides:

(a) General rule.—Except as set forth in subsection 

(b), the term “prior offense” as used in this chapter shall 

mean a conviction, adjudication of delinquency, juvenile 

consent decree, acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative 

Disposition or other form of preliminary disposition 

before the sentencing on the present violation for any of 

the following:

(1) an offense under section 3802 (relating 

to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled 

substance)[.]

75 Pa. C.S. § 3806(a)(1) (emphasis added).
5

In the present case, the following dates support the determination that 

the ignition interlock requirement is applicable to Licensee: (1) July 18, 2005: 1st 

conviction of Section 3802; (2) February 24, 2015: 2nd violation of Section 3802; 

and (3) August 25, 2015: 2nd conviction of Section 3802. Because Licensee’s 

first DUI conviction, July 18, 2005, occurred before the sentencing on the present 

violation, August 25, 2015, her first DUI conviction is a “prior offense.” Further, 

because she violated Section 3802 on February 24, 2015, which is within ten years

of her first DUI conviction of July 18, 2005, she is, therefore, required to comply 

with the ignition interlock requirement. See Whalen, 32 A.3d at 680 (holding that, 

“based strictly on the plain text of Section 3805, the ignition interlock requirement 

is applicable when a person ‘violates’ Section 3802, and also, within the preceding 

ten years, had a ‘prior offense,’ i.e., a prior conviction or prior acceptance of ARD 

for an offense under Section 3802 or similar provision.”)

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order sustaining Licensee’s 

statutory appeal to the extent that it directed the Department to impose a twelvemonth suspension, but reverse it to the extent that the court failed to require 

Licensee to comply with the ignition interlock requirement.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christa Dolce :

:

v. : No. 201 C.D. 2016

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

:

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2016, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County is hereby AFFIRMED to the extent that the 

court sustained the statutory appeal of Licensee, Christa Dolce, and directed the 

Department to impose a twelve-month suspension of her operating privilege, and 

REVERSED to the extent that the court failed to require Licensee to comply with 

the ignition interlock requirement. The Department’s requirement that Licensee 

comply with the ignition interlock provision is reinstated.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

Senior Judge