Court Opinion

ID: 9556734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 14:10:42.099338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:10.986800
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carlos M. Montes                                 :
                                                 :
               v.                                :
                                                 :   No. 1112 C.D. 2020
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,                    :
Department of Transportation,                    :   Submitted: June 3, 2022
Bureau of Driver Licensing,                      :
                  Appellant                      :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
               HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                            FILED: August 18, 2023

               The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the October 1, 2020 order of the Court
of Common Pleas of Berks County (trial court), which sustained Carlos M. Montes’s
(Licensee) statutory appeal of the suspension of his driving privilege for a period of
one year pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code.1 Also before the Court
is DOT’s Application for Remand (Application). Upon review, we vacate the trial
court’s order, grant DOT’s Application, and remand for an evidentiary hearing to
determine whether Licensee can establish extraordinary circumstances warranting the
grant of an appeal nunc pro tunc.

       1
          75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(1)(i). This section authorizes DOT to suspend the driving privilege
of a licensee for 12 months as a consequence of his refusal to submit to chemical testing in connection
with his arrest for violating Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3802 (relating to driving
under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances (DUI)).
                      I.    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                On November 17, 2018, Licensee was stopped by Officer Jeffrey Futchko
and trainee Officer McMahon2 of the Western Berks Regional Police Department due
to his license plate not being fully illuminated. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 34a-
36a.)       Officer Futchko testified that Licensee only spoke Spanish and did not
understand English. (R.R. at 34a.) Officer Futchko observed signs of intoxication,
including bloodshot, watery eyes, and a faint odor of alcohol coming from Licensee’s
breath. (R.R. at 39a.) Based on Officer Futchko’s observations, he placed Licensee
under arrest on suspicion of DUI. (R.R. at 43a-45a.)
                Licensee was transported to central processing, where Officer Futchko
read the entirety of the DL-26A form to Licensee in English, and Licensee signed the
form. (R.R. at 46a-50a.) Officer Futchko then requested a Spanish-speaking officer
from the Reading Police Department to help translate the form for Licensee and read
the breath test instructions, and Officer Steve Valdez responded to Officer Futchko’s
request.3 Officer Valdez responded to Officer Futchko’s request and explained to
Licensee, in Spanish, the DL-26A form, what the test entailed, and the consequences
if Licensee did not submit to testing. (R.R. at 61a-63a.) Licensee refused to submit to
chemical testing. (R.R. at 50a.)
                On December 4, 2018, DOT mailed Licensee a Notice of Suspension,
informing him that DOT was suspending his operating privilege for one year under
Section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(1)(i), effective
January 8, 2019, due to his chemical test refusal on November 17, 2018. The Notice
of Suspension stated in relevant part: “You have the right to appeal this action to the

        2
          Upon review of the record, Officer McMahon did not testify at the hearing and was only
identified by her surname.

        3
         Officer Futchko mistakenly refers to Officer Valdez as Officer “Rivera” throughout his
testimony.

                                               2
Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) within 30 days of the mail date, DECEMBER
04, 2018, of this letter.” (R.R. at 81a) (emphasis in original).
              On March 29, 2019, 85 days after DOT’s Notice of Suspension, Licensee
filed his Petition for Appeal with the trial court. In his Petition for Appeal, Licensee
asserted that he did not receive a Notice of Suspension from DOT and only became
aware of his license suspension as a result of a traffic violation on February 26, 2019.
(R.R. at 4a.) The trial court scheduled a hearing and granted a supersedeas of the
suspension. (R.R. at 17a.) On July 21, 2020, the trial court held a hearing de novo.
(R.R. at 30a.) On October 1, 2020, the trial court filed a decision and order sustaining
the appeal and rescinding the January 8, 2019 suspension. (R.R. at 1a, 114a-21a.)
              On October 27, 2020, DOT timely appealed to this Court. (R.R. at 1a,
122a-34a.) On March 31, 2021, DOT filed the Application to remand to the trial court
arguing that Licensee filed an untimely statutory appeal of his suspension and the trial
court had not held a hearing in accordance with Department of Transportation, Bureau
of Driver Licensing v. Schillaci, 639 A.2d 924 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), to determine
whether Licensee could proceed on a nunc pro tunc basis. (Appellant’s Br. at 20.) On
May 7, 2021, this Court filed a per curiam order directing the parties to address whether
the matter should be remanded for the reasons stated in the motion to remand and listing
the Application with the merits of the appeal.4 Id.

                                        II.     ISSUES
              DOT contends on appeal that (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law in
concluding that Licensee satisfied his burden of proof that he was incapable of making
a knowing and conscious decision to refuse chemical testing of his blood, (2) the trial

       4
         By notice dated August 4, 2021, Licensee’s counsel, George A. Gonzalez, Esq., informed
the Court that Licensee will not be filing a brief in this matter.

                                              3
court’s finding that Licensee met his burden is not supported by substantial evidence,
(3) the trial court erred as a matter of law by sustaining Licensee’s appeal because it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, or, alternatively, (4) the appeal should be remanded
to determine whether Licensee should have been permitted to file a nunc pro tunc
appeal.

                                     III.    DISCUSSION5
              Before addressing the substantive issues DOT raises in this appeal, we
first address DOT’s Application. In its Application, DOT asserts that Licensee’s
appeal was untimely and that his mere denial of receiving the Notice of Suspension is
insufficient to support a nunc pro tunc appeal of his license suspension. DOT argues
that even if Licensee did not receive the Notice of Suspension, he had actual knowledge
of the suspension on February 26, 2019, but still untimely filed his appeal on March
29, 2019, one day outside the 30-day appeal window.
              Section 1550 of the Vehicle Code governs judicial review and expressly
provides that any person whose operating privilege has been suspended may appeal to
the court vested with jurisdiction of such appeals, in this case, the trial court. 75 Pa.
C.S. § 1550(a). It is well settled that an appeal from a driver’s license suspension must
be taken within 30 days from the mailing date of the DOT’s notice. 42 Pa. C.S. §§
5571(b), 5572; see Kulick v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver
Licensing, 666 A.2d 1148, 1149-50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). If a licensee fails to appeal
from a suspension within that 30-day appeal period, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to
hear the appeal unless there are grounds for granting the appeal nunc pro tunc. Id. at

       5
         “When a trial court permits the filing of an untimely appeal, our review is limited to
determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Hudson v.
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594, 598 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2003).

                                                4
1150. An appeal nunc pro tunc is only appropriate where “the licensee’s failure to file
a timely appeal resulted from extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or
breakdown in the administrative or judicial process,” and it is the licensee’s burden to
prove such circumstances existed. Id. Moreover, “[i]t has long been the rule that
questions of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on appeal, by
the parties or by the court sua sponte.” Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Driver Licensing v. Gelormino, 636 A.2d 224, 226 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
             Here, DOT mailed its notice of suspension to Licensee on December 4,
2018. (R.R. at 82a.) Thus, Licensee’s statutory appeal period ended on January 3,
2019. In his Petition for Appeal, filed March 29, 2019, Licensee alleged that he was
unaware of his suspension until he was pulled over during a subsequent traffic violation
on February 26, 2019, because “he never received any [N]otice of [S]uspension.” (R.R.
at 4a.) Thus, Licensee’s appeal is facially untimely, and the trial court was without
jurisdiction to consider it unless sufficient grounds exist to consider the appeal nunc
pro tunc. During the evidentiary hearing, the trial court did not take any evidence or
make any determinations regarding the timeliness of Licensee’s appeal. See generally
Notes of Testimony (N.T.) Hr’g, 07/21/20.

                                  IV.   CONCLUSION
             For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting
Licensee’s Petition for Appeal without conducting a full evidentiary hearing on the
timeliness issue. See Schillaci, 639 A.2d at 926 (“[B]ecause of [the trial court’s] error
in not conducting a hearing on [the] licensee’s petition to appeal nunc pro tunc, the
untimeliness of [the] licensee’s petition was, in effect, never resolved.”). Accordingly,
the trial court’s order sustaining Licensee’s appeal is vacated, DOT’s Application is

                                           5
granted, and this matter is remanded to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing
to determine whether Licensee should be allowed to appeal nunc pro tunc.6

                                                  ________________________________
                                                  PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

      6
          Based upon this disposition, we need not address the substantive issues of DOT’s appeal.

                                                  6
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carlos M. Montes                         :
                                         :
            v.                           :
                                         :    No. 1112 C.D. 2020
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,            :
Department of Transportation,            :
Bureau of Driver Licensing,              :
                  Appellant              :

                                     ORDER

            AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2023, the October 1, 2020 order
of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (trial court) is hereby VACATED.
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing’s Application for
Remand is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.
            Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                             ________________________________
                                             PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge