Court Opinion

ID: 9645780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:34:55.672863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:31.447803
License: Public Domain

McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly notes that once the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) enters into evidence a certified record of a licensee’s conviction for a specified offense, DOT creates a rebutta-ble presumption that a licensee was convicted of that offense. See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Diamond, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 351, 616 A.2d 1105 (1992), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 535 Pa. 640, 631 A.2d 1011 (1993), and appeal dismissed, 539 Pa. 382, 652 A.2d 826 (1995). The majority also correctly notes that in order to overcome this presumption, a licensee is required to *103show by clear and convincing evidence that the record was erroneous.1 Id.
In this case, Jason M. Mateskovich (Licensee) was charged twice with violating Section 1333 of the Public School Code of 1949 (Code),2 relating to compulsory school attendance. We are only concerned here with Licensee’s second violation.3 With respect to this violation, Licensee was charged on November 13, 1998, and a hearing was held before a local district justice.4 The district justice then certified to DOT that Licensee had been convicted on April 21, 1999, and DOT, in conformity with the mandates of Section 1338.1(a) of the Code, 24 P.S. § 13-1338.1(a), suspended Licensee’s operating privilege for a period of six months.5
Licensee thereafter filed a statutory appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court), alleging that he was not convicted on April 21, 1999, that there was no hearing even held before the district justice on that date and that, in fact, he was never convicted of a second violation of Section 1333 of the Code. A de novo hearing was held before the trial court on September 23, 1999. At the hearing, DOT entered into evidence a packet of documents, duly certified and under seal, from the Secretary of Transportation and the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing. This packet of documents included a copy of the district justice’s April 21, 1999, certification and established a rebuttable presumption that Licensee was convicted of violating Section 1333 of the Code for a second time. Diamond.
In order to rebut this presumption, Licensee testified on his own behalf before the trial court. Specifically, Licensee testified that he appeared for a hearing before the district justice on February 9, 1999, not April 21, 1999, as the district justice indicated in the certification to DOT. See R.R. at 8a-10a. Additionally, Licensee testified that he was never convicted of truancy at this hearing. See R.R. at 9a. Instead, Licensee testified that the district justice informed him that “he wouldn’t really do anything,” but rather “would give [him] a continuance on [the citation] as long as [he] did not miss school any more.” Id.6 The trial court credited Licensee’s testimony and concluded that such testimony constituted sufficient “clear and convincing” evidence to overcome the presumption that a conviction exists.
The majority concludes that Licensee’s testimony does not constitute clear and convincing evidence establishing that the certified record was erroneous. In reach*104ing this conclusion, however, the majority exceeds our scope of review by infringing upon the trial court’s credibility determinations and improperly reweighing the testimony presented by Licensee. In order to overcome the presumption established by DOT, the majority holds that “Licensee would have to challenge the regularity of the record or provide other direct evidence as to why the court record was incorrect, i.e., testimony of court personnel that the records were incorrect and that the conviction was never entered by the district justice.” (Majority Opinion at 102).
The law is well settled that determinations as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight assigned to their testimony is solely within the province of the fact finder, in this case, the trial court. See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 521 Pa. 242, 555 A.2d 873 (1989).7 Additionally, when reviewing a decision of a lower court or an administrative agency, this Court may not reweigh the evidence presented or judge the credibility of witnesses. See Tandon v. State Board of Medicine, 705 A.2d 1338 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 556 Pa. 682, 727 A.2d 134 (1998); Kundrat v. State Dental Council and Examining Board, 67 Pa.Cmwlth. 341, 447 A.2d 355 (1982).
I do not believe that Licensee was required to produce additional direct evidence, apart from his own testimony, in order to establish that DOT’s certified record was incorrect. Instead, I believe that the testimony of a single witness, if found to be credible, can be sufficient to overcome the presumption. I agree with the trial court that Licensee’s testimony in this case constituted sufficient “clear and convincing” evidence to overcome the same. I note that this Court has previously held that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to satisfy the clear and convincing standard. See St. Joe Zinc v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Ambrose), 92 Pa.Cmwlth. 259, 499 A.2d 11 (1985).8
Furthermore, the issue before the trial court was whether the conviction, as shown in the certified record, was proeedurally correct. In accordance with the procedure established for summary cases by the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, the district justice is required to announce any verdict and sentence in open court immediately upon the conclusion of the trial. See Pa. R.Crim. P. 83(D). In other words, immediately upon conclusion of the testimony, the district justice must pronounce a finding of guilty or not guilty before the defendant.
If the district justice pronounces a finding of guilty, then he must immediately impose the sentence. Id. In fact, at the time of sentencing, the district justice is required to issue a written order, signed by him, imposing sentence. See Pa. R.Crim. P. 83(E)(4). Hence, the date of conviction is the date when the testimony is concluded and the sentence is imposed. See Commonwealth v. Wolf, 534 Pa. 283, 632 A.2d 864 (1993); Commonwealth v. Weis, 416 Pa.Super. 623, 611 A.2d 1218 (1992). A violation of these procedural rules has the effect of denying a defendant his right to a de novo hearing before the common pleas court. See Pa. R.Crim. P. 83(E)(2). Such deprivation of a defendant’s right to appeal, because of lack of notice to the defendant, raises serious due process concerns.
In this case, the trial court obviously believed that Licensee’s hearing was held on February 9, 1999, and the district justice did not pronounce a finding of guilty, nor impose a sentence, on that day. This *105finding by the trial court is supported by the evidence of record, which indicates a date of conviction of April 21, 1999. For this reason and all others stated above, I would affirm the order of the trial court.

. "Clear and convincing evidence” has been 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.” Sharon Steel Corporation v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Myers), 670 A.2d 1194, 1199 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 544 Pa. 679, 678 A.2d 368 (1996) (emphasis added).

. Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, added hy Act of November 17, 1995, P.L. 1110, as amended, 24 P.S. § 13-1333.

. There is no question that Licensee was convicted on the first violation and the same was certified to DOT.

. The actual date of this hearing is a critical issue in this case.

. This Section of the Code provides as follows:
The Department of Transportation shall suspend for 90 days the operating privilege of any child upon receiving a certified record that the child was convicted of violating section 1333. If the department receives a second or subsequent conviction for a child’s violation of section 1333, the department shall suspend the child’s operating privilege for six months.

.Licensee’s counsel confirmed the assertions in Licensee’s testimony. However, the law is well settled that counsel cannot present his own testimony as to the facts of a case and that counsel’s statements or questions at trial do not constitute evidence. See Grover v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 734 A.2d 941 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999); Commonwealth v. Royster, 524 Pa. 333, 572 A.2d 683 (1990).

. In O’Connell, our Supreme Court stated that "[q]uestions of credibility and conflicts in the evidence presented are for the trial court to resolve, not our appellate courts.” O’Connell, 521 Pa. at 248, 555 A.2d at 875 (emphasis added).

. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held the same as well. See City of Pittsburgh v. Ihrig, 256 Pa. 410, 100 A. 957 (1917); Sheaffer’s Estate, 240 Pa. 83, 87 A. 577 (1913).