Court Opinion

ID: 9901178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 15:11:00.493254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:27.976716
License: Public Domain

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…)
               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).
                                                2
            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

                                         3
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).”).
                                                   4
         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

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2023, the order of the Dauphin
County Court of Common Pleas dated September 10, 2020, is AFFIRMED.