suspension hearing in Pennsylvania

2019Unlike the licensees in Sutton and Harrington, there is no indication from the record here that Licensee was familiar with the basis for the suspension such that his challenge of the Order of Suspension can be construed as an attempt to be “deliberately obtuse as to the nature of a proceeding.” Harrington, 763 A.2d at 393 (quoting Dep’t of Transp. v. McCafferty, 758 A.2d 1150, 1163 (Pa. 2000)).

2019Unlike the licensees in Sutton and Harrington, there is no indication from the record here that Licensee was familiar with the basis for the suspension such that his challenge of the Order of Suspension can be construed as an attempt to be “deliberately obtuse as to the nature of a proceeding.” Harrington, 763 A.2d at 393 (quoting Dep’t of Transp. v. McCafferty, 758 A.2d 1150, 1163 (Pa. 2000)).

2017In doing so, we stated: “Where a licensee pleads guilty to the summary offense and does not object to the admission of the guilty plea at the suspension hearing, [the Department] satisfies its burden of proof . . . .” Id. at 1231 (citing Fine v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 694 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) and Wible, 670 A.2d at 746 ).

2005Fine v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 694 A.2d 364 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Wible v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 670 A.2d 744 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). 2 Here, the trial court determined Penn-DOT failed to satisfy its burden of proving a prima facie violation of the suspension provisions of Section 1786(d)(1).

2017In doing so, we stated: “Where a licensee pleads guilty to the summary offense and does not object to the admission of the guilty plea at the suspension hearing, [the Department] satisfies its burden of proof . . . .” Id. at 1231 (citing Fine v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 694 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) and Wible, 670 A.2d at 746 ).

2005Fine v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 694 A.2d 364 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Wible v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 670 A.2d 744 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). 2 Here, the trial court determined Penn-DOT failed to satisfy its burden of proving a prima facie violation of the suspension provisions of Section 1786(d)(1).

2010McDonough v. Commonwealth, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 384 , 618 A.2d 1258 (1992).

2010McDonough v. Commonwealth, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 384 , 618 A.2d 1258 (1992).

2024Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 541 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).

2024(Trial Ct. Op. at 2.) “Absent clear and convincing evidence that the record is erroneous, this presumption becomes conclusive on the issue of conviction.” Diamond, 616 A.2d at 1107-08 .

2022Commonwealth v. Bel, 167 A.3d 744, 747 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“Our courts have established that ) driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right.”), afFd, 211 A.3d 761 (Pa. 2019).

2017Id. at 1230 .

2017In doing so, we stated: “Where a licensee pleads guilty to the summary offense and does not object to the admission of the guilty plea at the suspension hearing, [the Department] satisfies its burden of proof . . . .” Id. at 1231 (citing Fine v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 694 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) and Wible, 670 A.2d at 746 ).

2012Our review of the caselaw reveals no pertinent controlling authority in Pennsylvania; however, we observe that courts consistently have concluded that neither a counsel’s suspension nor his violation of pro hac vice admission rules requires a per se finding of ineffectiveness, and therefore, a petitioner still must show actual prejudice. 10 See, e.g., Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1033 , 127 S.Ct. 579 , 166 L.Ed.2d 433 (2006) (state bar court’s subsequent finding of unfitness did not render counsel’s earlier assistance in defendant’s case per se i

2012Our review of the caselaw reveals no pertinent controlling authority in Pennsylvania; however, we observe that courts consistently have concluded that neither a counsel’s suspension nor his violation of pro hac vice admission rules requires a per se finding of ineffectiveness, and therefore, a petitioner still must show actual prejudice. 10 See, e.g., Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1033 , 127 S.Ct. 579 , 166 L.Ed.2d 433 (2006) (state bar court’s subsequent finding of unfitness did not render counsel’s earlier assistance in defendant’s case per se i

2012Our review of the caselaw reveals no pertinent controlling authority in Pennsylvania; however, we observe that courts consistently have concluded that neither a counsel’s suspension nor his violation of pro hac vice admission rules requires a per se finding of ineffectiveness, and therefore, a petitioner still must show actual prejudice. 10 See, e.g., Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1033 , 127 S.Ct. 579 , 166 L.Ed.2d 433 (2006) (state bar court’s subsequent finding of unfitness did not render counsel’s earlier assistance in defendant’s case per se i

2012Our review of the caselaw reveals no pertinent controlling authority in Pennsylvania; however, we observe that courts consistently have concluded that neither a counsel’s suspension nor his violation of pro hac vice admission rules requires a per se finding of ineffectiveness, and therefore, a petitioner still must show actual prejudice. 10 See, e.g., Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1033 , 127 S.Ct. 579 , 166 L.Ed.2d 433 (2006) (state bar court’s subsequent finding of unfitness did not render counsel’s earlier assistance in defendant’s case per se i

2012Our review of the caselaw reveals no pertinent controlling authority in Pennsylvania; however, we observe that courts consistently have concluded that neither a counsel’s suspension nor his violation of pro hac vice admission rules requires a per se finding of ineffectiveness, and therefore, a petitioner still must show actual prejudice. 10 See, e.g., Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1033 , 127 S.Ct. 579 , 166 L.Ed.2d 433 (2006) (state bar court’s subsequent finding of unfitness did not render counsel’s earlier assistance in defendant’s case per se i

1998Issues of misconduct or fault, if any, on the part of a claimant do not impact upon this determination.” Hertz-Penske, 546 Pa. at 261 , 684 A.2d at 549 .

1998Issues of misconduct or fault, if any, on the part of a claimant do not impact upon this determination.” Hertz-Penske, 546 Pa. at 261 , 684 A.2d at 549 .

1986Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Berrier, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 302 , 442 A.2d 403 (1982).

1986Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Berrier, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 302 , 442 A.2d 403 (1982).

1986An analogous situation was presented in McGhee v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. Commw. 310 , 481 A.2d 1237 (1984).

1986An analogous situation was presented in McGhee v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. Commw. 310 , 481 A.2d 1237 (1984).

1984The issue before the com mon pleas court was not whether appellant was intoxicated but whether the officer had reasonable grounds to stop appellant and request appellant take a breathalyzer test, see Department of Transportation, Bureau, of Traffic Safety v. Sinwell, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 605 , 450 A.2d 285 (1982) ; Corry v. Commonwealth, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 324 , 429 A.2d 1229 (1981), and ultimately, whether appellant refused to submit to such a test.

1984The issue before the com mon pleas court was not whether appellant was intoxicated but whether the officer had reasonable grounds to stop appellant and request appellant take a breathalyzer test, see Department of Transportation, Bureau, of Traffic Safety v. Sinwell, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 605 , 450 A.2d 285 (1982) ; Corry v. Commonwealth, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 324 , 429 A.2d 1229 (1981), and ultimately, whether appellant refused to submit to such a test.

1984The issue before the com mon pleas court was not whether appellant was intoxicated but whether the officer had reasonable grounds to stop appellant and request appellant take a breathalyzer test, see Department of Transportation, Bureau, of Traffic Safety v. Sinwell, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 605 , 450 A.2d 285 (1982) ; Corry v. Commonwealth, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 324 , 429 A.2d 1229 (1981), and ultimately, whether appellant refused to submit to such a test.