From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Robert F. Milspaw

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 9, 1971
274 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1971)

Opinion

Argued March 8, 1971

March 9, 1971.

Motor vehicle operator's license suspension — Appeal to the Court of Common Pleas — Appeal de novo — Duty of Court — Findings of fact — Remand of record.

1. A judge of a court of common pleas hearing an appeal from the suspension of a motorist's operator's license by the Secretary of Revenue (now Secretary of Transportation) must hold a hearing de novo and make findings of fact sufficient to support the court's ultimate order, and where this duty has not been observed, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania will, on appeal, remand the record to the court below so that it may discharge its responsibilities. [377-8]

Argued March 8, 1971, before Judges KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.

Direct appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from the order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of the County of Washington, at No. 348 July Term, 1970, in case of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert Frank Milspaw.

Appeal from the suspension of the appellee's motor vehicle operator's license by the Secretary of Revenue (now Secretary of Transportation). Appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County sustained, opinion by McCUNE, J. The Commonwealth appealed. Held: Remanded.

Anthony J. Maiorana, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellant.

Clarence A. Crumrine, with him Stephen D. Marriner, and McCreight, Marriner McCreight, for appellee.


This case involves an appeal from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, dated November 2, 1970. This order sustained the appeal of Robert Frank Milspaw (appellee) from the findings of the Secretary of Revenue (now called Secretary of Transportation) suspending appellee's operator's license for a period of three months.

The Vehicle Code (Act of August 6, 1963, P. L. 509, as amended, 75 P.S. 620), provides that the Courts of Common Pleas, in appeals arising from the suspension of operator's licenses, are directed to hear such cases de novo. The Common Pleas judge has the duty to make findings of fact sufficient to support the Order of Court. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jerry M. Royer, 213 Pa. Super. 17, 245 A.2d 716 (1968), Handwerk Appeal, 348 Pa. 263, 35 A.2d 289 (1944), Commonwealth v. Wagner, 364 Pa. 566, 73 A.2d 676 (1950).

In the instant case the Judge failed to make findings of fact, and it is therefore not possible for an appellate court to review the resultant order. When the proper procedure is not followed, the matter should be remanded so that the court below may discharge its responsibility. Commonwealth v. Strobel, 375 Pa. 292, 100 A.2d 43 (1953), Commonwealth v. Strobel, 378 Pa. 84, 105 A.2d 152 (1954).

Furthermore, the rather incredible time sequence and surrounding circumstances as alleged by the appellant necessitates definitive and clear findings of fact. The failure on the part of the Judge below to so comport requires us to remand.

Therefore, in keeping with this opinion we issue the following

ORDER

AND NOW, March 9, 1971, this case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County for disposition in accordance with the above opinion.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Robert F. Milspaw

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 9, 1971
274 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1971)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Robert F. Milspaw

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert Frank Milspaw

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 9, 1971

Citations

274 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1971)
274 A.2d 777

Citing Cases

Dept. Transportation v. Verna

We interpret the words of the Supreme Court in [Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388, 96 A.2d 370 (1953)] and…

Dept. of Transportation v. Williams

Inasmuch as this case must be remanded for a proper hearing, it is also noted that the lower court failed to…