Opinion
Argued April 22, 1971
June 29, 1971.
The Vehicle Code, Act 1959, April 29, P. L. 58, as amended — Hearings de novo — Findings of fact and conclusions of law — Appellate review.
1. Appeals arising from a suspension of a motor vehicle operator's license shall be heard de novo by the Courts of Common Pleas. [539]
2. In driver's license suspension appeals, the Common Pleas judge has the duty to make specific findings of fact where there is disputed or credible conflicting testimony and where there is undisputed testimony but evidence of extenuating facts and circumstances is submitted. [539-40]
3. Absent specific findings of fact or conclusions of law by the lower court, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania cannot determine whether findings of the court below are supported by competent evidence, whether erroneous conclusions of law were reached or whether a continuance was requested and properly denied. [540]
Argued April 22, 1971, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER and MENCER, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal No. 203 C. D. 1970, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County at No. SA-801 of 1970 in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kenneth M. Silverman.
Appeal from the suspension of motor vehicle operator's license to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Appeal sustained. MARTIN, J. 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.
No appearance for appellee.
This is an appeal from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated October 20, 1970, which sustained the appeal of Kenneth M. Silverman from a suspension of three months imposed by the Secretary of Revenue (now the Secretary of Transportation).
By a host of authorities, the Courts of Common Pleas, in appeals arising from the suspension of operator's licenses, are directed to hear such cases de novo. See The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 620, and Annot., 97 A.L.R. 2d 1367, 1371-1372 (1964).
The Common Pleas judge has the duty to make findings of fact both (1) where there is disputed or credible conflicting testimony, and (2) where there is undisputed testimony but extenuating facts and circumstances are submitted. Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388, 96 A.2d 370 (1953); Commonwealth v. Strobel, 375 Pa. 292, 100 A.2d 43 (1953), same case, 378 Pa. 84, 105 A.2d 152 (1954).
In the instant case the Judge failed to make specific findings of fact, nor did he specifically state conclusions of law. How, then, is this Court to fulfill its duty "to determine whether the findings of the court below are supported by competent evidence and to correct any erroneous conclusions of law"? See Commonwealth v. James F. McCartney, 2 Pa. Commw. 540, 279 A.2d 77 (1971), and cases cited therein. We are particularly interested in receiving specific findings of the facts surrounding appellee's request for a continuance, if any, and why it was not granted.
Therefore, in keeping with this opinion, we issue the following
ORDER
AND NOW, June 29, 1971, the record in this case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and for the entry of an order, based thereon, which sustains or reverses the action of the Secretary of Revenue (now the Secretary of Transportation).