The Commonwealth defines an habitual offender as "A habitual offender under section 1542 (relating to revocation of habitual offender's license) who drives a motor vehicle on any highway or trafficway of this Commonwealth while the habitual offender's operating privilege is suspended, revoked or canceled commits a misdemeanor of the second degree."
Additionally, "The department shall revoke the operating privilege of any person found to be a habitual offender pursuant to the provisions of this section. A “habitual offender” shall be any person whose driving record, as maintained in the department, shows that such person has accumulated the requisite number of convictions for the separate and distinct offenses described and enumerated in subsection (b) committed after the effective date of this title and within any period of five years thereafter." These are issues that frequently come up for a Bucks County criminal attorney who has a client with multiple DUI's and potentially previous poor driving history.
The law states in 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542 (revocation of habitual offender’s license), that your driver’s license may be revoked for a period of five (5) years if you are convicted of three (3) of the following offenses, in any combination, over a period of five (5) years:
- Driving Under the Influence of Drugs or Alcohol;
- Driving While a License is Suspended or Revoked;
- Voluntary or Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter;
- Accidents Causing Damage to property;
- Felony Involving a Vehicle;
- Racing on Highways;
- Reckless Driving;
- Fleeing From a Police Officer; and/or
- Failing to Stop When a Vehicle Involved in a Crash.
Each additional offense committed within the five (5) year span will result in an additional revocation of two (2) years if found guilty.
There is not a lot of caselaw on the subject. On such case is Cardell. On appeal, Licensee (Cardell) argued that PennDOT presented insufficient evidence to meet its burden of proving that he is a habitual offender under 75 Pa. C.S. §1542. Licensee contended that because PennDOT's documents are inconsistent on the critical date of his first violation, all of PennDOT's documents are unreliable and inadmissible. Absent evidence of the date of Licensee's first DUI offense, PennDOT could not prove he committed three DUI offenses within the statutory five-year period. Cardell v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 2013 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 514 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). Unfortunately for the driver, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled, "Having reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, we agree with the trial court that PennDOT satisfied its burden of proof and that Licensee was not entitled to relief. Because the trial court accurately articulated and thoroughly analyzed the issues, and correctly applied the law, this Court affirms the trial court's order on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion by the Honorable Michael J. Koury, Jr. Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches in John William Cardell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, No. C-48-CV-2011-9465, filed October 25, 2012)".