Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Pepe
Decision Date | 01 August 2005 |
Citation | 879 A.2d 747,379 N.J. Super. 411 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael D. PEPE, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Mark W. Phillips, argued the cause for appellant (Rylak and Gianos, attorneys, Clinton; Mr. Phillips, on the brief).
Emily H. Armstrong, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kelly J. Williams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Before Judges NEWMAN, R.B. COLEMAN and BILDER.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
R.B. COLEMAN, J.A.D.
Defendant Michael Pepe appeals from the final decision of the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles (NJDMV) suspending Pepe's New Jersey driver's license for his out-of-state (New York) conviction of driving while intoxicated. Pepe did not receive a concurrent suspension of his driving privileges in New Jersey. He contends he is now being prejudiced in that he has moved back to New Jersey and his job could be in jeopardy if he is unable to drive. Stated more fully, his arguments are as follows:
These arguments are without merit. We affirm the decision of NJDMV.
On August 18, 2002, Pepe was arrested in Nassau County, New York, and charged with driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content (BAC) equal to or exceeding.10 percent, a per se violation in New York and in New Jersey.1 As a result of defendant's arrest, his driving privileges in New York were automatically suspended and four months later on December 20, 2002, when he pled guilty and was sentenced, the court ordered an additional suspension of two months. It also required that Pepe complete a ten week educational course on alcohol and chemical dependency, a sixteen hour course in a New York State DMV drunk driving program, attend sixteen individual counseling sessions and attend eighteen group counseling sessions. In addition, Pepe was placed on probation for a period of three years and required to pay fines in the amount of $1,070. His driving privileges could not be restored until such time that he completed his course requirements and paid the fines; however, the court permitted him to apply for a conditional license so that he could work and attend his courses after the completion of the additional two month suspension.
On January 13, 2003, the State of New York sent the NJDMV notice of Pepe's December 20, 2002, DWI conviction. On May 7, 2003, NJDMV issued a Notice of Scheduled Suspension stating its intent to suspend Pepe's New Jersey driving privileges for one-hundred eighty days in accordance with N.J.S.A. 39:5-30, N.J.S.A. 39:5D-4 and N.J.A.C. 13:19-11.1, due to his conviction for an alcohol related violation in New York. The effective date of the suspension was to have been May 31, 2003, however, Pepe requested a hearing to challenge the proposed suspension. He asserted, and continues to assert, that he was prejudiced by the delay of more than four months by the State of New Jersey before it advised him that it intended to suspend his driving privileges. He contends he believed his New Jersey driving privileges had already been suspended along with his driving privileges in New York. He states that if he had been informed promptly of NJDMV's intention to suspend his privileges, he could have voluntarily accepted the suspension in order that it could have been served concurrently with his New York suspension.
The State points out that although Pepe was residing in New York at the time of his arrest and that state's suspension of his driving privileges, he had never surrendered his New Jersey driver's license. He was at all times a New Jersey licensed driver. As such, New York had the authority to suspend Pepe's driving privileges in that state, but it could not revoke/suspend the driver's license issued by his home state of New Jersey. On the other hand, as a result of the Interstate Driver License Compact, to which New Jersey and New York are parties, NJDMV is expressly authorized to suspend the driving privileges of a person convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol in another party State. Cf. New Jersey Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Ripley, 364 N.J.Super. 343, 346-347, 835 A.2d 1252 (App.Div.2003) ( ).
In pertinent part, the relevant provision of the New Jersey version of the Interstate Driver License Compact, N.J.S.A. 39:5D-4, provides:
The six month suspension imposed by NJDMV is in accordance with the statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and was not redundant to the penalty imposed in New York, which involved only defendant's driving privileges within that state. Boyd v. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 307 N.J.Super. 356, 360, 704 A.2d 1029 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608, 713 A.2d 499 (1998) ( ).
Like the delay in Boyd, supra, 307 N.J.Super. at 359,704 A.2d 1029, the four month delay between NJDMV's receipt of notice of Pepe's New York conviction and its issuance of its Notice of Scheduled Suspension is unfortunate; but we are satisfied the delay in the administrative process in New Jersey did not result in substantial prejudice to defendant. See also In re Garber, 141 N.J.Super. 87, 91, 357 A.2d 297 (App.Div.),certif. denied,71 N.J. 494, 366 A.2d 650 (1976) (); cf. In re Arndt, 67 N.J. 432, 341 A.2d 596 (1975) ( ).
The suspension of defendant's driving privileges in New York commenced automatically upon his arrest on August 18, 2002. At the time of his actual conviction of that charge on December 20, 2002, the New York court ordered that his suspension there continue for two more months. He had already served five months of the ultimate six month New York suspension by the time New York notified NJDMV in mid-January 2003. Thus, even an immediate notification by NJDMV of its intention to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gray v. North Dakota Game and Fish Dept., 20050103.
...legitimate remedial measure designed to prevent unsafe drivers from operating vehicles on Idaho's highways"); State v. Pepe, 379 N.J.Super. 411, 879 A.2d 747, 752 (App.Div.2005) (double jeopardy did not bar the imposition of two periods of suspension for driving while intoxicated in another......
-
Digioia v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n
...of alcohol is to be given the same effect as "if such conduct had occurred in the home state". See also N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Pepe, 379 N.J. Super. 411, 419 (App. Div. 2005) (A New Jersey licensed driver who drives while impaired in a Compact party state violates the sovereignty of......
-
Mize v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n
...or revoke the use of the license or permit to operate a motor vehicle." N.J.S.A. 39:5D-2(b)); see also Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Pepe, 379 N.J. Super. 411, 415-16 (App. Div. 2005) (affirming suspension of non-resident's New Jersey driver'slicense where the driver held license at time of off......
-
Koscinski v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, DOCKET NO. A-0065-16T4
...petitioner was subject to punishment in both Illinois and New Jersey for driving while intoxicated. State, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Pepe, 379 N.J. Super. 411, 418 (App. Div. 2005). The fact the Illinois court imposed a sentence did not preclude the Commission from imposing applicable manda......