Legal Opinion · Dissent

Meredith v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 26, 1991No. 2209 C.D. 1990Published

1DissentMcGINLEY, Judge

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and its characterization of the instant appeal as a collateral attack on the underlying criminal proceedings. Licensee has not challenged his conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308. Licensee’s appeal is limited to a challenge to the rationality and constitutionality of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6310.4 as applied to him by DOT’S suspension of his motor vehicle operating privileges because the offense is unconnected to the use of a motor vehicle. This type of challenge is not excluded from our review, and is similar to constitutional challenges this Court…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. StrunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Sheakley v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Commonwealth v. LemonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. In re Appeal From Revocation of Operator's License of DeemsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API