J-A11035-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
WINFIELD KELLY STRAUGHEN JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 1145 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 5, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-06-SA-0000161-2017
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and PLATT*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Appellant, Winfield Kelly Straughen, Jr., appeals pro se from the
judgment of sentence in a summary appeal, at which he was found guilty of
failure to have a commercial driver’s license and failure to have a required
medical card.1 We affirm.
We take the factual and procedural history in this matter from our
review of the certified record and the trial court’s September 14, 2017 opinion.
At the de novo hearing on July 5, 2017, Officer David M. Bentz testified that
on January 31, 2017, he stopped Appellant. (Trial Court Opinion, 9/14/17, at
1). Appellant was driving a Dodge Ram pickup truck and towing a trailer.
____________________________________________
1 Although counsel entered appearance on behalf of Appellant after Appellant
filed a pro se notice of appeal, he was later permitted to proceed pro se.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11035-18
(See id.). Counsel for the Commonwealth stated the Commonwealth believed
that the gross combination weight rating (“GCWR”) for the Dodge truck was
26,000 pounds and the trailer 20,000 pounds. (See N.T. Hearing, 7/5/17, at
4). These two weights required Appellant to have a commercial driver’s
license. (See id.). The Commonwealth contended that the truck was
registered in Virginia and introduced the registration, showing the GCWR for
the truck was 26,000 pounds. (Id. at 7, 70).
Appellant testified he had information from the manufacturer that the
GCWR for the vehicle was 23,000 pounds. (Id. at 6).2 He contended the
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) for his truck was 12,200 pounds,
according to the manufacturer label on the door, not 26,000 pounds. (Id. at
7).
Officer Benz testified that his “training has always been and prior
enforcement efforts we certainly take the [GVWR] of the primary unit and the
gross weight of the trailer and add them together to determine the
combination.” (Id. at 9). Counsel for the Commonwealth stated that the
registration for the trailer indicated the GVWR was 20,000 pounds. (Id. at
14). Appellant conceded that the value for the truck is assigned the
“maximum value for its weight rating which the [GCWR] is the maximum that
they specify for a truck and trailer combined. It’s a combination.” (Id. at
____________________________________________
2 Appellant appeared pro se at the hearing.
-2-
J-A11035-18
20). He agreed that “[i]f my gross vehicle, my truck and trailer, actual weight
exceeded 26,000 pounds, then it would become [sic] commercial vehicle. But
I did not exceed it.” (Id. at 22).
Officer Bentz testified that he “sent for certified registrations for both
the truck and trailer from Virginia.” (Id. at 31). He received a certified
registration from Virginia for the truck. (Id. at 32). The registration indicated
the GVWR for the truck itself was 14,000 pounds. (See id.). The registration
showed the GVWR for the trailer was 20,000 pounds. (Id. at 33).
The Commonwealth showed Appellant the registration from the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles for the trailer, indicating the GVWR of the trailer
was 20,000 pounds. (Id. at 33.). Documentation from Virginia indicated the
pickup truck had a GVWR of 14,000 pounds and the trailer had a GVWR of
20,000 pounds. (Id. at 70, 72). Appellant contended that the actual weight
of his truck was 6,000 pounds and the trailer weighed 15,000 pounds
according to the manufacturer. (Id. at 38). At the time Officer Bentz stopped
Appellant, Appellant admitted he did not have the registrations for the truck
or the trailer. (Id. at 46). Appellant averred that “[t]he law used to say that
[the officers] have to weigh the vehicles to determine whether it was a
commercial vehicle. That’s the issue I had in 2011.” (Id. at 59).
After the hearing, the court found Appellant guilty of driving without a
commercial driver’s license, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1606(a), and
-3-
J-A11035-18
medical card.3 (See id. at 64-65). The court imposed a fine of $525.4 (See
id.). This timely appeal followed, on July 24, 2017.5
Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Is the correct
measurement of [GCWR] upon which the truck driver can rely determined by
the stated GCWR on either the side truck panel or the vehicle’s manual, as
opposed to adding the [GVWR] of the trailer to the GCWR?” (Appellant’s Brief
at 6). Appellant argues that the trailer’s GVWR should not be added to that
of the truck in the absence of the actual weights of the towing vehicle and the
trailer. (Id. at 11). This claim does not merit relief.
When, as here, the appellant raises a question of statutory
construction, our standard of review is de novo, and our
scope of review is plenary.
In matters involving statutory interpretation, the
Statutory Construction Act directs courts to ascertain and
effectuate the intent of the General Assembly. A statute's
plain language generally provides the best indication of
legislative intent. In construing the language, however,
and giving it effect, we should not interpret statutory
words in isolation, but must read them with reference to
the context in which they appear.
____________________________________________
3 See 49 CFR § 391.41. The trial court noted that both Appellant and the
Commonwealth agreed that the citation for failure to have a medical card “was
wholly dependent on the requirement that [Appellant] have a commercial
driver’s license, and rises or falls along with that issue.” (See Trial Ct. Op.,
at 4).
4 The Commonwealth withdrew five separate traffic citations. (See id. at 64-
65).
5Appellant also filed a statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial
court filed an opinion on September 14, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-4-
J-A11035-18
Commonwealth v. Ford, 175 A.3d 985, 991–92 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
The applicable statutory provisions state, in relevant part, as follows:
Requirement for commercial driver's license
(a) When required.−No person, except those specifically
exempted in subsection (b), shall drive a commercial motor
vehicle unless:
(1) the person has been issued a commercial
driver's license;
(2) the person's commercial driver's license is in
his immediate possession; and
(3) the person's commercial driver's license was
issued for the class of commercial motor vehicle operated
and contains all applicable license endorsements.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1606(a)(1)-(3).
“Commercial motor vehicle.” A motor vehicle or
combination designed or used to transport passengers or
property:
* * *. . .
(1.1) if the vehicle has a gross combination weight rating
or gross combination weight of 26,001 pounds or more,
whichever is greater, inclusive of a towed unit with a
gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of
more than 10,000 pounds, whichever is greater[.]
75 Pa.C.S. § 1603(1.1).
The statute provides the following definitions of terms included within
Section 1603(1.1):
“Gross combination weight rating (GCWR).” The value
specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a
combination.
-5-
J-A11035-18
“Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).” The value
specified on the Federal weight certification label by the
manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.
“Gross weight.” The combined weight of a vehicle or
combination of vehicles and its load excluding the driver's
weight.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 102.
In Commonwealth v. Dugan, 769 A.2d 512 (Pa. Super. 2001), this
Court addressed the issue raised by Appellant. The appellant in Dugan was
charged with violating Section 1606(a). Id. at 515. “Section 1606(a) requires
the driver of a “commercial motor vehicle” to have a “commercial drivers
license.” Id. at 516. “The Section 1606(a) term ‘commercial motor vehicle’
is defined as a ‘motor vehicle designed or used to transport passengers or
property’ where the vehicle's gross vehicle weight is 26,001 or more pounds .
. . .” See id. In Dugan, the “[a]ppellant was driving a ‘commercial motor
vehicle’ that was, in fact, a motor vehicle towing another vehicle, which had a
combined weight rating of over 26,001 pounds.” Id. at 517. Therefore, this
Court concluded the appellant was required to have a commercial driver’s
license. See id.
In the instant case, the trial court opined that “any of the rating numbers
in evidence for the truck itself, when added to the 20,000-pound rating for
the trailer, will exceed 26,000 pounds; therefore, the [c]ourt found [Appellant]
was required to have a commercial driver’s license, and as a result, the
medical card as well.” (Trial Ct. Op., at 6). After careful review of the record,
-6-
J-A11035-18
we agree with the trial court’s finding that Appellant was required to have a
commercial driver’s license and a medical card. See Dugan, supra at 516-
17. We discern no error. See Ford, supra at 991–92. Appellant’s issue
does not merit relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/20/2018
-7-