DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in holding that Clint B. Reinhart’s (Licensee) multiple driving offenses resulting from the same incident was a “single criminal episode,” requiring the imposition of only single suspension rather than the multiple suspensions imposed by the Department. I disagree with the majority’s holding that multiple suspension are warranted for two reasons. First, the majority’s holding is directly contrary to our Supreme Court decision in Drabic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 588 Pa. 670, 906 A.2d 1153 (2006), that the “single criminal episode”1 doctrine applies to license suspensions involving multiple offenses arising out one incident. Second, under the single criminal episode doctrine, only a single suspension for multiple non-mergea-ble offenses occurring over a period months can be imposed, but yet the majority here illogically holds that multiple suspensions be imposed for multiple non-mergeable offenses that arise from the same incident. Because the majority holding is directly contrary to Drabic and leads to an absurd result, I respectfully dissent.
In Drabic, the licensee pled guilty to 14 offenses, and the Department sent him 14 notices regarding his suspensions. The licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County conceding that the suspension for homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence was proper, but that all of the other suspensions should have merged into that greater offense. The court agreed in part and reduced the suspension by two years and six months. The Department appealed, and we affirmed in part, modifying the court’s order to add an additional six-month suspension for reckless driving. On appeal to our Supreme Court, it said that the sole issue was whether the doctrine of merger even applied when collateral civil consequences were imposed. The Court held:
In the first instance, the parties disagree as to whether the doctrine of merger even applies in the instant context, i.e., when collateral civil consequences are imposed. We need not directly address this question, since we believe the plain language of the statute [75 Pa.C.S. § 1532] directs that only a single suspension can be imposed based upon a single criminal episode. Regardless of whether the Commonwealth is correct, and the doctrine of merger is not properly applied to collateral civil consequences, or whether Appellee properly directs our attention to the statutory construction act and Commonwealth v. Anderson, 538 Pa. 574, 650 A.2d 20 (1994) (holding that the doctrine of merger is a rule of statutory construction), the inquiry in either event must be based on the language of the statute at issue.
The key language in the subsections at issue is “the driver’s conviction ... any of the following offenses.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532. Recently, in Freundt v. Commonwealth, 584 Pa. 283, 883 A.2d 503 (2005), we construed § 1532(c) explaining that where the legislature used the separate terms “conviction” and “of*173fense” it must have intended for the words to have different meanings. Thus, while the merger of the suspensions of operating privileges under 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1532(a) and 1532(a.l) is an issue of first impression for this Court, in Freundt we explained that, in the context of § 1532(c), “when there is a conviction, the appropriate [license] suspension shall be determined by whether or not the conviction stemmed from a single criminal episode, or multiple criminal episodes.” Freundt at 290, 883 A.2d at 507 (citations omitted).
Drabic, 588 Pa. at 675-676, 906 A.2d at 1156. (Emphasis added.) From the above language, it is clear that our Supreme Court held that a “single criminal episode” analysis is required even when there are multiple offenses resulting from the same incident. It appears to have realized that not to apply the “single criminal episode” doctrine would present the anomalous situation where multiple license suspensions could be imposed for multiple offenses arising from one incident, while multiple offenses taking place over months but “logically and temporally related” would result in a single license suspension.
Again, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, our Supreme Court was equally clear in Drabic that the “single criminal episode” doctrine applied to any suspension under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532 requiring a suspension for “conviction of any offense.”
Relying on our interpretation of the statute [75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c) ] we affirmed, because the statute said that the operating privilege of a person would be suspended after PennDOT had received a record of “the person’s conviction of any offense involving the possession, sale, delivery ... of any controlled substance ...” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c) (emphasis added). Chief Justice Cappy, writing for a majority, pointed out that we must presume that since the General Assembly used both the word “conviction” and the word “offense,” it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings. (Citations omitted.) This Court also noted that, while the issue of whether one or multiple suspensions should result from a single criminal episode was an issue of first impression for the Supreme Court, there was a long line of cases from the Commonwealth Court which consistently interpreted § 1532(c) as requiring that only one suspension issue for each criminal episode ... Therefore, in Freundt, we concluded that based on the plain language of the statute “conviction of any offense” as used in § 1532(c) refers to a single criminal episode.
The same statute, § 1532, is at issue in the case sub judice, but different subsections are implicated. Nonetheless, in the subsections scrutinized here, the Legislature again discusses “the driver’s conviction of ... any of the following offenses.” As we did in Freundt, we find that the Legislature’s use of the separate terms “conviction” and “offenses” to be significant. Specifically, “conviction of any of the following offenses” stems from a single criminal episode. We see no reason to depart from our reasoning in Freundt. We acknowledge that the analysis in Freundt was simplified by the more generalized grammatical construct of subsection (c), i.e., “conviction of any offense involving the possession, sale, [etc.] of any controlled substance,” as opposed to the slightly different grammatical construct of the two subsections at issue here ((a) and (a.l)), but see no reason to arrive at a different result as the key language remains constant: “conviction of ... any ... offense [ ].” (Emphasis added.)
*174Drabic, 588 Pa. at 677-678, 906 A.2d at 1157-1158.
I recognize that the Supreme Court, after discussing the applicability of the “single criminal episode” doctrine, went on to use the merger analysis set forth in Zimmerman v. Department of Transportation, 759 A.2d 953, 956 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000)2 to find that the licensee should only receive a single suspension. I can only surmise that the Supreme Court used this analysis in Drabic because it was a convenient way to resolve the issue given that it was the way that this court and the trial court determined that only a single suspension was warranted.
Because Drabic provides that the single criminal episode doctrine applies to multiple suspensions arising out of the same incident, I would affirm the trial court and, accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
. A "single criminal episode" involves violations that are "logically and temporally related.” Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482, 458 A.2d 177 (1983). See also Pa R.Crim. P. 582 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110.
. The doctrine of merger of related offenses "is a rule of statutory construction designed to determine whether the legislature intended for the punishment of one offense to encompass that for another offense arising from the same criminal act or transaction. .. .The operative inquiry is whether the crimes involved are greater and lesser-included offenses, i.e., whether the two charges constitute the same offense ... Thus if all of the elements of one crime must be proven to establish the commission of another crime then the former crime is a lesser-included offense of the latter. However, the offenses are distinct and do not merge if each crime has an element that is not required to prove the commission of the other crime.” Zimmerman v. Department of Transportation, 759 A.2d 953, 956 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000).