shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact [Reports of Conviction], as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for: (2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. Id., § 1581 Article IV(a)(2). The sentencing court clearly was justified in counting appellant’s January 27, 1993 New York conviction as her first, for the purpose of determining how many times she had ignored the safety of herself and others and drove while intoxicated. See also Harrington v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 563 Pa. 565, 569, 763 A.2d 386, 388 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Whisnant, 390 Pa.Super. 192,
holding a substantially similar probation condition overbroad holding the drivers license compact requires that the same effect be given to a conviction reported by a party state as the conviction would have been given had the licensee engaged in substantially similar conduct and been convicted of a substantially similar offense in pennsylvania holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding that where the court records in the present case and the records in a previous conviction reflected the same name and date of birth as well as a signature and the defendant did not object that he was not the same person as had been previously convicted the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction holding that a guilty plea to underage drinking could not be withdrawn based on fact defendant was unaware that his drivers license would be suspended because of his conviction as the license suspension was a civil consequence of the conviction