In Commonwealth v. Ciccola, 2006 PA Super 23, 894 A.2d 744 (Pa. Super. 2006), a licensee was convicted of the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. In an argument before the Superior Court, the licensee claimed that provisions of the Vehicle Code, namely 75 Pa. C.S. 3802(a)(2), (b) and (c), were unconstitutional. The Superior Court concluded, however, that the licensee was not convicted of violating those provisions he claimed were unconstitutional. Rather, the licensee was charged and convicted of violating 75 Pa. C.S. 3802(a)(1). Because the licensee was not convicted of violating 75 Pa. C.S. 3802(a)(2), (b) and (c), he could not challenge its constitutionality. While a defendant in an enforcement proceeding generally has standing to assert in his defense any claim, including the constitutionality of a statute ... he does not have standing to object to the constitutionality of a statute unless he is affected by the particular feature alleged to be in conflict with the constitution. Ciccola, at 747, appeal denied, 591 Pa. 660, 916 A.2d 630 (2007) and Commonwealth v. Semuta, 2006 PA Super 163, 902 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 679, 932 A.2d 1288 (2007)