 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Phillips v. State ex rel Dept. Public Service4/28/1992
l not be subject to renewal or restoration except that an application for a new license may be presented and acted upon by the Department after the expiration of the period of revocation as hereinafter provided.
In this case, the "revocation" of the license under the implied consent law never became effective. Phillips' right to drive was never terminated. Thus no "revocation" ever existed under the implied consent law.
However, after the conviction of DUI became final, revocation under § 6-205(A)(2) was mandatory. DPS did not "additionally revoke" Phillips' license under that section; revocation after his DUI conviction was the first revocation Phillips received.
We agree with DPS that the district court had no jurisdiction to hear Phillips' appeal. See 47 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 6-211 (A), Right to Appeal to Court:
A. Any person denied a license, or whose license has been canceled, suspended or revoked by the Department, except where such cancellation, denial or revocation is mandatory, under the provisions of Section 6-205 of this title, shall have the right to file a petition in the district court as hereinafter provided. Such district court is hereby vested with original jurisdiction to hear said petition, except that in case of an appeal from a driver's license revocation under the implied consent laws as provided in Sections 753 and 754 of this title, the court is hereby vested with appellate jurisdiction and shall hear said petition de novo. (Emphasis added).
The issue before the district court in this case was not an appeal under the implied consent law. It was an attempted appeal from the revocation based on Phillips' DUI conviction. The district court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a drivers license revocation mandated by 47 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 6-205 (A)(2).
The order of the district court which set aside the revocation of Phillips' driver's license is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the order and to dismiss the purported appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
BAILEY, J., concurs.
ADAMS, J., concurs in result:
Because I agree the trial court lacked jurisdiction, I concur on the result reached by the majority. However, having found no jurisdiction existed, I would not reach the remaining issues decided by the majority.
|