 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lofthouse v. Department of Motor Vehicles10/19/1981
cle. The DMV has no power to control the criminal proceedings nor to intervene therein. (Lynch v. Glass (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 943 [119 Cal. Rptr. 139].)
Further, it would be a rare case in which the validity of the arrest would be an issue litigated in a prosecution for violation of Vehicle Code section 23102, subdivision (a), where the arrestee refused all tests. Clearly it was not litigated in the instant case nor was it even impliedly determined by the order of dismissal in the municipal court. Hence the issues were not even similar, let alone identical.
Similar attempts to circumvent the authority of the DMV by reliance on extraneous rulings of the trial court in prosecutions for violations of Vehicle Code section 23102, subdivision (a) have proved unsuccessful in at least two instances.
In Skinner v. Sillas (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 591 [130 Cal. Rptr. 91], the deputy district attorney stipulated that defendant had complied with Vehicle Code section 13353 immediately before defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drunk driving . In Reed v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 102 Cal. App. 3d 662, 666 [164 Cal. Rptr. 373], defendant obtained a pretrial ruling from the criminal court that he had complied with Vehicle Code section 13353 and then pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drunk driving . In each of these cases it was held that the DMV was not collaterally estopped from independently determining whether the defendant had in fact complied with Vehicle Code section 13353.
Respondent here has cited us to the holding in Shackelton v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1975) 46 Cal. App. 3d 327 [119 Cal. Rptr. 921], where Division Four of this court, without any discussion or legal justification, simply stated that a finding of a criminal trial court, made
at the time it dismissed, without trial, a misdemeanor drunk driving complaint, that the licensee's arrest was unlawful, was binding on the DMV. While we do not believe that the holding in that case correctly states the law, the fact remains that in the instant case the issue of the legality of the respondent's arrest was irrelevant to and was never in fact determined in the criminal proceedings.
The rule with regard to . . . proceedings for suspension . . . of a license for refusal to submit to chemical blood test is that such proceedings are . . . unaffected by the fact of the commencement of a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or by the result of such prosecution." (August v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1968) 264 Cal. App. 2d 52, at P. 67 [70 Cal. Rptr. 172]; italics added.)
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment denying the petition.
Disposition
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment denying the petition.
General Footnotes
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|