 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. State2/15/2005
Mandate Issued: 03/11/2005
REVERSED
State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Public Safety (DPS) appeals the trial court's April 30, 2004, order which declared 47 O.S. Supp. 2003, § 6-205.1(A)(3) unconstitutional and which modified a revoked driver's license. Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, we reverse.
FACTS
The facts are undisputed. Jay Warren Johnson (Driver) had his driver's license revoked for a three-year period beginning January 3, 2002, for incurring three license revocations within a five-year period following convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. His license had previously been revoked in 1999, 2000, and 2001. At the time his three-year period of revocation began, the following statute, 47 O.S.2001, § 6-205.1(A)(3), was in effect.
A revocation. . . shall be for a period of three (3) years if within five (5) years preceding the date of arrest relating thereto, two or more prior revocations commenced . . . as shown by the Department's records. Such period may be modified after one (1) year. (Emphasis added.)
At the end of his second year of revocation, this statute was amended, effective November 1, 2003. See Laws, 2003 Ch. 108, § 2, and 47 O.S. Supp. 2003, § 6-205.1(A)(3). That section now reads:
A revocation . . . shall be for a period of three (3) years if within five (5) years preceding the date of arrest relating thereto, two or more prior revocations commenced . . . as shown by the Department's records. Such period shall not be modified. (Emphasis added.)
Essentially, the legislature amended the statute to prohibit any modification of a revoked driver's license during the revocation period. This presumably would prohibit any modification of a suspended or revoked license to permit a driver to go to and from work.
Driver completed his incarceration, paid all fines, and attended all the classes which were required of him for his DUI convictions. Driver obtained employment working on a farm. Driver sought to have his revoked license modified to permit him to drive to and from work. Driver filed a petition February 3, 2004, seeking modification. Driver's petition was filed after the effective date of the amendment above.
At the modification hearing, DPS contested Driver's request for modification, citing the 2003 amendment of 47 O.S. Supp. 2003, § 6-205.1(A)(3), the statute in effect at the time Driver sought modification. Driver sought a hearing, at which he argued the 2003 amendment was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power over the judicial branch, because the amendment effectively denied a district court the authority to modify a revoked license. In the alternative, Driver argued since his license was revoked under the 2001 law, he is eligible for modification under that statute, and the 2003 amendment does not apply to him.
DPS argued that the amendment was not unconstitutional, but rather reflected the public policy of this state to insure the safety of its citizens by keeping recidivist impaired drivers off public roads for a fixed period of time. Further, DPS argued the 2003 amendment did apply because that was the statute in effect at the time Driver sought modification.
The trial court, after reviewing the briefs of the parties, ruled the 2003 amendment was unconstitutional. The court ordered DPS to issue a modification of Driver's license. DPS appeals.
ISSUE
The legal issue tendered for our review is the constitutionality of 47 O.S. Supp. 2003, § 6-205.1(A)(3), when applied to the facts in this case. It is undisputed Driver's licen
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|