 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sitzer v. State6/7/2000
c. Co. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc., 98 N.M. 570, 574, 651 P.2d 105, 109 (Ct. App. 1982). Accordingly, we reject Appellant's second claim of error.
The sole ground relied upon by the Department to deny Appellant's request for a hearing was his failure to include a $25.00 fee or a statement of indigency. Subsection 66-8-112(B) provides as follows:
Within ten days after receipt of notice of revocation pursuant to Subsection A of this section, a person whose license or privilege to drive is revoked . . . may request a hearing. The hearing request shall be made in writing and shall be accompanied by a payment of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) or a sworn statement of indigency on a form provided by the department. . . . Failure to request a hearing within ten days shall result in forfeiture of the person's right to a hearing.
As we read this statute, the written "hearing request" and the $25.00 fee/sworn statement of indigency are conjunctive, mandatory requirements. To "request a hearing," a person contesting revocation of his or her license must comply with both requirements within the ten-day period. Here, although Appellant mailed a timely hearing request, Appellant did not accompany his hearing request with the $25.00 fee or a sworn statement of indigency. Appellant thereby "forfeited" his right to a revocation hearing. Accordingly, we reject Appellant's third claim of error.
CONCLUSION
The order of the district court is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
|