 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maas v. Department of Commerce and Regulation4/23/2003
Maas was convicted of DUI in 1993. He was later convicted of DUI in 2001. However, the 2001 DUI was not specifically "charged" as a "second offense" under SDCL 32-23-3 and 32-23-4.2.*fn1 Moreover, for reasons not reflected in the record, the sentencing court only suspended Mass's license for thirty days on the 2001 conviction,*fn2 even though SDCL 32-23-3 required the court to revoke for one year. SDCL 32-23-3, Supra n1; Matter of Revocation of Driver License of Fischer, 395 NW2d 598 (SD 1986).
[ .] The Department, however, has independent authority to revoke driving privileges. Fischer, supra. Therefore, the Department notified Maas that it was revoking his license for the mandatory one year period. The Department's notice indicated that it had instituted the revocation proceeding under SDCL 32-12-52.1. That statute required the Department to revoke the license to the extent that the court "failed to invoke the mandatory" one-year revocation required by SDCL 32-23-3.
[ .] Maas objected to the one-year license revocation and requested a hearing before a hearing examiner.*fn3 The hearing examiner issued a proposed decision concluding that the Department could only consider prior DUI convictions that occurred within four years of the 2001 offense. The hearing examiner arrived at that conclusion because she applied the four-year look-back window in SDCL 32-12-49, a statute different than SDCL 32-12-52.1, the statute that the Department used to impose the revocation.
[ .] The Department rejected the hearing examiner's proposed decision. The Department concluded that it was not restricted to the four-year look-back window in SDCL 32-12-49 because it had revoked pursuant to SDCL 32-12-52.1. The Department also concluded that under SDCL 32-12-52.1 (and SDCL 32-23-4.1), it was required to consider DUI convictions occurring within ten years of the 2001 offense.
[ .] Maas appealed the Department's decision to circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the Department. The circuit court held that the ten-year statutes (SDCL 32-23-4.1 and 32-12-52.1) specifically applied to DUIs, and because they were specific, they prevailed over the general four-year statute (SDCL 32-12-49), which does not specifically refer to DUIs.
[ .] Maas appeals raising two issues:
1. Whether the Department may consider convictions that are more than four years old when revoking driving privileges for prior DUI convictions.
2. Whether the Department failed to give reasons for rejecting the hearing examiner's proposed decision as required by SDCL 1-26D-8.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ .] We review this administrative ruling under our well settled standard of review. The Court reviews agency findings in the same manner required of the circuit court when reviewing a decision from an administrative agency. This Court reviews findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, whereas questions of law are reviewed under the de novo standard. West Central Education Association v. West Central School Dist., 2002 SD 163, , 655 NW2d 916, 919 (further citations omitted). This is a case of statutory interpretation. We review statutory interpretation de novo. Arends v. Dacotah Cement, 2002 SD 57, , 645 NW2d 583, 587.
DECISION
[ .] 1. The Department may consider convictions that are more than four years old when revoking driving privileges for prior DUI convictions under SDCL 32-12-52.1.
[ .] This appeal highlights a difference in SDCL 32-12-49 and 32-12-52.1, the two statutes that authorize the Department to revoke drivers licenses for DUI convictions. SDCL 32-12-49 is the general statute. It applies to any conduct that may authorize the Depart
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|