KEITH
A. MEDROW, Petitioner-Appellee,
vs.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MOTOR
VEHICLE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 18,980
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
1998-NMCA-173, 968 P.2d 1195, 1998 N.M. App. LEXIS 154
October 20, 1998, Filed
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY. Robert
Brack, District Judge.
COUNSEL
W. H. Greig, Van Soelen,
Greig & Richards, P.A., Clovis, NM, for Appellee.
Tom Udall, Attorney
General, Judith Mellow, Special Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for
Appellant.
JUDGES
RUDY S. APODACA, Judge. WE
CONCUR: LYNN PICKARD, Judge, M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge.
AUTHOR: APODACA
OPINION
APODACA, Judge.
{1} The Motor Vehicle Division of the State
Taxation and Revenue Department (the Division) appeals the district court's
decision reversing the revocation of Petitioner Keith Medrow's (Driver) driving
license. In so deciding, the district court relied on this Court's opinion in Collyer
v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 121 N.M. 477, 913 P.2d 665 (Ct. App.
1995) (holding that judgment of conviction treating DWI conviction as first
offense bound Division to treat it as a first offense). Previously, during the
course of the DWI prosecution against Driver, he entered into a guilty plea agreement.
Even though Driver had a prior DWI conviction, the plea agreement and the
resulting judgment stated that Driver's offense would be treated as a first
offense "for all lawful purposes." The Division argues on appeal that
a district court judgment treating the conviction as a first conviction
"for all lawful purposes" has no effect on a license revocation by
the Division under the Implied Consent Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 66-8-105 to -112
(1978, as amended through 1993). We agree and hold that Collyer's holding is
inapplicable to license revocations under the Implied Consent Act.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{2} In February 1997, Driver was arrested for DWI.
He appeared to be intoxicated, and his two breath test results scored .20. An
officer served him with a notice of revocation under the Implied Consent Act,
and Driver requested a hearing before the Division. Before the administrative
hearing, Driver pled guilty to aggravated DWI, first offense, in the district
court.
{3} At the administrative hearing held in May 1997,
Driver argued that the district court's judgment in the DWI proceeding bound
the Division to consider his conviction a first offense. The hearing officer,
however, held that the district court order did not affect the Division's authority
to revoke licenses under the Implied Consent Act. Evidence showed that Driver
had a previous revocation under the Implied Consent Act. Consequently, the
hearing officer sustained the revocation for one year under Section
66-8-111(C)(3) (imposing a one-year revocation if the person's license was
previously revoked under this section). Although Driver questions the basis for
the hearing officer's decision, the record on appeal indicates that the
revocation was indeed based on the Implied Consent Act.
{4} Driver appealed the revocation to the district
court under Section 66-8-112(G) (providing for district court review of
revocation by administrative agency), arguing that Collyer precluded
revocation of Driver's license under the Implied Consent Act. Driver also
argued that his license should not be revoked under the Implied Consent Act.
The district court reversed the hearing officer's decision on the basis that,
under Collyer, the district court judgment in the DWI proceeding bound
the hearing officer to treat Driver's conviction as a first offense.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Appellate Procedure
{5} Before reaching the merits of this appeal, we
comment on the Division's brief in chief. Rule 12-213(A)(3) NMRA 1998 requires
that references to the record proper for factual allegations accompany the
summary of proceedings. The Division did not make a single citation to the
record. This failure resulted in the use of scarce judicial resources to search
the record for proof of the Division's factual contentions. Consequently,
adherence to Rule 12-213(A)(3) is important for efficiency and accuracy in the
appellate process. We admonish Division's counsel to follow that rule in future
appeals.
B. Standard Of Review
{6} The Division also did not comply with Rule
12-213(A)(4), which requires the Division to state the applicable standard of
review. Our own research reveals that we determine whether the Division's
interpretation of the Implied Consent Act is unreasonable or unlawful. See
Morningstar Water Users Ass'n v. New Mexico Pub. Util. Comm'n, 120 N.M.
579, 583, 904 P.2d 28, 32 (1995).
C. Effect Of The District Court
Judgment
{7} It is important to recognize that there are
several statutory sources authorizing license revocation under certain
circumstances. Each statute has its own unique requirements. Revocation under
the Implied Consent Act is different than mandatory revocation under the
statutes dealing with operators' licenses.
{8} Section 66-8-111(C)(3) of the Implied Consent
Act mandates a one-year revocation "if the person has previously had his
license revoked pursuant to the provisions of this section." Driver does
not contest on appeal that he has a previous revocation under this section. His
revocation under Section 66-8-111(C)(3) distinguishes this case from Collyer,
121 N.M. at 478-79, 913 P.2d at 666-67. In Collyer, 121 N.M. at 477-78,
913 P.2d at 665-66, the Division revoked the driver's license under NMSA 1978,
§ 66-5-29(A)(3) (1993), the mandatory revocation provision of the general
statutes dealing with operators' licenses. Revocation under that section occurs
for "any offense rendering a person a 'subsequent offender' as defined in
the Motor Vehicle Code." Distinctively, revocation under Section
66-8-111(C)(3) does not require defining Driver as a subsequent offender, as is
the case under Section 66-5-29(A)(3). Rather, Section 66-8-111(C)(3) only
requires a previous revocation under the Implied Consent Act and does not depend
on prior DWI convictions.
{9} This difference refutes Driver's argument that
the Division is "statutorily required to abide by the legal significance
of final adjudications concerning the status of an offender issued by a court
pursuant to a plea bargain." See Collyer, 121 N.M. at 477, 913 P.2d
at 665. Collyer held that NMSA 1978, § 66-8-135(B)(7) (1995) (directing
the court to notify the Division of its records so that the Division can
perform its obligations under the mandatory revocation provision) requires the
court to determine whether a defendant is a first or subsequent offender. 121
N.M. at 479, 913 P.2d at 667. This legal significance is not relevant under
Section 66-8-111(C)(3). Consequently, Driver's reliance on the prosecutor's
authority to settle Driver's status is inapposite. See Navajo Tribe of
Indians v. Hanosh Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 106 N.M. 705, 707, 749 P.2d 90, 92
(1988) (presuming that an attorney of record has the authority to settle his or
her client's claim in open court unless rebutted by affirmative evidence). The
prosecutor in this appeal did not settle the same issue presented in the
Division's administrative hearing.
{10} Because the district court's judgment for
aggravated DWI, first offense, did not decide the same issue as the
administrative hearing, Driver's collateral estoppel argument also fails. See
In re Forfeiture of $ 14,639, 120 N.M. 408, 414-15, 902 P.2d 563, 569-70
(Ct. App. 1995) (holding that collateral estoppel may preclude civil
relitigation of issues resolved in prior criminal trial). The elements of
collateral estoppel are: "'(1) the parties are the same or in privity with
the parties in the original action; (2) the subject matter or cause of action
in the two suits are different; (3) the ultimate facts or issues were actually
litigated; and (4) the issue was necessarily determined.'" Id. at
414, 902 P.2d at 569 (quoting Reeves v. Wimberly, 107 N.M. 231, 233, 755
P.2d 75, 77 (Ct. App. 1988)). The district court's judgment held that Driver
was guilty of a first offense aggravated DWI. The administrative hearing, on
the other hand, determined only if Driver had a previous revocation under the
Implied Consent Act.
III. CONCLUSION
{11} We conclude that the hearing officer's
interpretation of the Implied Consent Act was reasonable and lawful. We hold
that Collyer is not applicable to license revocation proceedings under
the Implied Consent Act. We therefore conclude that the district court's
judgment convicting Driver of aggravated DWI, first offense, did not preclude
license revocation under Section 66-8-111(C)(3). Consequently, we reverse the
district court's decision and remand for reinstatement of the hearing officer's
revocation order.
{12} IT IS SO ORDERED.
RUDY S. APODACA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
LYNN PICKARD, Judge
M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge