C.R.W. v. Orr

California Court of Appeal Nov 24, 1970 No. Civ. 12212Published

Before: Pierce

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Department of Motor Vehicles is not authorized to review the factual or procedural background of juvenile court abstracts and must mandatorily revoke a driver's license upon receipt of a report that a minor committed an enumerated offense. Because the Department's duty is mandatory and requires no discretion, the minor is not entitled to an administrative hearing, and the superior court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandate.

Issues

Whether the Department of Motor Vehicles has discretion to review the factual or procedural background of a juvenile court abstract before revoking a license under Vehicle Code section 13355.
Whether a minor is entitled to an administrative hearing prior to the Department's mandatory revocation of a driver's license under Vehicle Code section 13355.
Whether the superior court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandate against the Department regarding the revocation.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that the Department is neither obligated nor authorized to review the factual and procedural background of abstracts filed with it as this one was filed.”

“Vehicle Code section 13355 vests no discretion in the Department. Revocation is made mandatory upon receipt of a report from a juvenile court that the minor has committed one of the offenses enumerated therein.”

“The minor was not entitled to an administrative hearing.”

Opinion

PIERCE, P. J.

Respondent Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (“Department”), appeals from a judgment entered July 3, 1968, granting

[72]

a peremptory writ of mandate in a proceeding which challenged the validity of the Department’s revocation of C.R.W.’s driver’s license pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13355

and from the writ itself.

C.R.W. is a minor. Through his guardian ad litem he appeals from a portion of the writ. The writ commanded the Department to revoke an order of revocation of C.R.W.’s driver’s license and to reinstate the license; also to strike from its files any reference to his alleged violation of Vehicle Code sections 23101 or 23102. The minor’s appeal seeks to have us declare section 13355 unconstitutional as applied to minors in that it is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We will reverse the judgment for reasons stated below.

On or about July 9, 1967, C.R.W. was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The charge, violation of Vehicle Code section 23101 (felony drunk driving), was certified to the Juvenile Court of Sacramento County. There, after trial in which he was represented by counsel, it was found that he had violated Vehicle Code section 23102 (misdemeanor drunk driving), and he was placed on probation for a period of six months. The juvenile court, under Vehicle Code sections 1816 and 13355, forwarded an abstract of judgment to the Department. It showed that C.R.W. had been found to have committed the offense of misdemeanor drunk driving as stated. On the reverse side of the form there was a notation, apparently written by the clerk of the juvenile court, to the effect that the juvenile court judge recommended to the Department that the minor’s driving privilege and license not be revoked or suspended. (The juvenile court judge had directed that recommendation.) No appeal was taken from that order.

On October 17, 1967, the Department issued its order of revocation of the minor’s license. No hearing was afforded.

C.R.W. v. Orr

AI Brief

PIERCE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief