Pyburn v. Zolin

California Court of Appeal Oct 30, 1995 No. H013884Published

Before: Cottle

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has a mandatory statutory duty to suspend a driver's license upon receipt of a conviction abstract for driving under the influence and to withhold reinstatement until the driver provides proof of completion of a drinking driver program. The trial court erred in granting a writ of mandate to reinstate the license because the DMV acted in accordance with its mandatory duties under the Vehicle Code.

Issues

Whether the DMV has a mandatory duty to require proof of completion of a drinking driver program before reinstating a license following a conviction for driving under the influence.
Whether the DMV's delay in receiving the abstract of conviction constitutes unreasonable delay sufficient to invalidate a mandatory license suspension.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“DMV was under a mandatory duty to require Pybum to present proof that he completed a drinking driver program before it could reinstate his license.”

“Because DMV’s actions were mandated by statute, the court erred in granting Pyburn’s writ petition and ordering DMV to reinstate his driving privileges.”

[746]

Opinion

COTTLE, P. J.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appeals from a judgment granting William Pybum’s petition for a writ of mandate and ordering DMV to reinstate Pybum’s driving privilege. For reasons we shall explain, we reverse the judgment.

Facts

On October 11, 1991, Pybum was involved in an accident that caused bodily injury. A peace officer investigating the accident believed Pybum was driving under the influence of alcohol and asked him to submit to a chemical test. Pybum refused. As a consequence, DMV suspended his license pursuant to the state’s “implied consent” law,

from December 9, 1991, through December 8, 1992. Pybum timely requested an administrative hearing “to show that the suspension is not justified.” However, following the hearing, DMV determined that the suspension was “proper and required.”

Four months after the accident, Pybum pleaded no contest in the Monterey County Municipal Court to driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury (§23153). He was sentenced in February 1992 to 20 days in jail, and was placed on probation. Among the conditions of probation was that he attend a first-time offender program. That condition was removed by the court, however, in May 1992.

In early 1993, Pybum submitted proof of insurance to DMV, paid a $100 reissue fee, and had his license reinstated.

Over a year and a half later, on September 22, 1994, the Monterey County Municipal Court notified DMV for the first time of Pybum’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury. DMV immediately sent Pybum an order of suspension stating that his license would not be reinstated “until you provide this department with proof of financial responsibility [] and proof of completion of a drinking driver program which is licensed by the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, State of California.” The authority cited by DMV was section 13352, subdivision (a)(2),

[747]

Pyburn v. Zolin

AI Brief

COTTLE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief