Tilton v. Cal. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA2/6

Filed 7/27/21 Tilton v. Cal. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

IZAIAH A. TILTON, 2d Civil No. B309424 (Super. Ct. No. 20CV03444) Petitioner and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ET AL.,

Respondents.

Appellant Izaiah Tilton petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing respondents California Department of Motor Vehicles and its director, Steve Gordon (collectively DMV), to rescind the suspension of his driver license. The trial court summarily denied the petition before it received a copy of the complete administrative record. In doing so, the trial court failed to independently weigh the evidence supporting DMV’s findings. We reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A police officer at the University of California, Santa Barbara saw a silver Mercedes Benz speeding on El Colegio Road shortly after midnight on November 15, 2019. The car left the officer’s view, but he spotted a similar one about 20 minutes later in nearby Isla Vista. He approached the Mercedes on foot, saw appellant in the driver’s seat, and questioned him about his speeding on El Colegio Road. The officer suspected appellant had been drinking and seized his driver license when he declined a breath test.1 A DMV hearing officer found police properly seized appellant’s license and suspended his driving privileges. Appellant sought review by petitioning for a writ of administrative mandamus on the grounds the decision was not supported by the weight of the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.)2 He requested the court issue a peremptory writ directing DMV to rescind its suspension and return or reissue his license. Appellant immediately applied ex parte for an order staying his license suspension while the petition was pending. The trial court heard the ex parte stay request six days after appellant filed his petition. It issued a written ruling the same day denying not only the stay request, but also the writ petition. It concluded DMV had “given Petitioner a thorough and fair opportunity to present his case” and “concluded the evidence was sufficient to suspend Petitioner’s driving privilege.” The trial